Sorry usesomesense but your suggested settlement will get you stoned in the market square.....and I don't mean with drugs!
Any sort of settlement will be done to prevent in-depth investigations of what happened with F&F, 2008 to present. I'm sort of in favor of hides getting nailed to the side of the barn!
There are listing and relisting requirements to get on or back on the big boards. Fannie and Freddie are such Goliaths, it will take nothing more than a simple phone call. My bet would be that Fannie and Freddie would be the ones RECEIVING the calls rather than the ones MAKING the calls. Both are just too valuable to Wall Street.
The warrants date back to 2008, as I recall. They were COLLATERAL for the money spotted and the federal government can't keep and exercise the warrants after restitution has been made; regardless of the language they tried to write in the sweep where it would be impossible to gain restitution.
When you pay back the pawn shop, with interest, on the Rolex you hocked, the pawn shop is required by all law to return your Rolex to you. Fannie and Freddie were that Rolex you had to hock for money and should also be returned since obligations have long since been satisfied! Failure to return is, in and of itself, criminal and so we are here today.
Only my thoughts as a long suffering shareholder: The mention of settlement would be for the period of the sweep (2012 - present) where shareholders' rights were not necessarily extinguished but legally violated.
The government can and will be sued from multiple directions if it continues its charade about Fannie and Freddie being destitute and left for dead with volumes of evidence speaking otherwise. The government will have to release them both from conservatorship, which is very long past due, and I think it is in damage control for the period of the nationalization to keep its people out of prison and minimize the financial damage in terms of monies that will have to be returned; both from "dividend" payments and that recovered in all of those 22 TBTF banks settlements. (which were poorly settled, IMO).
Shareholders have to be paid for the period of the sweep because Fannie and Freddie were profitable while our equity owners' rights were illegally suspended. At the very least, we ought to collect the 2007 dividend rate (50¢) for the three + years period as a penalty against this sham government.
In ALL distressed business agreements, warrants are used as collateral to guarantee some value to the lender in case of a default. No need to elaborate on whether the "loan" was repaid to the government so warrants need to be declared null and void.
Then we can proceed with the release of the GSEs and determination of damages to shareholders of both entities while the illegal sweep proceeded since 2012. I think "settlement" damages might be the declared dividend from 2007 (50¢/share/quarter) for the time period consumed by the net worth sweep plus full and unconditional release by the FHFA (and Treasury) of conservatorship.
You're an idiot! Quit trying to draw comments on your ridiculous comments. $5-7 would only make up for lost dividends since 2012 when profitability resumed and we were being held hostage.
Why do I get the feeling, in reading this overview, that maybe McLean doesn't have a grasp of all the facts either? Seems to be no background for cause of Fannie and Freddie's distress and why it happened as it did.
As turnabout is fair play, the funny scenario would be to let the banks and lending institutions write all the questionable mortgages they wish. When it's time to bundle and sell the MBSs to create liquidity, Fannie and Freddie would reject all bundled mortgages that were even the least bit questionable, as to quality. Almost miraculously, the mortgages the banks and lenders are writing would become high quality loans....and we would be at a point we should have been all along.
Let's hope these high powered lawyers working these cases identify the government as robbers and blast them to kingdom come........ I'll go to the funeral and poke the government's dead carcass with a stick to make sure it's dead!
The government wants to make it easier for folks to get mortgages who, ONCE AGAIN, can't afford the mortgage payments. My question is why aren't the banks and lending institutions the ones making it easier for this segment to get loans since they are the one actually writing the loans? All Fannie and Freddie are suppose to do is buy up the bundled MBSs and resell, provided the loans are worth the paper on which they are written
Mr. Gorbachev, rebuild that wall. The United States needs to send about half its population to go behind that wall because they have become socialists!
I would have much preferred jury trials in all of these 22 or so lawsuits rather than the couple we will get with juries. Putting all your eggs in one basket can have devastating effects if you get a crooked or biased judge.
Everyone seems very trusting of Sweeney to make the right decision but weren't all of you, at one time, trusting of that idiot Lamberth? The law seems obvious to me but lawyers' ambitions in life are to create and advocate gray areas to accomplish their goals. Both Lamberth and Sweeney were once lawyers so all of you make your own judgments. I will sleep with eyes wide open!!!!!!
Conserve and preserve were never the intent of the government. It was nothing more than a smoke screen when thought arose that the illegalities of seizure of the GSEs was too blatantly obvious and may be challenged. The intent, all along, was to shutter Fannie and Freddie and give that enormous business to the members of the wolf pack.