Douche, I have no employer. I just speak for myself in opposition to those, like you, that SLANDER my government and all its officials, because they are obstacles in your path for undeserved wealth.
Sue, who is TH717? I keep asking this question and you keep ignoring any answer.
Is this a person with any credibility whose opinions would matter to FnF shareholders?
Please respond, this time, instead of hiding behind the veil of internet anonymity.
Hate to disillusion you, there, navycmdr, but there is no more Judge Steele. Just FORMER Judge Steele that retired in 2014 and now represents The Center for Individual Freedom based in Alexandria, VA.
Hey, maybe your bosom buddy Myron will send you another e-mail and explain why a former Chief Justice of the Federal Court in Delaware would be sharing "scuttlebutt" with some freak like you on the internet that could influence S/P movement for FNMA & FMCC ?
Do you think I should ask him this question?
And all that knowledge comes from your perspective as a mill operator in a blue collar factory environment?
I'm not putting any working man down, but I am seriously questioning your credentials to delve into resolving multi-trillion dollar banking issues and discrediting sitting Senators and Committee Chairs based on years of Gojo handwashing before your time clock punch outs.
Yes, that's true. But unlike the FDIC, the FHFA didn't take over the GSEs to liquidate them. HERA empowered the government and FHFA to CONSERVE the GSEs, and that seems to have involved a much larger spend than just on bailout funds to achieve. If FHFA or the government chose to shut down FnF and liquidate their holdings, they, too, would legally be required to distribute surviving proceeds to shareholders.
I agree with your point, however, placed in appropriate context.
"These warrants represent payment to the taxpayer for backstopping Fannie and Freddie."
This quote is from a blog post on Novenmber 19, 2013 authored by James Fenkner and Thomas Goddard in an article entitled: "Restore Fannie Mae - Restore Fairness."
This opinion clearly establishes the acknowleged rationale for the warrants as being for backstopping the GSEs, not for the bailout amount. Backstop clearly references the 30 year mortgage guarantee supported by the government for which the taxpayers are on the hook.
Restorefanniemae is a widely read and quoted web blog devoted to preserving the rights of shareholders in the GSEs. But even they recognize the warrants are justified, and I agree with this conclusion.
"and now GSE's... are reformed & much stronger than before."
The reformation has yet to occur, and it will, but at least you are smart enough to comprehend that the government via the FHFA conservatorship has done its job well and strengthened the GSEs when they were on the verge of expiring. FnF OWES the government everything for saving their miserable hides. The huge problems at Fannie and Freddie, including the Christmas Massacre in 2004 that led to the board at Fannie discharging the CEO,CFO and auditing firm for cooking the books over 4 years of financials that required restatement to be compliant with SEC requirements. Fannie was a cesspool of mal-performance as a quasi-public company FOR YEARS before the economic crisis of 2008 rendered it an at-risk basket case that required government intervention to prevent it from collapsing the U.S. economy.
The FHFA takeover wasn't based simply on the visibles everyone keeps citing in 2008. It was also based on the Wild West culture that had plagued the GSEs for many years, leading up to the out-of-contro- concerning meltdown of the housing crisis when the real estate market imploded. The government SAVED the GSEs with conservatorship and expended HUGE resources beyond the $180 billion bailout to do so. That is why the government is entitled to so much more thanasimple repayment of that lone amount when their $ trillions in contributions for TARP, near-zero FED interest rates, QE and multiple other initiatives were ALL part of SAVING the taxpayer's Fannie & Freddie.
Your idea of winning yesterday is my idea of watching some bratty, d-bag kid pitch a juvenile, ranting tantrum and getting sent to a time out because the ADHD annoyance is unfit to be around adults. You won nothing, like you will nothng again, today, because you are incapable of sustaining an intellectual exchange on the same level as many of us.
Just begone, LOSER. The one who posts the most messages is not necessarily the winner of anything.
You've been reading too much dope on the TH717 web blog and now you actually are starting to think it is truthful. You guys keep confusing TARP that bailed out the banks, and HERA which bailed out the GSEs. These are two entirely different Acts of Congress. And if, as you claim, the taxpayer was never on the hook for anything, then you would have no objection to the government rescinding any backstop to 30 year MBS. Right?
Among the ULTIMATE socialist morasses are the GSEs who put the taxpayer on the hook for $5 trillion in 30 year MBS risks, not so eligible consumers can have affordable homes but so ineligible consumers can have homes above their means and income. The beneficiaries of this are TBTF banks and real estate speculators that create these housing bubbles when hard times impair the investment returns of equities, commodities or interest-bearing entities like bonds. Right?
I actually thought O'Malley made some strong points and looked Presidential. I suspect he is jockeying for VP if Hillary gets the nomination. Biden's absence from the stage was a disappointment. He's the real everyday Joe.
If you read any of T. Boone Picken's commentary over the last 3 years, you get a sound perspective on why the future of nat gas is so positive. Diesel trucks which are easily convertible to lng fuel account for an enormous chunk of carbon emissions and smog in urban centers like LA, NYC, Chicago, DFW, Denver and SLC. No huge infrastructure investment required to equip area truckstops with lng fueling stations.
If it happens, the rumored "glut" of nat gas ceases to be a concern and export will MINT money for Cheniere.
You've got to be in it to win it.
Its a small group of Dendreon pumpers that polluted the DNDNQ board for months with thousands of repetitive, identical messages and "bump" posts. Bunch of children playing in traffic. Just put 'em on ignore. There only here because the Dendreon board is an empty wasteland and they are missing the audience they want to annoy and torment with juvenile tantrums.
I think TH717 is actually Bill Ackman or Bruce Berkowitz. Or maybe it really is the Tim Howard that was CFO at FNMA until 2004 when the accounting irregularities broke.
So, inthemistindc, you think the country would have been better served if the government had just let the GSEs drown and die with no bailout and conservatorship?
WOW. You must be into necrophilia.
Sue, who is TH717 and why would he be credible offering comments on the GSEs?
No, only if nothing else was involved and it was a gift. But there was the small matter of $200 billion in bailout support and a contract agreed to by the boards of directors. The boards acted within their best determination of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Said differently, they apparently concluded that 20.1% of equity in a conserved entity was worth more than 100% of an out of business entity in liquidation.
Complain to Mudd and company if you disagree with THEIR decision to consent to conservatorship.
And if you want to fast forward to 2012 and Amendment 3, the only thing that may be in serious discussion is the 20.1%. A push back on that would not surprise me, as I have stated for months/years on multiple sites. The 80% was paid for by the government and wasn't questioned until many years after the agreement was set in motion, from what I recall. I don't seem to recall Perry filing a legal complaint in 2008. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Let's revisit YOUR post, d-bag. YOU said: "the issuance of preferred shares VIOLATES DELAWARE LAW on its face." That is a patent lie. The issuance pf preferred shares is NOT a violation of Delaware Law.
The sweep of 100% of profits to preferred shares is what is challenged in the Perry action. And the somewhat bizarre presumption that the sweep is in perpetuity when no dates are specified.
Those are the facts, Jack. Put up or shut up. That means you owe the board an apology and mea culpa.