12 U.S. Code § 4617(a)(3)(A)-(L) as it Relates to the Regulated Entities.
Question:
On September 7, 2008, did the Regulated Entities meet the grounds for discretionary appointment of conservator or receiver?
♦BlackRock August 25, 2008 Feddie Mac Confidential Capital Review
♦October 2008 PWC Freddie Memo
♦October 2008 FHFA Presentation
♦September 2008 PWC Freddie Memo
♦ November 2008 FHFA Presentation
♦ October 2008 Grant Thornton Notes
♦ August 2008 Draft Treasury Summary
♦A Pattern of Deception – J Timothy Howard
HERA Statute as Written:
12 U.S. Code § 4617(a)(3)(A)-(L) Grounds for discretionary appointment of conservator or receiver
The grounds for appointing conservator or receiver for any regulated entity under paragraph (2) are as follows:
(A) Assets insufficient for obligations
The assets of the regulated entity are less than the obligations of the regulated entity to its creditors and others.
(B) Substantial dissipation
Substantial dissipation of assets or earnings due to—
(i) any violation of any provision of Federal or State law; or
(ii) any unsafe or unsound practice.
(C) Unsafe or unsound condition
An unsafe or unsound condition to transact business.
(D) Cease and desist orders
Any willful violation of a cease and desist order that has become final.
(E) Concealment
Any concealment of the books, papers, records, or assets of the regulated entity, or any refusal to submit the books, papers, records, or affairs of the regulated entity, for inspection to any examiner or to any lawful agent of the Director.
(F) Inability to meet obligations
The regulated entity is likely to be unable to pay its obligations or meet the demands of its creditors in the normal course of business.
(G) Losses
The regulated entity has incurred or is likely to incur losses that will deplete all or substantially all of its capital, and there is no reasonable prospect for the regulated entity to become adequately capitalized (as defined in section 4614 (a)(1) of this title).
(H) Violations of law
Any violation of any law or regulation, or any unsafe or unsound practice or condition that is likely to—
(i) cause insolvency or substantial dissipation of assets or earnings; or
(ii) weaken the condition of the regulated entity.
(I) Consent
The regulated entity, by resolution of its board of directors or its shareholders or members, consents to the appointment.
(J) Undercapitalization
The regulated entity is undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized (as defined in section 4614 (a)(3) of this title), and—
(i) has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized;
(ii) fails to become adequately capitalized, as required by—
(I) section 4615 (a)(1) of this title with respect to a regulated entity; or
(II) section 4616 (a)(1) of this title with respect to a significantly undercapitalized regulated entity;
(iii) fails to submit a capital restoration plan acceptable to the Agency within the time prescribed under section 4622 of this title; or
(iv) materially fails to implement a capital restoration plan submitted and accepted under section 4622 of this title.
(K) Critical undercapitalization
The regulated entity is critically undercapitalized, as defined in section 4614 (a)(4)of this title.
(L) Money laundering
The Attorney General notifies the Director in writing that the regulated entity has been found guilty of a criminal offense under section 1956 or 1957 of title 18 or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31.
Summarized Key Points of HERA
In total, HERA provided for 12 circumstances (summarized points) in which FHFA could place the Regulated Entities into Conservatorship or Receivership:
- If a Company’s assets were insufficient to meet its obligation;
- If a Company’s assets or earnings were substantially dissipated due to unlawful conduct or unsafe or unsound practices;
- If a Company was in an unsafe or unsound condition to transact business;
- If a Company willfully violated a cease and desist order;
- If a Company concealed books and records from the FHFA Director;
- If a Company became unlikely to be able to pay its obligations or meet the demands of its creditors in the normal course of business;
- If a Company incurred, or became likely to incur, losses that would deplete substantially all of its capital with no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized;
- If a Company violated the law;
- If a Company’s board of directors or shareholders passed a resolution consenting to a conservatorship or receivership;
- If a Company became undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized, as defined by the governing statute, and could not or would not take corrective measures;
- If a Company became critically undercapitalized, as defined by the governing statue; or
- If a Company engaged in money laundering.
