The Ugoletti stuff seems more damning, but probably more to him than to Treasury. McFarland's chair was barely warm from joining Fannie from Capital One. She was new to the GSE business and perhaps not the most credible predictor of the future or reclassification of tax assets. Have you ever heard of a sitting CFO that didn't say "All is well" knowing the finance guy is the first to get axed if that is not the case. And if all really was so "well" why did McFarland abandon her first CFO job about a year later?
I'm not taking anything away from her abilities, just saying that Treasury is not without a footing to dispute her findings as a relative novice.
The buyers at the 98 cent dip low are taking advantage of the released news to grab a gain and get the heck out. Shorts are, well, taking in the shorts to fuel the gain.
Here, Fido. Here's a bone for you. Now get lost.
Will the new litigation dragging boards and auditors for FnF into the fracas force a split of all pending legal actions to separate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac cases into different litigation? It would not appear to be legal to combine suits against two boards and outside auditors for two, independent public companies into merged lawsuits.
Better hope the "split" doesn't happen, or the 24 cases pending could mushroom to 48 cases in a heartbeat.
Talk about Delay City. WOW! " Investors Unite" could soon metamorphose into "Investors who like Rip Van Winkle".
The part Fannie Mae did was prior to conservatorship. Thegovernment can't be sued for misdeeds that ocurred prior to the FHFA takeover.
Pretty simple, actually.
It's like how can the government be charged with TAKING when it was fulfilling its Constitutional responsibility to conserve and preserve the assets of citizens. 4.5 million homes were in foreclosure, and another 4 million at risk of foreclosure when FHFA stepped in. Now THAT was a real TAKING of assets from millions of people, not just a handful of investors that had ample warning of risks and trouble ahead and chose to hold or buy more, anyway.
Once again, pretty simple, actually. The takings from homeowners trump the takings from shareholders, many of whom never sustained any real losses except presumed gains that might have happened under no or different forms of action taken by the government.
Judge Lamberth got it right, although he may not have explained it in the proper context as above.
LOL. That's a veritable laugh riot.
1. Not in the complaint.
2. Who's bankrupt?
3. Both GSEs are still in business. Ghey are cnserved and preserved.
4. Maybe the big shorts are the shareholders!
5. This case has nothing to do with STATE law.
6. This case has nothing to do with accounting and no company has gone bankrupt.
You are OH for Six.
Yes and no. View Senator Elizabeth Warren's Senate Banking Committee testimony she extracted from Leonard Chanen... still up on YouTube. The Fed has the responsibility to regulate monetary policy. The Fed is NOT an agency of the U.S. government. The Fed owns much of the responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The lawsuits should be filed against The Fed, not the FHFA. And certainly not against the U.S. government.
You will see.
LOL. You are so unimportant. When you talk about having a battle of wits, you could only compete on a 50% basis. That means you are a HALF WIT.
Just stick with the cut-and-paste #$%$ you lift from Google, every day. Skip the comments that are lame and self-bloviating.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Orals before The Triumvirate of Truth. "The taking of millions of homes in foreclosure and draining the wealth and retirement savings of millions of homeowners, many of them low-to-middle income citizens, trumps the property claims of stock investors. The conservatorships were proper and necessary and consistent with actions collaterally taken with both banks and other distressed businesses to save the economy from even worse losses than the $14 trillion sustained as estimated by the Federal Reserve of Dallas.. The Third Amendment was consistent with continued housing market issues, lack of meaningful reform of the failed GSE business platforms and the continued seizure of homes and rental properties under foreclosures that prompted both civil unrest and large consumer protests across much of America."
There's your preview.
89% of their donation intake goes directly to charitable endeaavors. The Foundation draws very little funding for administration, fundraising, advertising or travel. Compare the Clinton Foundation to other charitable organizations like Wounded Warriors or Disabled Veterans of America if you want to see how good they actually are in delivering direct benefits to those actually in need.
Right wing hatchet-jobs on the Clintons are a dime a dozen.
Before you lecture anyone else, you might think about how boring,verbose, tedious and pedantic your Epistles are to others. You turn a one-line nugget of truth into an encyclopedic diatribe steeped in sophistry and self-promotion. I rarely read more than your first sentence because the rest is self-serving psycho-babble.
According to FactCheck.org, 89% of funds raised by the Clinton Foundation go direct to the supported programs in which it participates. Carly Fiorina got herself in a lot of trouble when she made irresponsible statements about the Clinton Foundation. You must be one of those slack-jawed Neanderthals that listen to Rush Limbaugh who regularly tries to "invent" some story here that has never existed.
Why have hedge fund managers not been taken to the woodshed over insane gambits like CDO arbitrage and all the other "stuff" that became The Crisis?