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

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. Message Board

richdawn6973 90 posts  |  Last Activity: 23 hours ago Member since: May 21, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 23 hours ago Flag

    Application of Joseph Orlando for Access to Protected Information.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 23 hours ago Flag

    Mr. Joseph A. Orlando, also known as Joe, serves as the President of Limestone Merger Sub, LLC. Mr. Orlando serves as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at Leucadia LLC. Mr. Orlando served as the Chief Financial Officer of Leucadia National Corporation from April 1996 to August 31, 2014 and served as its Vice President since January 1994. He served as a Director at Allcity Insurance Company since October 1998. He is a Certified Public Accountant.

    Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Protective Orde
    r (Doc. 73) issued by the Court, Plaintiffs
    respectfully file the attached
    application of Joseph Orlando for access to Protected Information.
    In accordance with the procedures established u
    nder Paragraph 7 of the Protective Order, Plain-
    tiffs have consulted with counsel
    for Defendant regarding this a
    pplication, and counsel has in-
    formed Plaintiffs that Defendant does not oppose
    Mr. Orlando’s access to Protected Information.
    Date: March 31, 2015

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 31, 2015 7:54 PM Flag

    From timhoward717 Blogger

    S. Paul

    March 31, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    Fianally wsj opinion article sounds like th717. William Issac of FDIC writes …

    Fannie and Freddie May Need More Bailouts
    The federal policy to ‘sweep’ the housing giants’ profits sets them up for more trouble.

    The Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might need more government bailouts if housing markets decline. The problem: lack of capital reserves to serve as a buffer against future losses.

    The FHFA’s warning wasn’t the first. Last month on an earnings call, Fannie Mae CEO Tim Mayopoulos also warned that the company’s lack of capital “increases the likelihood that Fannie Mae will need additional capital from Treasury at some point.”

    This problem is no accident: It is the result of a deliberate decision in 2012 by the Treasury Department to sweep Fannie’s and Freddie’s profits into the federal government’s coffer. Treasury’s “net worth sweep” is illegal and economically dangerous. It needs to end.

    It’s not difficult to understand concerns over another bailout of Fannie and Freddie. In 2008 Treasury rescued the mortgage giants from insolvency, ultimately with $187 billion of taxpayer money. Treasury was acting under the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which created a framework for the government to decide what to do with the two companies.

    The government could have put them into receivership, but nobody wanted the taxpayer to assume the $5 trillion in liabilities on the their balance sheets, and the U.S. needed to reassure bondholders (mostly foreign) that they weren’t about to be wiped out. And so, after being rescued, the two companies were placed into a conservatorship administered by the FHFA, with a mandate to “conserve and preserve” Fannie and Freddie for their shareholders while the companies rebuilt their capital.

    Nearly seven years later Fannie and Freddie remain in conservatorship. As of Dec. 31, 2014, they have repaid the government $227 billion—roughly $40 billion more than they were originally loaned. Yet instead of allowing the companies to build a capital reserve like any large financial institution, the Obama administration is stripping both companies of 100% of their profits. This is based on a change to the conservatorship agreement made by Treasury in 2012 requiring Fannie and Freddie to pay a 100% dividend to Treasury each quarter.

    The government had every right to impose harsh terms on private investors when it saved the two companies from failure in 2008. It did that by taking 79% of the company from private stockholders and taking senior preferred stock with a 10% dividend.

    No problem so far. But for the government to come back four years later and unilaterally change the terms of its deal is troubling—and it will cause significant problems for regulators in getting the private sector to help in a future crisis.

    Fannie and Freddie’s investors are justifiably outraged, and some of them have sued the government for its actions. But the public should also be concerned. By denying Fannie and Freddie the ability to accumulate capital, the government is putting taxpayers on the hook for any future losses they may incur.

    The Obama Treasury is ignoring the threat. A senior Treasury official, Michael Stegman, told a Goldman Sachs conference earlier this month that recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie would come at taxpayer “expense.” The only logical reading of this analysis is that a dollar going to rebuilding capital is one less dollar going into the Treasury’s general fund. Mr. Stegman has it backward: The risk of another massive taxpayer bailout, arising from undercapitalization, is precisely why Treasury must end the net-worth sweep and allow Fannie and Freddie to emerge from the limbo of conservatorship.