These are the arguments against the Discretionary Appointment of Conservatorship or Receivership. In my opinion, the burden of proof of placing GSEs under conservatorship should be upon the FHFA as Regulator.
(A) Assets insufficient for obligations
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. As of June 30, 2008, the date of most recently reported financial results for the last quarter immediately preceding Fannie Mae’s conservatorship, which were not filed with the SEC until August 8, 2008, Fannie Mae had assets of $885.9 billion and liabilities of $844.5. Thus, Fannie Mae assets exceeded its liabilities by more than $41 billion just shortly before the conservatorship was imposed. In fact, Fannie Mae’s assets had exceeded its liabilities by approximately $40 billion for each of the past three calendar years. Thus, no factual basis existed for asserting that the Regulated Entities’ assets were less than their obligations and; therefore, the statutory ground set forth in section 4617(a)(3)(A) was not satisfied.
(B) Substantial dissipation
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. From December 31, 2005, to June 30, 2008 Fannie Mae’s assets grew from $834.1 billion to $896.6 billion. Thus, company assets were increasing. Fannie Mae earnings had no substantial dissipation; although, Fannie Mae’s earnings decreased from 2005 to 2007, they increased in the first half of 2008 over earnings in the second half of 2007. Furthermore, Fannie Mae’s decline in earnings in 2007 was not attributable to either a violation of law or to any unsafe and unsound practice; but rather, the decline was largely attributable to the following:
>A narrowing of the interest spread earned by Fannie Mae resulting from higher borrowing costs during a period of turmoil in the financial markets;
>The need to increase reserves to offset expected future credit losses stemming from the general decline in the housing market which was negatively impacting all financial firms at the time; and
>Discrete one-time losses on derivatives contracts with corresponding offsetting gains that were not simultaneously recognized.
None of these circumstances reflected either a violation of law or an unsafe and unsound practice on the part of Fannie Mae. Furthermore, there has never been any allegation that the Companies engaged in a violation of any law resulting in the substantial dissipation of assets or earnings. On September 7, 2008, public announcement of the conservator, Director Lockhart strongly emphasized that the management and directors of the Companies had done nothing wrong, noting that any difficulties they were facing were the result of extenuating circumstances. On the same day, Secretary Paulson emphasized that; “I attribute the need for today’s action primarily to the inherent conflict and flawed business model embedded in the GSE structure, and to the ongoing housing correction. Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s management and their Boards are responsible for neither.”
(C) Unsafe or unsound condition
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. Neither GSEs were engaged in any unsafe or unsound practice or was in danger of incurring losses that would caused their capital to fall below regulatory capital requirements. Moreover, the GSEs had capital substantially in excess of their regulatory capital requirements. Accordingly, the GSEs were not operating in an unsafe or unsound condition. The GSEs were subject to capital requirements contained in HERA, which, by definition, were engineered to ensure that the GSEs remained in a safe and sound condition. To that end, HERA specifically provides that the risk-based capital requirement shall “ensure that the enterprises operate in a safe and sound manner, maintaining sufficient capital and reserves to support the risks that arise in the operations and management of each enterprise.” To be clear, both of the Regulated Entities substantially exceeded the applicable risk-based requirements, and this has always been the case. Thus, by definition, the Entities were in a safe and sound condition.
“Stress test”, commonly referred to as the “100-year storm” test, required that the GSEs total capital was sufficient to withstand a 1-year period of extreme economic instability and adverse market conditions.
