FNMA Stock Updates 08/27/2014 13:25:22 $FNMA
navy
I love - truly enjoy - having the opp to agree 200% with you
The AIG - step - beating up on GOV Emergency Power's ability to excuse everthing - was big for F and F and the reason for the jump
Bidding war between Nasdaq and NYSE?
FNMA Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Fannie-Mae-FNMA-61730/
It's got nothing to do with being greedy, but rather, abiding with the rule of law.
Quote:
Agreed Z...I believe the govt. would be "willing" at some point to concede the sweep and conservatorship, but maintain what they have already taken and keep the warrants. It would be a massive "win - win" for both gooberment and the shareholders. I'm not THAT greedy...I would be willing to share billions with everyone...lol...and we all know...part of something is much better than all of nothing.
Navy, would not discount it entirely. The Idea the BOD need's a new/fresh water boy is a good sign. Face it, the board has been in an induced sleep for 6 years and may need some help waking up
$$ FNMA $$
No we know which side of the fence you live on.
that is where IMO the AIG step in the right direction is important
the warrants
I am not liked for my position
There was a fire - and emergency - near receivership - instead terms were agreed to - investments - Sr pfds rule - warrants but no recievership - no death of equity - conserve the companies and bring them back
That is how I look at it
And stuff done in the time of FIRE is hard to beat - IMO
Thus the AIG getting permission to go to trial is a major win that should shake the boots of the F and F defending attys
All that said
There is good reason that the main lawsuits focus on the sweep of the Third Amendment
It CLEARLY and IMO without dispute was post fact GOV to GOV agreement and retrospective and voidable
Get rid of full sweep and 100B or so goes back to capitalize F and F --- or is subtracted from the sr pfds and a ton of them are extinguished (10% is then paid on the remainder until private F and F buy those back to)
not very greedy at atll - maybe rolling over ---
Again - the AIG judge very much surprised me
I thought GOV actions during times of emergency just were not beatable
Yet that case is still to play out
Fox Business covering job posting now
As it stands right now...the warrants are LEGAL...we may all think it isn't, but that isn't our decision to make. I don't believe the GSE boards went into this with shareholders best interests in mind, but still...you have to look at the legality of what has happened at the time it happened. Now, if the lawsuits can prove what we all think...I am all for getting 100% of what we are due. My point was simply getting a partial win is better than no win at all. ( and recovery of monies taken) sorry for the misunderstanding.
Zarg, what price we need to close above to be bullish/reversal?
LEVEL II ... $3.97 on 9.7 Million Volume
Danno
If you believe the money "invested in F and F " was not needed then assuming money paid so far as paying off (buying back) the SR PFDS in full (v gov position today its ALL interest!) and leaving the GOV with 80% is a rip off
If one believes F and F were indeed bailed out = and right or wrong the other option was receivership and extinguishing of all equity 100% --- then the GOV moving from the 180B is all interest to its all principal and sr pfds are extinguished - cship is gone but gov keeps 80% - it is fair as the alternative to 20% was zero
big spin, zero #'s to back it up
$$ FNMA $$
today's volume was NOT based on a 2 week old job posting
it WAS about the AIG Lawsuit and the FAILURE OF THE GOVT
to get it dismissed ... Ours is coming right behind !!!
jus wait til you see the court institute our SWIPE INJUNCTION !!!
They're so blatant about it. Must be Cramer behind the scenes.
Don't forget that CNBC (any NBC) is there to push the governments side of any argument or position on an as needed basses.
CNBC just showed a poll that they took on yahoo finance. It read:
Quote:
Fannie May is downgrading its outlook for the housing market, predicting total sales will be lower than in 2013.
Way to proof read CNBC.
Spin job! cnbc just posted a survey question and they didn't even spell Fannie right!! They show Fanny May! Someone is up to something!! I think they're worried about FnF taking off
Warrants were issued the day AFTER placement into conservatorship. Treasury never obtained companies' consent for Stock Purchase Agreement. WARRANTS ARE ILLEGAL!
Quote:
I believe the GSE boards agreed to the warrants BEFORE the were placed into conservatorship.
From the Ackman complaint:
Quote:
41. The day after the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as conservator of the companies, Treasury exercised it's emergency authority to purchase securities of the Companies.
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf p.13
From the Berman lawsuit:
Quote:
155. The Treasury claimed that its authority to enter into the Stock Agreements derived from Section 304(g) of Fannie Mae’s charter and Section 306(l) of Freddie Mac’s charter, substantially identical provisions added when Congress enacted HERA. However, HERA did not provide the Treasury with unilateral authority to enter into the Stock Agreements. The amended charters allowed the Treasury to purchase any obligations and other securities issued by the Companies “on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may determine and in such amounts as the Secretary may determine” if the Treasury determined doing so was necessary (i) to provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) to prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and (iii) to protect the taxpayers. And, in order to do so, the Treasury had to obtain the consent of the Companies. As set in paragraphs 81-90 and 137-40, supra, the Treasury never obtained the Companies’ consent; instead, the conservatorships and the Stock Agreements were improperly forced upon them.
http://www.restorefanniemae.us/berman
Quote:
Were not the warrants part of the "original" agreement with the 10% div payment? I believe they were, but I could be mistaken. That would make them valid still...the judge may rule those are invalid, but currently they are still valid I believe. I believe the GSE boards agreed to the warrants BEFORE the were placed into conservatorship. I have attached a link...read pages 12 - 14....possibly the fed has overstepped their "LEGAL" authority and quite possibly invalidated their rights to the warrants...