    Some would argue that recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie would itself present a threat to the taxpayer, given the troubled history of these institutions and the role they played in the financial crisis. This is a farcical argument: We can allow the two government-sponsored enterprises to recapitalize and then, if policy makers develop a better alternative, wind them down in an orderly liquidation process.

    Policy makers can disagree about what future role there should be for Fannie and Freddie in housing finance. But there should be no disagreement about the need to observe and respect the rule of law.

    Mr. Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., is a senior managing director at FTI Consulting. He advises Investors Unite, a shareholder group opposed to the Treasury’s sweep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits.

  • Reply to


    by j_coco Mar 28, 2015 9:12 AM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 12:10 PM Flag

    So by definition that is a pyramid scheme...

  • Reply to


    by j_coco Mar 28, 2015 9:12 AM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 12:01 PM Flag

    How this person explain to me the Leader would recruit underneath him and the more he recruited the high % the Leader would receive from everyone underneath him.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 11:03 AM Flag

    Thanks for the pointer and the reply back.

  • Reply to


    by j_coco Mar 28, 2015 9:12 AM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 10:57 AM Flag

    Take me behind the barn and shot me. I meant pyramid scheme..
    My bad what the hell was I thinking...
    Thumb me down on that one...

  • Reply to


    by j_coco Mar 28, 2015 9:12 AM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 10:15 AM Flag

    I for one knew someone in that business and how they descibed it to me it sounded like ponzi scheme to me. And this was about 10 plus years ago when this person told me about the business model. "Its a way of life and not a diet" Anyone see this will know what I mean by the quote. I could go on for ever on this topic.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 9:51 AM Flag

    Sorry I wasn't debating information. I was only posting for the general public view. You have your rights of opinion like every American Citizen. By far every American has lost their faith in our Lawmakers. I would be first in line. We Americans need to make better decision who we vote into office. They are there to serve the American People and not for their own personal agenda.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 8:15 AM Flag

    Also show support to H.R. 1036 The Let the GSEs Pay Us Back Act

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 28, 2015 7:41 AM Flag

    POPVOX is a direct connection to your Members of Congress and Federal agency policymakers — and a real-time snapshot of the conversations others are having on the issues you care about.

  • H.R. 1673 To amend the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish a secondary reserve fund for a housing enterprise under conservatorship to protect taxpayers against loss in the event of a housing downturn, and for other purposes.

    Bill Summary

    To amend the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish a secondary reserve fund for a housing enterprise under conservatorship to protect taxpayers against loss in the event of a housing downturn, and for other purposes.


    This bill was assigned to a congressional committee , which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. The majority of bills never make it past this point.

    Voice your opinion as well at

  • Reply to

    IU Commends Blackburn for New Housing Legislation

    by smauney Mar 26, 2015 4:04 PM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 26, 2015 4:53 PM Flag

    Taxpayers, homeowners, and stockholders of Fannie Mae (OTCQB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTCQB:FMCC) have something to cheer about thanks to House Republican Marsha Blackburn. On Thursday, she sponsored a bill that would end the potentially illegal acts being committed by the U.S. Treasury to sweep away capital from our housing finance system for deficit reduction. The bill is titled ''Enterprise Secondary Reserve Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act of 2015'' and will be filed as HR 1673.

    The stated purpose of the bill is to

    "amend the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish a secondary reserve fund for a housing enterprise under conservatorship to protect taxpayers against loss in the event of a housing downturn, and for other purposes."

    The secondary reserve could also be referred to as an escrow account, where funds are held until a resolution is created on GSE reform. The text of this bill is available at this link.

    The bill would establish a secondary reserve by inserting the following language into the existing statutes:


    ''(1) ESTABLISHMENT-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, regulation, order, or agreement, the Director shall, by regulation, establish for any enterprise operating in conservatorship pursuant to section 1367 a secondary reserve fund and shall deposit in such fund from any revenues of the enterprise an amount equal to the amounts enumerated under subsection (A.) for the enterprise.