As of June 30, 2008, Fannie Mae’s core capital exceeded both the FHFA-directed and statutory minimum capital requirement and its total capital exceeded its minimum capital requirement by $14.3 billion, or 43.9%, and its total capital exceeded its statutory risk-based capital requirement by $19.3 billion, or 53%. Regulated Entities would have passed any reasonable risk-based capital stress test that could have been applied at that time. Therefore, GSEs were not operating in an unsafe or unsound condition and, therefore, the statutory ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(D) Cease and desist orders
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. Neither GSEs were in violation of a cease and desist order. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(E) Concealment
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. Neither GSEs at any time concealed their books, papers, records, or assets, or any refusal to submit the books, papers, or records for inspection to any examiner or to any lawful agent of the Director. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(F) Inability to meet obligations
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. The regulated entities were likely to be able to pay its obligations or meet the demands of its creditors in the normal course of business. As of June 30, 2008, Fannie Mae had $344.8 billion of short-term assets, comprised chiefly of cash, cash equivalents, and investments in publicly traded securities. This far exceeded the company’s $247 billion in short-term liabilities. Fannie Mae’s holdings of investment securities were carried on the company’s balance sheet on a fair value basis, and thus represent a market valuation for those assets. Both GSEs had sufficient assets to meet their obligations and any demands of their creditors in the normal course of business. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(G) Losses
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. During the period leading up to the imposition of the conservatorship, neither regulated entities had incurred losses that substantially depleted their capital let alone all of their capital. From December 31, 2007, to June 30, 2008 Fannie Mae’s total capital increased from $48.7 billion to $55.6 billion, and its core capital increased from $45.4 billion to $47 billion. Thus, Fannie Mae capital had not been depleted. Losses were primarily reflected the Entities’ recording of substantial reserves for potential future credit losses. These losses are not actually realized until future periods (if they are ever realized at all), and they can be offset by correlating deferred tax assets that have a reasonable expectation of being realized in the future (based partly on a lengthy history of largely positive financial performance), Thus, they are added back into the calculation of total capital and do not actually impact total capital. Moreover, Fannie Mae had access to substantial capital in the public equity markets. In December 2007, Fannie Mae raised approximately $7 billion through an issuance of Series S preferred stock; in May 2008, Fannie Mae raised almost $2.1 billion by issuing Series 2008-I preferred stock; and also raised an additional $2.25 billion by issuing Series T preferred. At around the same time, Fannie Mae also raised $2.59 billion by issuing 94.3 million shares of common stock at a price of $27.5 per share. The original 82 million shares offering was oversubscribed by 12.3 million shares. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(H) Violations of law
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. Neither Companies violated any law or regulation, or any unsafe or unsound practice or condition that is likely to—
(i) Cause insolvency or substantial dissipation of assets or earnings; or
(ii) Weakening of their condition.
Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(I) Consent
The Regulated entities did not by resolution of its board of directors or its shareholders or members voluntarily consents to the appointment of conservator. Any consent purportedly obtained by the Companies’ board of directors was coerced and/or otherwise improperly obtained, rendering any such consent invalid. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(J) Undercapitalization
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. At all relevant times prior to and including the time the FHFA was appointed as conservator, the Companies were “adequately capitalized.” To qualify as “adequately capitalized,” a company is required to have:
(a) “Total Capital” (as defined at 12 C.F.R. § 1750.11(n)) equal to or in excess of its “Risk-Based Capital” (as defined at 12 U.S.C. § 4611 (a)(1)); and
(b) “Core Capital” (as defined at 12 C.F.R. § 1750.2) equal to or in excess of its “Minimum Capital” (as defined at 12 C.F.R. § 1750.4).
At the time the conservatorships were imposed, not only were the Companies adequately capitalized with both of these requirements, and each company’s capital was substantially in excess of its capital requirements. Moreover, each company’s ability to raise capital from the public equity and private capital markets was more than sufficient to allow it to absorb any potential future losses, particularly if the Companies had been allowed to offer terms to potential investors as favorable as those demanded by the Government in exchange for the extremely costly capital it provided upon taking control of the Companies. And the Companies always had more than sufficient assets and capital to satisfy all obligations to their creditors. See 10K filing. Because both Companies were more than adequately capitalized, as defined under law, they were not undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized. Therefore, the FHFA Director lacked any justification or legal authority to appoint a conservator for the Companies.
