Since he's touted the stock as a "short" and now telling people not to release them - you know to depress the value. Could this be like stock manipulations ?
Seems to me that maybe this type of reckless behavior should not be condoned.
Hera gives fhfa the ability to preserve and restore the business not to go in a different direction. Hera does not say alter the business plan of f and f. Common platform for securitiization is against the law. But, then again, it may not be intended to break the law so maybe its not. Since the act no longer matters its the intent that does.
sure - why not ...time to pivot again. Buying stock back ... heck... they could shrink the share count down. Maybe they'll be an S-corp soon -
WH Policy - to wind down and replace FnF was not what the law requires. HERA required conservator duties to be place back in sound and solvent condition. Winding down and taking away all the earned equity is not the same.
It would be like telling the judge - the house policy was to strip all women and parade them around so that the others could bid on them for household duties. As a full service maid service our policy is to do that. Yet, prostitution is against the law. So, our policy was to this and we claim sovereign immunity against our actions and no judge can challenge our actions. Because thats our policy.
So how is it policy wins?
Its amazing the stupidity. Look at AER dropped 10% today. Its now trading at around a pe of 5 or so. AER spits out so much cash that it could buy back 50% of the stock. Fly is another one; cash flow matters.
Any of these "judges" have the nads to do the right thing? Push the distraction to the side and rule from the bench! Can they possibly prove they are not bought off by the mere "pay check" not to stand up and protect the constitution and strike down the NWS; the entire conservatorship and all the nonsense that has come with it.
Why don't we get the small community banks to all pony up $100B and tell them that investments in this new fangled company of the "clintons" is so sound that it counts as near cash on your balance sheet for capital / equity ratios. That way you have no risk capital. Yeah... tell them there is no risk and 100% sound. Trust me I'm the government.
Figure we'll win a ruling or two... the shares will start moving. The government will begin getting hit real hard, you know hard to defend theft. Word will leak out, paulson's buddy types, like lew, watt, etc. will start to get the word out of the pending change.. So things will start inching forward on buying. Until the in crowd has covered and gone "long". At that point they'll announce a plan of recap and release. They;ll announce the gov't has surrendered the warrants. There will be some tussle; as the cases continue to wind its way through. At this time, it will be more or less what the settlement will be and to who and how much. This will probably include payment of legal fees and the "conditional" acknowledgement of paid in full - but not returning our money. At this point congress will write a law saying you can't sue for money damages by investors - to shut that down. It'll suck, but it will put it behind us. A recapped FnF will be released by 2020 but be under the watchful and meddling eye of the Treasury. At some point the shares will trade well into the 80's and later higher. I could easily envision these to be utility type functioning entities; being modestly profitable and very liquid with a decent quarterly dividend.
$60 would be a good start towards fair value. Not to be greedy like the government; cause I don't want it all, but a few ticks higher would be super nice.
My sense is fair value is around $165 per share common. Anything north of $65 and I am done.
Babies.... eventually scream and cry really really really loud when you take their candy and people usually notice.
This is going to be fun once the fireworks starts.
Why? Thought "capital" requirements were suspended during conservatorship?... so why should the government have to give Freddie some of its money back?
I can't agree with this. Millett is asking questions... later when defendant's attorneys speak and are questioned... it appears millett may get it.