% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Wells Fargo & Company Message Board

mr.schnider 15 posts  |  Last Activity: May 20, 2016 4:10 PM Member since: Apr 26, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • mr.schnider mr.schnider May 20, 2016 4:10 PM Flag

    the article was written by Gretchen Morgeensen , and in my opinion the white house administration went too far. If Obama ran on being a transparent president then the press should take him to task on FnF.
    This is one example of having a two party political system is failing America. The the oposition party wants to get rid of FnF so what we have is no one raising questions about what Obama did.

  • When Washington took over the beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the collapse of the housing market and the financial crisis of 2008, it was with the implicit promise that they would be returned to shareholders after being nursed back to health.

    But now, with the unsealing of documents this week that were produced as part of a lawsuit filed against the government, new evidence is coming to light on how intimately the White House was involved in the Treasury’s decision in August 2012 to divert all the companies’ profits to the Treasury Department. That move effectively maintained Fannie and Freddie’s status as wards of the state.

    An email from Jim Parrott, then a top White House official on housing finance, was sent the day the so-called profit sweep was announced. It said that the change was structured to ensure that the companies couldn’t “repay their debt and escape as it were.”

    The documents also show Treasury moving to modify the terms of the mortgage finance giants’ $187.5 billion bailout shortly after a July 2012 meeting when the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie’s and Freddie’s regulator, learned that they were about to enter “the golden years” of profitability.

    Since then, Fannie and Freddie have returned to the Treasury over $50 billion more than they received in the bailout. The amount they owe to the government remains outstanding.

    The new materials cast further doubt on arguments made in court by government lawyers that the profit sweep came about because Fannie and Freddie were in a death spiral and taxpayers needed protection from future losses. Documents unsealed last month also served to undermine that legal stance.

    A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

    The trickle of documents comes years after Fannie and Freddie shareholders filed suits against the government, contending that its decision regarding the companies’ profits was illegal. Defending against an array of these suits, lawyers for the Justice Department have requested confidential treatment for thousands of pages of materials. In a case brought in Federal Claims Court, the government’s lawyers asserted presidential privilege in 45 documents.

  • Soon they will have no capital according to their conservator Mel Watt at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. It suddenly strikes me that perhaps our country should not even bother with FnF handling their interest rate risk by using derivatives. Am I wrong to think it doesn't matter if they hedge their risk one way or the other? I suppose I am missing something here, any other opinions?

    Here is the latest on what I have read:

    "Starting January 1, 2018, the Enterprises will have no capital buffer and no ability to weather quarterly losses – such as the non-credit related loss incurred by Freddie Mac in the third quarter of last year – without making a draw against the remaining Treasury commitments under the PSPAs. There are a number of non-credit related factors that could lead to a loss and result in a draw on those commitments: interest rate volatility; accounting treatment of derivatives, which are used to hedge risk but can also produce significant earnings volatility; reduced income from the Enterprises’ declining retained portfolios; and, the increasing volume of credit risk transfer transactions, which transfer both the risk of future credit losses as well as current revenues away from the Enterprises to the private sector. A disruption in the housing market or a period of economic distress could also lead to credit-related losses and trigger a draw."

  • Reply to

    OYSter Alert!

    by bridgelm May 18, 2016 11:47 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider May 19, 2016 2:09 PM Flag

    Bridgelm, I see we do have a visitor, however I sense him to be a normal garden variety occupy wallstreeter.
    Lets take a walk down memory lane and remember what the real Oyster is like:
    INST. REP. # 2 .. more on the RAPIDLY SINKING/ SUNK ... H.M.S. "TITANIC" / WB .. & .. the FRAUDULENT "CARPATHIA" / wfc .. ASAP .. ;-}
    oopsy daisy ... did I .... STRIKE ... a ... SENSITIVE ... wells fraudco ... NERVE ... stumpfy poo ... ;-]

  • Reply to

    WFC dividend increase

    by wpd_deleter Apr 26, 2016 8:06 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 27, 2016 4:46 PM Flag

    Dangonegolfing, thanks for the post, it makes sense to me.