In addition to the statutory capitalization requirements, Fannie Mae was, during parts of 2007 and 2008, subject to a consent order from OFHEO under which it was required to keep core capital at a level 30% higher than the minimum capital requirement. This 30% requirement was lowered to 20% for the first quarter of 2008, and lowered again to 15% for the second quarter of 2008 in accordance with the provisions of the consent order. Fannie Mae had sufficient surplus capital such that it was always in compliance with this additional capitalization requirement. As a note, in the months leading up to the decision to appoint the FHFA as conservator for the GSEs, Companies’ regulators repeatedly emphasized that the Companies were adequately capitalized.
Moreover, even if one of the Companies was undercapitalized, Director Lockhart would have been required to provide the undercapitalized company an opportunity to submit and comply with a capital restoration plan, and to demonstrate that it could have raised private capital if and as needed. Specifically, under 12 U.S.C § 4615(a) (entitled “Mandatory actions”), as amended by HERA, “the Director of the FHFA shall” impose on an undercapitalized Regulated Entity a capital restoration plan. Had such a plan been required of either company, both GSEs would have been capable of meeting such a requirement and, further, would have been able to raise additional capital from the private markets if and as needed. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(K) Critical undercapitalization
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. As alleged above, at all relevant times, both GSEs had total capital and core capital in excess of all applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, at all relevant times, neither GSEs were critically undercapitalized. As such, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
(L) Money laundering
Neither of the Companies fell within the purview of this subsection at the time they were placed in Conservatorship. Neither GSEs were ever been found guilty of a criminal offense under section 1956 or 1957 of title 18 or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31. Therefore, the ground for appointing a conservator set forth in this subsection was not satisfied.
Michael Kimelman: How Obama committed “biggest theft in history”
anon said:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-obama-is-funding-the-anti-trump-resistance/amp/
How Obama is funding the anti-Trump resistance
By Paul Sperry
September 23, 2017 | 11:27am
———————————————————————————–
After experiencing fraudulent FHFA Conservatorship for 8 years under Obama, and his well known tactics of bypassing rule of law and Congress, the daunting question is, Who is real Obama?
Definitely Obama was not a modern day “Robin Hood” while in office.
Under 8 years of Obama, 1% became filthy rich while common people lost their jobs, income, employer health insurance, home and forced to depend on Gov welfare.
Is it legal to fund advocacy groups with restitution funds meant for private shareholder companies? Banks paid fines and penalties because they victimized FnF private shareholder companies and public with misrepresentation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/politico-pro-q-a-freddie-mac-ceo-don-layton-243022
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Freddie Mac CEO Don Layton
By LORRAINE WOELLERT 09/22/2017 12:10 PM EDT
—————————————————
This is how Q&A are done in China.
The main problem is, Conservatorship is run without any public accountability and with total disregard for rule of law.
FnF BOD/CEO can not speak freely.
LikeLike
anon said:
Defendants essentially said, a police can use a gun, if he shot wrong person, no judicial review.
LikeLike
Scott S said:
The Swamp is Deep!
LikeLike
anon said:
https://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/41324-equifax-wells-fargo-fiascos-prove-housing-needs-immediate-reform
Equifax, Wells Fargo fiascos prove housing needs immediate reform
Dear Congress, the time is now
September 18, 2017 Jacob Gaffney 2 Comments
——————————————————
Comment:
Housing needs immediate reform?
It means different things to different stakeholders.
After nine years why Congress has not done anything?
If there is anything viable and better, who has prevented or preventing Congress from doing Housing reform?
Can, those who are urging Congress to reform Housing, answer these questions?
LikeLike
anon said:
comment2:
For FnF investors (Jr prefd. shareholders , common shareholders , MBS and debt holders), GSE reform means
1. Ending illegal NWS retroavtively
2. Ending fake FHFA conservatorship
3. Modifying SPSPA retroactively to conform to fair lending/rescue practices
4. Compensating harmed FnF investors
5. Reviewing all unlawful FHFA conservatorship practices and disciplining violators
6. Returning FnF to the management control of private shareholders
7. Abolishing mischievous independent status of FHFA and letting HUD directly control FHFA
8. Banks controlled Tsy/Fed should never be allowed to interfere in housing matters
9. Never allowing any bureaucrats to abuse private shareholder companies
Recent Republican National Committee resolution provides a fair and balanced reform principles, even though some may not agree Gov profiting from self dealing FnF conservatorship agreements.
