The Senior agreement and Third Sweep
It should be noted the Senior agreement along with the Third sweep were NOT signed by the board of fannie, but by the FHFA and the treasury.
Now if the sweep is Found to be at the Direction of treasury and not the FHFA what about the Senior Preferred agreement? It would stand to reason that they will be brought into the same answer as the Third will bring. The senior agreement was the give away of the warrants to the treasury. If the treasury was directing the show, making a contract with itself, the warrants will be GONE along with the entire agreement.
The court will turn the whole thing on its ear once discovery comes out and the warrants will be useless.
Another thing is the action of congress and HERA and the treasury made life hard for fannie in the months ahead of takeover. They made the market question the companies, The companies did not need to have a positive stock value of more that .01 to be solvent? To be solvent the companies had to pay its bills, not have a high stock price. The govt used the falling stock price as a reason for takeover. Paulson told the hedge funds to short the stocks of fannie.
As soon as the govt took over in the last month of the 3rd quarter of 2008, they had 30 days to prove the insolvency of fannie, and they did by writing off 50 billion in fake losses in the 3rd quarter of 2008. How do we know this was a fake 50 billion loss? Simple the 60 billion paid in 2013 from DTA in the 1st quarter. The Dta was a reversal of the write down of the 3rd quarter of 2008 and most of the 4th quarter. Fannie was not insolvent and did not lose 70 plus billion in the first 2 quarters of conservatoreship. The narrative that the Govt writes has been so pushed down everyone’s throat that they are making people believe the LIE. That initial 70 billion that was mostly fake to begin with then started the cycle of paying 10% dividend on money they did not need and this grew the Senior stock to over 100 billion.
MOSTLY BASED ON LIES AND FRAUD. I wish I could write this better but the lie is easier to tell than the truth and the govt wants everyone to believe the lie!!
- PVCT shareholder blog
- GILD shareholders blog
- FANNIE FREDDIE GOOGLE GROUP
- Bill Maloni GSE
- FNMA - YAHOO message board
- FNMA Real Time QUOTE
- $60 per share, target
- Throwing out the case: Perry Injunction
- Why the FHFA took over Fannie and Freddie and AIG
- homesteading off grid planning
- Save on Your Electric Bill
Saturday, September 27, 2014
The Secret Recordings of Carmen Segarra SEP 26, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Different Day, Same Confusion
By the way, Im the guy that posted the response to Carney.
This was my comment to Wall Street Journal
The other lawsuits are based on 5th amendment rights under the constitution, not based on shareholder derivative lawsuit where the plaintiff takes the roll of Fannie Mae because Fannie Mae cant [sic] defend itself. HERA says the conservator can do that only. Fairholme, Perry and Pershing have all said that both the FHFA and treasury have taken the PROPERTY of shareholders. The case your [sic] writing about has nothing to do with the taking of property for which HERA cannot defend. HERA is not the 5th amendment to the constitution, Nor is HERA the law that supersedes all other laws.
Charles Thomas Munger (born January 1, 1924) is an American business magnate, lawyer, investor, and philanthropist. He is Vice-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Corporation, the diversified investment corporation chaired byWarren Buffett; in this capacity, Buffett describes Munger as "my partner." Munger served as chairman of Wesco Financial Corporation from 1984 through 2011 (Wesco was approximately 80%-owned by Berkshire-Hathaway during that time). He is also the chairman of the Daily Journal Corporation, based in Los Angeles, California, US, and a director of Costco Wholesale Corporation.
Charlie Munger And The 2014 Daily Journal Annual Meeting - Part Two
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: The WSJ Misinterprets Sweeney Decision
Late yesterday the WSJ ran the following piece and while much of it is just a rehash of how we got here, they draw what I think are erroneous conclusions from the Sweeney ruling.
Bruce Berkowitz Talks Fannie, Freddie, AIG, BAC With Consuelo Mack
Berkowitz’ big bets in four financial stocks largely shunned by investors since the financial crisis, which now make up nearly 80% of The Fairholme Fund’s portfolio: AIG accounts for 47%, Bank of America nearly 15% and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac account for over 15%.
A quick look at those bets will show Bruce is doing very well.
More Erroneous Reporting on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Litigation by Todd Sullivan
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Ted Olson’s Shot Across the Bow by Todd Sullivanhttp://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-ted-olsons-shot-across-the-bow/
Monday, September 22, 2014
Russia ordered to pay $50bn in damages to Yukos shareholders
Russia has been ordered to pay $50bn (£29.4bn) to shareholders of Yukos, the formerdefunct oil company that was broken up a decade ago after its boss fell foul of Vladimir Putin.
In a judgment against the Kremlin, a tribunal in the Hague ruled that the Russian state had sought to bankrupt Yukos, appropriate its assets and prevent its owner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, from entering politics.
Perry capital wants to have all the discovery documents from Fairholm