  • Here is what Cruz should do: Instead of linking up with the Kaisich campaign in order to stop Trump, what Cruz could do to successfully become president is to agree with Sanders that both will each individually run as an independent candidate during the general election.

    I don't think Cruz nor Sanders would ever run as a third party candidate unless they knew they had a decent chance of winning and that it would not automatically hand the victory over to someone else.

    I believe they would both run in the general if they knew the other were going to run as well.

  • Reply to

    WFC dividend increase

    by wpd_deleter Apr 26, 2016 8:06 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 27, 2016 11:11 AM Flag

    I can only guess.

    Regulators were not happy with their living will, nor with the amount of their long term debt.
    Perhaps the reason for such a relatively small increase is because of regulators "dippin and dappin in their koolaide & all that".

    Other things to consider is that they raised their loan loss reserves, and they recently grew their loan book twice as fast as their deposits.

    Having said that, their fee income grew and their interest income grew. My guess is that they are at a payout ratio that they feel comfortable with and do not want increase it. Perhaps increases in their dividend will be tempered by their desire to build equity.

  • Reply to

    Obama and Saudis

    by billion1338 Apr 21, 2016 12:21 AM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 24, 2016 5:43 PM Flag

    My wild guess is that it would reflect very poorly on SA in such a way that many Americans would want action taken. However imo that is part of the problem within a democracy is that we woud vote someone into office that wants to take revenge against SA.
    I believe you will agree with me when I say that our our has had a problem over the past generation in getting over the fact that as a country we cannot seem to get over the fact that Iran took 50 hostages.
    Here is my point of view: Iran started to build the A bomb because they saw America take over Iraq. And because of their building a bomb we froze up billions of dollars of theirs as well as stopped alot of commerce.
    We brought Iran to their knees, they agreed to stop building the bomb. But what we have is half of the media saying we should keep the frozen assets and go back to having strong sanctions on their commerce even though they gave up their ability to build the bomb. There are several Republican candidates that would have never given back their assets in which were sittig in Russian and Japan banks and in my opinion their onlyreason is because that policy would help them get elected. In oher words American is having trouble forgiving Iran.

    Our govt needs to act in a way that tamps down anger rather than inflame it. The fact is that Al Qaeda wanted us to get our military base out of SA, they bombed us, so we said OK we will get out of there.
    My guess is that many SA' were like minded in wanting us out of there.

  • Reply to

    Repeat Player

    by mr_5chnider Apr 18, 2016 12:35 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 19, 2016 11:53 AM Flag

    I have not read the whole lawsuit in its entirety, but have only been reading what the is on the web.
    The above was just a cut and paste from an article. What I think personally is that everything mentioned in the lawsuit is not uncommon, however these attorneys are trying to prey on the fact that America views it as being wrong or somehow illegal behavior on BOFI' behalf and therefore BOFI should repay its share holders for the stock going down.

    I have around 25 years in the financial industry and have found nothing illegal in the accusations. What happens is when regulators come across issues such as these they provide warnings, and if enough time goes by enough effort is not made then there will be small fines.

    What we are talking about is some ambulance chasing attorneys sueing because the stock price went down.

    As far as a whistle blowing case, I presume regulators to be real jerks and to put pressure on BOFI to make any changes they feel are needed. But I personally feel there is nothing wrong with the list of things mentioned by the self proclaimed whistle blower and hope he gets nothing.

    Its time for America to come to its senses and stop this insanity against the banks. Hopefully the political winds will soon change with a new president and a congress that stands up for our financial system.

  • Reply to

    Fannie Mae

    by mr_5chnider Apr 13, 2016 10:03 AM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 14, 2016 12:52 PM Flag

    Personally I do not see what the difficulty would be to placate both sides of the issue by having FnF runnoff their balance sheet to a reasonable $100 billion or so and simply fulfill a public need in selling mortgage backed securities to investors that are guaranteed by other investors in the private sector.

    this is a political quagmire. Part of the current regulations against Fannie and Freddie is that they are not allowed to lobby congress. So what we see is dead silence from Congress.
    Obama and the Democrats who do not want to be seen as being on the side of too big to fail companies are unwilling to take a stance on their behalf, and the ideological Republicans want the GSE' gone.
    Even if Obama secretly likes the GSE he wont take up this lost cause, imo I was convinced a few years ago that Obama is benefiting from the status quo and it will take another president to get this done. The American people right now hat TBTF companies,

    And to answer your question, I think that the courts are going to rule that a conservatorship is meant to heal the company then return it to the private sector. However depending upon who controls the next congress the amount of capital needed for FnF to hold will probably wipe out the current share holders imo.