RESOLUTION ON PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY RESTORING SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS TO GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
by Republican National Committee Counsel’s Office
“https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/Resolution+on+Protecting+Taxpayers+by+Restoring+Safety+and+Soundness+to+Government-Sponsored++Enterprises.pdf”
LikeLike
anon said:
Conservatorship is in its 10th year and has created precarious ripe conditions for another massive crisis. Wall Street traders have built large short positions and are waiting for another crisis.
So far only thing FHFA conservators and previous WH/Tsy/Fed bureaucrats have done, is to rob FnF of all its capital and bankrupt them. Lawmakers have done nothing but insist on continuation of FHFA conservatorship so that Congress can one day in distant future pass housing reforms.
It is time for HUD-Sy Ben Carson to take active role in ending conservatorship. BTW OFHEO predecessor to FHFA was an agency under HUD.
It is important for GOP, Congress and DJT administration to either pass housing reforms or resolve NWS and Conservatorship. Other option would be to wait for another massive crisis.
The best option for Congress is to try housing reforms administratively in small steps without creating big risks.
LikeLike
anon said:
“Six Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee want to allow government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to rebuild their capital reserves, however, the senators believe the GSEs should remain in conservatorship until housing finance reforms are made. ”
“At an event yesterday, Mnuchin said “we expect our dividends to be paid,” which indicates the GSEs’ capital sweep will continue and they will not begin rebuilding their capital buffers anytime soon. ”
———————
It is more than 9 years that nothing has come out Congress to resolve Conservatorship and also there are no agreed upon alternative business models. It is repugnant to keep private shareholder companies enslaved indefinitely in absence of any new ideas to resolve Conservatorship, .
Can these lawmakers explain who has prevented or preventing them from passing laws to reform housing finance? Or how continued conservatorship will help them to pass laws to reform housing finance?
Democrats had 8 years under Obama administration to reform housing finance. But Dems chose to rob private shareholder companies to pay for their favorite wasteful and unproductive welfare programs.
Surprisingly no one understands Mnuchin’s stand to expect FnF to keep on paying dividends even after meeting all their obligations under original SPSPA.
FHFA Conservator is screaming for help to stop impending train wreck and Mnuchin seem to be saying that he does not care. May be it will help wallstreet trader who have deep short positions expecting market crisis, like the way Hank helped them with 2008 crisis.
It is time to end Tsy direct control over FHFA conservator because FnF have almost paid back all their obligations. HERA prohibits any outside agency influence over FHFA conservator. Lawmakers should direct Tsy to stop influencing FHFA and also direct FHFA Conservator to end conservatorship.
LikeLike
anon said:
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/41311-treasury-secretary-mnuchin-fannie-freddie-reform-is-a-2018-issue
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin: Fannie, Freddie reform is a 2018 issue Tax reform to come first
September 15, 2017 Kelsey Ramírez
——————————————————————
Comments:
After 9 years, FHFA Conservatorship is no longer about financial management of FnF or providing liquidity to illiquid banks. During last 9 years, FHFA has used FnF, private shareholder companies for public policies purposes at the cost of private FnF shareholders, to protect MBS holders, banks, and mortgage owners.
Currently FnF have almost paid back their obligations to Tsy as per original SPSPA. But under predatory NWS, FnF still owe all the money forced on them. Since 2012, FnF have reported that they will remain profitable for foreseeable future and do not need any assistance from Tsy..
Now it is long past due to focus on normalizing the role of FnF in housing market. After FnF have paid back their obligations to Tsy as per original SPSPA, Tsy should relinquish its control over FHFA conservator and let FHFA conservator do its job as per the mandates of HERA. Under HERA, Tsy does not have any role in managing or reforming FnF.
It is time, HUD starts taking lead role in working with FHFA and focus FnF core mission.
Tsy and Fed should focus on banks and other financial institutions and make sure that another crisis like 2008 does not happen.
