wrong message board, has nothing to do with Fannie Mae.
This company has immense operations and no one speaking publically regarding their willingness to purchase it neglects to mention why it is speculative.
Depending upon whether the regulators force them to release loan loss reserves or not they will earn north of $.50 per share.
It would actually make sense for a company that is described by its regulators as being undercapitalised to be told to not release any reserves. However if Watt is all for winding them down, he might very well suggest they do a large reserve release thus putting more of FnF hard earned capital into the hands of the treasury.
the courts understand the constitution much better than you or I do, this may be hard to understand, but if the courts uphold the sweep, then it is probably constitutional.
most jobs are produced by small businesses
sure you have the right to go obtain a private charter just like the rest of us private citizens that are not blessed with a duopoly.
Fitch believes the implicit government support enjoyed by agency MBS does not apply to these new securities recently being sold by FnF.
he is talking about the fact that when Fannie Mae was trading for around $.60 their regulator started to sweep all of their profits over to the treasury, although the share price subsequently rose dramatically since this action, many posters on this board believe the share price would be much higher even though it is still in c-ship
MM' as far as I know would never deal with Icahn, they wouldnt have his phone number, nor have any contact with him.
The Obama administration is set to announce changes to its home-affordability initiatives, but the updates are likely to be “narrowly targeted and largely symbolic,” an analyst says.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is scheduled to make closing remarks Thursday afternoon at a housing summit in Washington, focusing on new policies to help struggling homeowners, increase affordable housing and expand credit access. But the timing of Lew’s announcement likely means that the administration’s new efforts may not impact many borrowers, wrote Isaac Boltansky, an analyst at Compass Point Research & Trading, a Washington-based investment firm.
“We doubt that any significant policy change would be announced with such little lead time and as part of the closing remarks at a conference,” Boltansky wrote. “Our sense is that the forthcoming program changes are likely to be narrowly targeted and largely symbolic.”
The Obama administration has been frustrated in its efforts to get Congress to reform mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the meantime, the administration has advanced policies aimed at easing credit and bolstering the recovery. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae FNMA and Freddie Mac FMCC , recently announced that the government sponsored enterprises won’t be directed to lower the limits for home loans that they back, and that they will relax terms for when sellers must repurchase a loan.
Giving lenders more clarity over the extent of their legal liability could encourage them to relax the strict standards they they erected post-crisis, and help more credit-worthy borrowers obtain loans, economists say.
Thursday’s event will focus on best practices in administration programs aimed at helping struggling homeowners. The Home Affordable Modification Program, launched in the wake of a burst housing bubble, enables borrowers who are struggling with unwieldy mortgage payments to receive modified loans with affordab
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane (1871-1900)
from War Is Kind (1899)
just because the private sector produces mortgage backed securities doesnt mean the 30 year mortgage will go away.
the record profits were made last year, it will be another 10 years before America ever matches the mortgage volume we had in 2012 and 1st half of 2013.
If MA wins the case, FNMA should simply stop doing business in their state.
My guess would be which ever way it goes, it won't be a "grind", but rather we will witness something more like a "quick burst" out of this pennant during the next week.
Republicans are missing their chance to do away with the agencies. They should go ahead and wholeheartedly back the bill, get their half a loaf now, then down the road fight the affordable housing language.
"I threw the line in—'the Walrus was Paul'—just to confuse everybody a bit more. It could have been 'The fox terrier is Paul.' I mean, it's just a bit of poetry. I was having a laugh because there'd been so much gobbledygook about Pepper—play it backwards and you stand on your head and all that." - John Lennon
Regulators decide whether or not Fannie Mae is well capitalized or not, not the courts. Even after Fannie Mae wins the court case regarding reversing the sweep and they were to receive the money due back to them, they still could be be deemed under-capitalized enough by their regulator. What I am saying is that it is highly unlikely for the courts to rule that Fannie Mae should not be in a C-ship, that is the regulators decision..... the courts will ultimately have to rule that the govt has no right to regulate Fannie Mae, which we all know that ain't happening.