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
I'm here. FNMA sucks can't hold gains. Will probably close close to red.
navy
I love - truly enjoy - having the opp to agree 200% with you
The AIG - step - beating up on GOV Emergency Power's ability to excuse everthing - was big for F and F and the reason for the jump
Bidding war between Nasdaq and NYSE?
FNMA Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Fannie-Mae-FNMA-61730/
It's got nothing to do with being greedy, but rather, abiding with the rule of law.
Quote:
Agreed Z...I believe the govt. would be "willing" at some point to concede the sweep and conservatorship, but maintain what they have already taken and keep the warrants. It would be a massive "win - win" for both gooberment and the shareholders. I'm not THAT greedy...I would be willing to share billions with everyone...lol...and we all know...part of something is much better than all of nothing.
Navy, would not discount it entirely. The Idea the BOD need's a new/fresh water boy is a good sign. Face it, the board has been in an induced sleep for 6 years and may need some help waking up
$$ FNMA $$
No we know which side of the fence you live on.
that is where IMO the AIG step in the right direction is important
the warrants
I am not liked for my position
There was a fire - and emergency - near receivership - instead terms were agreed to - investments - Sr pfds rule - warrants but no recievership - no death of equity - conserve the companies and bring them back
That is how I look at it
And stuff done in the time of FIRE is hard to beat - IMO
Thus the AIG getting permission to go to trial is a major win that should shake the boots of the F and F defending attys
All that said
There is good reason that the main lawsuits focus on the sweep of the Third Amendment
It CLEARLY and IMO without dispute was post fact GOV to GOV agreement and retrospective and voidable
Get rid of full sweep and 100B or so goes back to capitalize F and F --- or is subtracted from the sr pfds and a ton of them are extinguished (10% is then paid on the remainder until private F and F buy those back to)
not very greedy at atll - maybe rolling over ---
Again - the AIG judge very much surprised me
I thought GOV actions during times of emergency just were not beatable
Yet that case is still to play out
Fox Business covering job posting now
As it stands right now...the warrants are LEGAL...we may all think it isn't, but that isn't our decision to make. I don't believe the GSE boards went into this with shareholders best interests in mind, but still...you have to look at the legality of what has happened at the time it happened. Now, if the lawsuits can prove what we all think...I am all for getting 100% of what we are due. My point was simply getting a partial win is better than no win at all. ( and recovery of monies taken) sorry for the misunderstanding.
Zarg, what price we need to close above to be bullish/reversal?
LEVEL II ... $3.97 on 9.7 Million Volume
Danno
If you believe the money "invested in F and F " was not needed then assuming money paid so far as paying off (buying back) the SR PFDS in full (v gov position today its ALL interest!) and leaving the GOV with 80% is a rip off
If one believes F and F were indeed bailed out = and right or wrong the other option was receivership and extinguishing of all equity 100% --- then the GOV moving from the 180B is all interest to its all principal and sr pfds are extinguished - cship is gone but gov keeps 80% - it is fair as the alternative to 20% was zero
big spin, zero #'s to back it up
$$ FNMA $$
today's volume was NOT based on a 2 week old job posting
it WAS about the AIG Lawsuit and the FAILURE OF THE GOVT
to get it dismissed ... Ours is coming right behind !!!
jus wait til you see the court institute our SWIPE INJUNCTION !!!
They're so blatant about it. Must be Cramer behind the scenes.
Don't forget that CNBC (any NBC) is there to push the governments side of any argument or position on an as needed basses.
CNBC just showed a poll that they took on yahoo finance. It read:
Quote:
Fannie May is downgrading its outlook for the housing market, predicting total sales will be lower than in 2013.
Way to proof read CNBC.
Spin job! cnbc just posted a survey question and they didn't even spell Fannie right!! They show Fanny May! Someone is up to something!! I think they're worried about FnF taking off
Warrants were issued the day AFTER placement into conservatorship. Treasury never obtained companies' consent for Stock Purchase Agreement. WARRANTS ARE ILLEGAL!
Quote:
I believe the GSE boards agreed to the warrants BEFORE the were placed into conservatorship.
From the Ackman complaint:
Quote:
41. The day after the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as conservator of the companies, Treasury exercised it's emergency authority to purchase securities of the Companies.
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf p.13
From the Berman lawsuit:
Quote:
155. The Treasury claimed that its authority to enter into the Stock Agreements derived from Section 304(g) of Fannie Mae’s charter and Section 306(l) of Freddie Mac’s charter, substantially identical provisions added when Congress enacted HERA. However, HERA did not provide the Treasury with unilateral authority to enter into the Stock Agreements. The amended charters allowed the Treasury to purchase any obligations and other securities issued by the Companies “on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may determine and in such amounts as the Secretary may determine” if the Treasury determined doing so was necessary (i) to provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) to prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and (iii) to protect the taxpayers. And, in order to do so, the Treasury had to obtain the consent of the Companies. As set in paragraphs 81-90 and 137-40, supra, the Treasury never obtained the Companies’ consent; instead, the conservatorships and the Stock Agreements were improperly forced upon them.
http://www.restorefanniemae.us/berman
Quote:
Were not the warrants part of the "original" agreement with the 10% div payment? I believe they were, but I could be mistaken. That would make them valid still...the judge may rule those are invalid, but currently they are still valid I believe. I believe the GSE boards agreed to the warrants BEFORE the were placed into conservatorship. I have attached a link...read pages 12 - 14....possibly the fed has overstepped their "LEGAL" authority and quite possibly invalidated their rights to the warrants...
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
I'm here. FNMA sucks can't hold gains. Will probably close close to red.