LikeLike
anon said:
Republican National Committee Counsel’s Office
RESOLUTION ON PROTECTING TAXPAYERS BY RESTORING SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS TO GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
“https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/Resolution+on+Protecting+Taxpayers+by+Restoring+Safety+and+Soundness+to+Government-Sponsored++Enterprises.pdf”
THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, The Republican National Committee recognizes the longstanding economic benefits of a robust housing sector as well as the importance of promoting responsible homeownership and preserving the 30-year fixed rate mortgage;
RESOLVED, The Republican National Committee recognizes that no financial institution in the United States can safely operate without adequate capital, and that taxpayers will not be sufficiently protected until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are permitted to rebuild equity capital;
RESOLVED, The Republican National Committee recognizes that the United States Treasury has recouped all of the money that it invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie during the 2008 financial crisis, plus over $80 billion in profits to date, and that the Treasury can generate an estimated $100 billion in additional cash profits by monetizing its warrants for 79.9% of each company’s common stock;
RESOLVED, The Republican National Committee recognizes the sanctity of property rights in America, and acknowledges the need to resolve the outstanding claims of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders in a manner that honors and respects the rule of law governing the rights of corporate stockowners;
RESOLVED, The Republican National Committee calls upon our President, Members of Congress, and Governors to protect taxpayers from future bailouts by supporting administrative action that restores safety and soundness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
—————————————————————–
All should read. Unbelievable that FnF are still under conservatorship after this RESOLUTION by Republican National Committee.
LikeLike
gordonzman said:
When was this drawn up?
LikeLike
anonymous said:
It is real. #8 bulletpoint
https://www.gop.com/rules-and-resolutions/
LikeLike
anon said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-fannie-freddie-friends/
TIPPING THE SCALES: PART I
‘Friends of the Court’ Have Hidden Ties to Big Investors
By Zachary R. Mider September 12, 2017
(Sneaky disclosure, hidden at the end of the article)
Reporting assistance: Joe Light
Design and Development: Hannah Recht
——————————————————————————-
Joe Light should have also disclosed about who are sponsoring or paying for this article or how he earns his money.
Joe Light and John Carney consistently write articles disparaging FnF, FnF shareholders and also supporters. These articles generally lack journalistic standards.
Joe Light lacks any credibility to cast doubts about others.
LikeLike
anon said:
Joe Light of Bloomberg conveniently fails to address the substance of the FnF
shareholders main arguments but focuses on motives of others.
Stinking Joe Light thinks only fake media have the right to shape public opinion and nobody else. By thinking so, Joe Light shows how disingenuous he is .
LikeLike
anon said:
Friends of the Court’ Have Hidden Ties to Big Investors
By Zachary R. Mider
@zachmider
The GSE bailout was, at best, a firefighter stealing jewelry in the house. Or worse, the fire was totally fake, set up by the same firefighter.
How sad that shareholders need to try everything possible to get their money back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/41263-mba-ceo-on-the-9-year-anniversary-of-gse-conservatorship
MBA CEO on the 9-year anniversary of GSE conservatorship
“GSE reform is of the utmost priority”
September 8, 2017 Brena Swanson
————————————————————————-
Reader Comment:
At this late stage in the game one important question remains unanswered.
If MBA reform plans were so good, why did not Obama administration and Congress accept and implement the MBA reform plans?
David Stevens worked in Obama administration and was very well connected with all the Gov and Private people . There was a time when FnF were reporting Conservatorship imposed massive paper losses, public did not know much about conservatorship plots to destroy private shareholder companies, there was no public accountability, there were no shareholder lawsuits and FnF still owed massive $187.5B to tsy with no hope of paying back.
Now these things have changed and there is no way MBA can use “private gains and public losses” slogan to to get support from Administration or congress. Numerous Shareholder lawsuits will ultimately overwhelm contradictory and shaky conservatorship. Also there is great risk of another market crisis if investor lose trust in FHFA conservatorship.
At this stage it is better for MBA to stop lobbying with with it unproven risky plans. This will be good for MBA members and for all.