    ''(2) MAINTENANCE.-Amounts in the secondary reserve fund shall be held in escrow by the enterprise until-

    '' the Director uses such amounts pursuant to paragraph (3); or

    ''(B.) the Director abolishes the secondary reserve fund pursuant to paragraph (4).

    ''(3) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.-If the Director determines, in accordance with regulations issued under paragraph (5), that losses of an enterprise operating in conservatorship pursuant to section 1367 will exceed amounts available for the enterprise under subsections , (C.), (D.), or (F.), the Director shall make a determination, in accordance with such regulation, whether to use funds held in the secondary reserve for the enterprise.

    ''(4) ABOLISHMENT.-Upon the dissolution of the conservatorship of an enterprise, the Director shall abolish any secondary reserve established under paragraph (1) for the enterprise and amounts remaining in such reserve upon such abolishment shall revert to meet capital requirements under subsections , , , and then to earnings of the enterprise.

    It also continues to provide the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) with the authority to establish a capital restoration plan for the entities.


    Any secondary reserve established under this Act for an enterprise shall not be considered capital, a capital reserve, or otherwise an asset of the enterprise, other than as part of a capital restoration plan for the enterprise approved under section 1369C, during the pendency of a conservatorship for the enterprise.''.

    For several years, the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have existed in a quasi-legal state. The Treasury successfully used them, under FHFA's discretion, to prop up the housing market by modifying millions of mortgages. Then, as Fannie and Freddie began to regain profitability, Treasury and FHFA enacted a 3rd Amendment to their Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, which assigned 100% of their net worth gains to deficit reduction. The result of these changes is that Fannie and Freddie have repaid taxpayers with interest and that the companies are operating with razor-thin capital levels.

    This bill does not resolve all of the issues around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it does solve one problem. It eliminates any conflicting interests between Treasury and Congress on GSE reform goals. As long as the two companies were sweeping all available capital to Treasury for deficit reduction, there was no mechanism to build up reserves against future losses. Establishing a capital reserve fund will protect taxpayers and ultimately provide capital for the future of the housing finance system.

    Shareholders should note that this escrow account bill does not preclude Congress from acting with other priorities on GSE reform. Policy-makers will note that the process of rebuilding capital at the GSEs will be a long one and they have plenty of time to rethink legislation on the issue.

    In the end, this should be seen as a positive step towards a win-win solution with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A significant overhang would be removed and uncertainties resolved regarding private property rights.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 23, 2015 8:25 PM Flag

    Jacob J. Lew Secretary United States Department of the Treasury before the Senate Wednesday, March 25, 2015 02:00 PM - 04:00 PM
    All hearings are webcast live and will not be available until the hearing starts.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 23, 2015 7:16 PM Flag