  • Reply to

    Good day for BOFI

    by txecos Jan 15, 2016 5:52 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 14, 2016 12:34 PM Flag

    I am in at $20.38

  • Reply to

    Unemployment rate

    by stephen_dh Apr 6, 2016 5:47 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Apr 7, 2016 1:02 PM Flag

    stephen, you misconstrued what Bank of America was trying to say. Their numbers are exactly the same as what the government is coming up with, its just that they believe when considering what public policy should be that emphasis should be placed on the 6% number. It is something that apparently Janet Yelling has been saying as well whenever she states there is still slack in the labor force that will prevent wage inflation.

    Also, a slight mistake that you may not be aware of, you should not refer to an "Obama administration's count".
    The reason is because unemployment numbers are compiled at the grassroots level, county by county. These empolyees are not apart of the Obama administration.

    And one last point, it is in human nature to have some nostalgic feelings about the past being better than now. The truth is that the American public was very critical of the types of jobs being produced throughout the last economic expansion (ie part time jobs) We all would like to make more money, or have a better job offer.
    Don't mistake that fact with another truth which is when you look at a graph of the U3 or U6 rate, that it is going in the right direction, and I might add at an acceptable rate. Its just that many of us would like a better job. imo

  • Reply to

    UBS is correct...but

    by greedatworks Mar 24, 2016 6:11 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Mar 25, 2016 5:04 PM Flag

    greedatworks: I will go one step further than your comment. I believe Wells could make stated income loans to home owners that are self employed for a higher interest rate of 100 to 200 basis points above the going rate. there is a lot of subprime loans they could make that would be profitable by keeping it on their own books.

  • Reply to

    Breakup suggestion

    by fsbsgillie Mar 23, 2016 6:29 PM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Mar 24, 2016 1:56 PM Flag

    thanks for the post, its good to know the difference between Citi and USB therefor we can appreciate the decisions that the CEO is making when he chooses to keep to his knitting and not take the bank off on some path that would make it bigger but have lower p/e multiple on its earnings. This speaks to the discussion we had last week on this board in which Billion would like to see USB growth by acquiring assets both domestically or abroad.

    It seems to me that American Express would seem like it would fit with USB, but then again the culture could possibly be a very bad marriage. And even if the corporate culture can match up, what you have is Amex getting a lower p/e multiple for its earnings so even if it is immediately accreative your share price might not go up.
    IMO it is probably attractive to a CEO to go out and purchase another company because naturally he would have the opportunity for a larger paycheck, but as we see with BOA and C it doesnt necessarily mean a higher share price for the investors. And for this USB investors should be very glad they have their CEO.

  • Reply to

    H&R Block

    by fdxnomad Mar 23, 2016 2:17 AM
    mr.schnider mr.schnider Mar 24, 2016 10:56 AM Flag

    I dont remember exactly what BOFI has guided for future earnings, but I remember thinking that the 5 analysts following the stock have included the new numbers into their calculations. Therefor we are looking at the purchase of HR being accreative immediately this year by 20 cents plus they will not issue as many shares therefor their growth this first year will be very impressive. However I am not one to ever want to give it a multiple of more than 20x the trailing twelve months therefor I predict it will be in the high thirties by the end of the year all things being equal.

    In order for you to come up with $65 figure you must be slapping on a multiple of close to 40 which is possible but its not as if this bank is unknown by wallstreet. It will eventually get up to $65 in another 18 to 24 months but that is different than saying it is worth $65 now.

50.55+0.05(+0.10%)May 26 4:02 PMEDT