LikeLike
anon said:
IMF:
One thing Treasury is supposedly looking at is how much capital it takes to be a guarantor of conventional MBS. One figure that’s been thrown around is $200 billion…
++++++
200B/5T = 4% ?
Too high for borrowers, who would have to pay twice interest as they should.
1.5% is sufficient.
LikeLike
anon said:
If ones goes by original SPSPA without NWS, then FnF will have no problem with $200B capital reserves.
FnF have already built capital of more than $187.5B with NWS reversed retroactively.
LikeLike
anon said:
ICBA Reflects on Anniversary of GSE Conservatorship, Sep 06, 2017
http://www.icba.org/news/press-releases/2017/09/06/icba-reflects-on-anniversary-of-gse-conservatorship
“After being put into conservatorship—an action that has since been proven to be questionable at best—GSE losses came in far less compared to that of the too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks.”
– (ICBA) President and CEO Camden R. Fine
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
HINDESightTM September 6, 2017
We were all snookered.
“THE CASE OF THE CONCRETE LIFE PRESERVER”
Henry Paulson turns a smoldering fire into a worldwide conflagration.
Click to access The_Case_of_the_Concrete_Life_Preserver.pdf
————————————-
After reading the article, one will be left wondering, why Hank, Ben and Tim who planned and fathered the 2008 crisis were not investigated and not prosecuted as traitors.
————————————————————————————————
“Let the people know the facts . . . and the country will be safe.” – A. Lincoln
LikeLike
anon said:
Hank was singularly focused on destroying the adversaries and settling the old scores, 2008 crisis was a price that he made the US and the whole world pay for it.
The biggest beneficiaries were the ones who made massive short bets against American companies and the economy. The biggest losers were American workers and retirees who lost their jobs, incomes, houses, health care, life time savings.
Aptly Hank should be named as the father of 2008 crisis.
LikeLike
Tony Edwards said:
Copied from my TD Ameritrade Account in both Fannie and Freddie’s respective news feeds. It seems laughably disingenuous to me, in the face of the evidence being involuntarily surrendered by the Gov’t in the Fairholme case.
MCLEAN, VA–(Marketwired – Sep 5, 2017) – Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today announced that it is making available pricing and deal terms for all Agency Credit Insurance Structure (ACIS®) and Whole Loan Securities (WLS(SM)) transactions to date. Both are important offerings in its Credit Risk Transfer (CRT) program. This builds on similar disclosures for Freddie Mac’s flagship Structured Agency Credit Risk (STACR®) program. Pricing disclosures for STACR, ACIS and WLS can be accessed on FreddieMac.com.
“Transparency is a significant issue for investors, and today Freddie Mac took another big step in enhancing it for ACIS and WLS transactions,” said Kevin Palmer, SVP of single-family portfolio management. “Credit risk transfer is one of the most transparent programs in the market, and we’ll continue to look for ways to enhance it.”
LikeLike
anon said:
Hypocrisy of Obama
—————————————————-
Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/politics/obama-trump-letter-inauguration-day/index.html
“Third, we are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions — like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties — that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it’s up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them.”
——————————————–
One can clearly see pure hypocrisy of Obama in the letter to Trump when it comes to FnF and FnF shareholders are concerned.
During Obama administration all these principals were ignored or violated to benefit of cronies and MBS holders at the cost of private FnF and FnF shareholders.
How did Obama adminsitration guard the
– democratic institutions like FnF
– traditions like conservatorship, fidiciary duties, public accountability, openness,
transparency, fairness, timely justice and compensation
– respecting property rights of FnF private shareholders
– Rights of the people to petition Gov and Courts
– Equal protection FnF shareholders same as FnF MBS holders
– Gag order on FnF and access to FnF books
Obama adminsitration scores worst when it comes to FnF matters.
LikeLike
anon said:
When will Congress end the tyranny of the independent Gov agencies?
When will HUD take direct control of FHFA and start facilitating affordable housing?
FHFA should be focusing mostly on affordable housing and less on bailing out banks.