    Gretchen Morgenson, “the government has invoked presidential privilege on 45 documents created either by officials at the Treasury or the F.H.F.A., the regulator charged with conserving Fannie and Freddie’s assets.”
    Fannie and Freddie were chartered by Congress around 45 years ago as companies with private shareholders but lines of credit with the government. In September 2008, the Bush administration found that Fannie and Freddie were on the brink of failing. Under new powers from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act passed two months earlier, it took them into a “conservatorship” in which the government took 79.9 percent of the entities’ stock in exchange for bailing them out, a “conservatorship” that continues into the Obama administration to this day.
    The series of actions now being called “Fanniegate” began in August 2012, when then-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner issued the “Third Amendment” to the GSE conservatorship. The Third Amendment, with no authorization from the HERA law, required all of the GSEs’ profits to be siphoned off to the U.S. Treasury Department in perpetuity — even after the GSEs paid back what they owed to taxpayers.
    This arbitrary action has spawned more than 20 lawsuits from Fannie and Freddie’s private shareholders. The suits charge the administration with everything from violating the Administrative Procedures Act to unconstitutionally taking property without just compensation.
    The Third Amendment has also raised concerns that the profit sweep is leaving Fannie and Freddie with very little capital reserves, furthering the chance for more taxpayer bailouts should something go awry with the housing market again. See this excellent paper by Cato Institute Director of Financial Regulation Studies Mark Calabria and former FDIC General Counsel Michael Krimminger on this point.
    But the really amazing thing is that we know very little about what prompted Obama and Geithner to pursue this highly controversial policy, because according to the NYT’s Morgenson, the Obama administration “has fought every discovery request made by the Fannie and Freddie shareholders.”
    Last year, one of these shareholder lawsuits — Fairholme v. United States — prompted Judge Margaret Sweeney to compel the administration to produce some of those documents in order to satisfy a discovery request from the mutual fund plaintiff. And a coalition letter, coordinated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and signed by leaders of 17 conservative and free market organizations, calls for a key oversight subcommittee to spread a little sunshine by obtaining the documents and making them public. In the letter sent last fall to leaders of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we wrote:
    “Not only is this Third Amendment an unprecedented power grab that violates shareholder property rights, but the process used by the Treasury Department to develop the Amendment provided neither an opportunity for public comment nor the customary transparency safeguards that permit we the people to hold our government accountable. To this day, the Amendment’s provenance remains secret.”
    We asked the heads of the subcommittee to “demand greater transparency and accountability on this matter by requesting that the Treasury Department turn over to your committee, or otherwise make public, any and all documents shedding light on the alleged need for and legal rationale justifying the Third Amendment, as well as all documents detailing the Amendment’s development and evolution, such as those customarily contained in the administrative docket for an agency rulemaking.”
    CEI has long advocated ending the risk posed by the GSEs to taxpayers and the economy through an elimination of the taxpayer guarantee or an orderly liquidation of their assets, with no government-backed entity to replace them. Our new pro-growth congressional agenda, “Free to Prosper,” puts forth options on the most practical ways to move forward on such a phase-out.
    As CEI founder and chairman Fred Smith urged Congress in 2000 — to mostly deaf ears — policy makers should “develop a divestiture or breakup plan for Fannie and Freddie.” And in such a plan, as in traditional bankruptcies, the rights of both taxpayers and private investors should be sacrosanct.
    But in order to have real reform, first we need transparency. It’s time for the administration that promised to be the most transparent in history to open the books on its management of the two government-sponsored entities that play such a dominant role in housing and the economy. And it’s high time for Congress to investigate the violations of the rule of law that festered in Fanniegate.
    John Berlau is senior fellow for finance and access to capital at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

  • Last week was dubbed “Sunshine Week” by proponents of open government, and the administration that swept into office promising to be the “most transparent” in history got a surprise. The Obama administration was just judged by a major, mostly friendly, news service as least transparent of modern presidencies.
    An analysis by the Associated Press found that “the Obama administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.” The AP adds that the administration “also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.”
    But FOIA requests are just the tip of the iceberg for this administration’s secrecy, much of which has nothing to do with the legitimate exception of national security. In Dodd-Frank, the administration set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council — the constitutionality of both of which are now subject to a lawsuit from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other parties — to be exempt from many open meetings and (especially with FSOC) open records requests.
    But probably the most egregious example of this administration’s secrecy practices concerns its management of the government-sponsored housing enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As important as the role Fannie and Freddie play in the housing market, and American Enterprise Institute financial scholar Peter Wallison’s new book Hidden in Plain Sight convincingly fingers them as the main culprits in the mortgage bust that led to the financial crisis, it is hard for anyone to argue that their actions somehow affect national security.
    Yet when asked to produce documents in litigation by Fannie and Freddie’s shareholders, the Obama administration made the unbelievable claim of “executive privilege.” According to New York Times financial columni

  • Reply to

    I'm back boys and girls

    by rick.nagra Mar 21, 2015 12:04 AM
    richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 21, 2015 4:23 PM Flag

    I have to make a correction:
    The title was "The Strange Story of what happened to Rick Nagra" By aroadrock • Nov 10, 2013 1:56 AM
    Props to aroadrock it was very thought out. Back in the day of Aroadrock sleepless nights. I hope he sleeping better these days.

  • richdawn6973 richdawn6973 Mar 21, 2015 11:30 AM Flag

    Interesting I thought.

  • Google timhoward717 then click on Maps below your Search Title. Where does it take you?

19.74-0.25(-1.25%)Apr 1 4:03 PMEDT