Excuse me, Ladies and Gentlemen: Would any of you mind if i chugged a couple of cold Coors before we start?
i tried to tell him, myself, but hampsters can be subborn, contrary to popular belief
but then, he surprised me when he qualified his remarks, thus:
the author is likely incorrect, but entitled to his opinion.
"The author reiterates his position that the government's warrants will be issued with a strike price to provide needed equity capital to the mortgage securitization and guarantee businesses."
How would this work?
1) Tsy exercises warrants (at a nominal price) so that it now has 79.5% ownership in FnF.
2) Tsy sells warrants for 29.5% of FnF to private investors for FnF investors for $10 per share. The proceeds go to Tsy.
How would some of the proceeds be used to recapitalize FnF? How does the strike price fit in?
that's ok, what's a few hours when financial security is on the table...if you want, i'll stay up and keep watching, go ahead to bed and rest up for the stampede tomorrow
To the Editor:
Re “Megarich Plaintiffs, Legally Adrift” (Op-Ed, Oct. 20): Steven Rattner lumps together two cases, A.I.G. and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, that raise entirely different legal issues. The A.I.G. case questions whether government has the power to dictate bailout terms. The Fannie/Freddie case questions whether government can unilaterally and retroactively change a bailout package years after private investors made decisions based on the original terms.
The government invested in Fannie and Freddie preferred stock carrying a 10 percent dividend. It changed its mind and decided to confiscate all earnings of Fannie and Freddie in perpetuity — despite the fact that the government recovered its entire investment with interest and will likely book a $200 billion profit on the sale of its common stock in the two government-sponsored entities.
Moreover, the government placed Fannie and Freddie in a “conservatorship” to preserve their assets and restore them to health, which cannot happen if they are stripped of all earnings.
I do not envy those in government who have to deal with the next crisis if this decision stands; they will have no credibility.
WILLIAM M. ISAAC
Sarasota, Fla., Oct. 21, 2014
The writer is a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission and a senior managing director for a consulting firm.
In 2015 President's budget, Treasury reinforces the PSPAs as keeping the companies solvent, preventing mandatory receivership and protecting taxpayers 187.5 billion investment. So the administration continues to view the PSPAs as necessary. It will have to be Watt that tells the Treasury they need to sit down at the table and renegotiate. ICBA has already told FHFA twice (September '14 and October 14') in writing the companies must retain earnings and rebuild capital. It will be wonderful if other powerful associations like NAR joing ICBA on this argument.
no, you can't build trust on such a weak foundation, a damaged foundation, a foundation never even made properly, no or little cement to hold the aggregate together, so the foundation itself just starts turning to sand
and deteriorates....sad, what a shame, makes me want to cry
look that piece of art in motion...today's price is almost exactly where it was ONE YEAR AGO...and with each up swing, then down, she picks back up where she left of...PLUS, novemeber is the month she accelerates...FAST CAR SPEED!
when the screen is up, not in the settings, do it right from the opened browser window didn't allow you to make replies, that will solve the problem, IF you're usiing IE
when that happens, if you're using IE, to to tools and click "compatability mode" i've only told people about that a million times
oh, and those from Foreign Lands...Welcome! when are you going home ?
FHFA update alert