LikeLike
anon said:
Banks already have tsy, fed/frb, FDIC, bureaucrats at their service to bail them out when ever they need. Are not these many enough?
FHFA and FnF must be working for common people and not for banks..
LikeLike
anon said:
May be it is a very good idea if Tsy starts directly controlling GNMA and FHLB.
Then Tsy can wind down GNMA and FHLB, and give their business to TBTF banks.
LikeLike
anon said:
Freddie Mac to Suspend All Evictions and Foreclosures in Hurricane Harvey Major Disaster Areas
9:02 am ET August 29, 2017 (Market Wire)
Freddie Mac will also ensure borrowers won’t be charged property inspection costs
———————————————–
Does any one know how MBS, MBA members, anti-FnF organizations are helping the home owners in Hurricane Harvey affected areas?
When it comes to bailing out bankrupt and frozen financial system Gov needs FnF. When it comes to disaster reliefs for home owners Gov needs FnF.
How about banks and financial institutions helping home owners in Hurricane Harvey affected areas?
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA’s regulatory job is not to abuse private FnF for charity show or as substitutes for Gov responsibility. It should be humanitarian in the short term and purely business decision on long term basis.
As a matter of good will,
Can FHFA and Tsy stop charging FnF usury 10% interest rates retroactively?
Can FHFA and Tsy reverse NWS and adjust $276B against principal and reduced interest rates or no interest?
LikeLike
anon said:
If some of these mortgage loans have been de-risked through GSE CRTS, how will this affect the GSE CRTS holders?
Will GSE CRTS holders take it kindly and incur losses?
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
The biggest sins of Mel Watt, FHFA director/conservator are in FHFA court filings.
Mel Watt as FHFA Director argues that, FHFA Conservator can violate any US laws and in addition other Gov agencies (or any one) can also violate US laws with no consequences by just working with FHFA conservator.
This violates oath office for both FHFA and other Gov agencies Heads.
Surely it should also apply to DOJ attorneys and Judges.
DJT can fire any official who has expressed this opinion.
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA Director should have made sure that other Gov agencies are in compliance with US laws, before entering in to any contractual agreements.
Here FHFA Director has not only violated US laws but also knowingly allowed other to violate US laws.
LikeLike
thombiz said:
For the record, there is no law that requires the US Government to comply with laws it passes, according to my research.
LikeLike
anon said:
thombiz,
Yes, It is the de facto reality. It also becomes de jure when laws specifically exempt bureaucrats from any public accountability, openness, transparency, and judicial reviews all in the name of “protecting taxpayers”. With the same bureaucrats becoming judges, judiciary has become a robotic extension of lawless bureaucracy.
Main Stream media must be screaming about this very minute. But the infiltrated agents of establishment in MSM are totally engrossed in enforcing political correctness.
W-DC Political establishment has been losing the trust of the people. But the system has been rigged to perpetuate the rule of the Political establishment and people can not do anything about it..
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA conservator, knowingly allowing counter parties to enter in to contractual agreements in violation of US laws, has harmed the interests of Conservatees and violated fiduciary duties to Conservatees.
LikeLike
Scott S. said:
I love watching my new Headquarters being built, it’s only a matter of time when the Government will reach the point of realizing they had bad actors in key areas of leadership. Congress is debating the outcome now behind the scenes. We shareholders who have been the victim of fraud will be made whole!
https://app.oxblue.com/open/carr/midtowncenter
LikeLike
anon said:
“Debt-limit Crisis Looms” – CNBC 8/24/2017
There is easy and proven solution “FHFA Conservatorship Model”, in search of a problem that does not exist.
1. No rule of law, No bill of rights, No judicial review, No documents to show, No public accountability.
2. Pick a cash rich company, Start fake media propaganda, Initiate Conservatorship, Fudge the accounts, impose SPSPA, NWS and Wind down.
There are so many private Companies that have grown so big and so cash rich – very examples of private gains and public losses posing very serious risks to taxpayers. Every time there is a crisis use “HERA Conservatorship Model” on such companies to solve any problems that do not exist.
The companies should be chosen based on the amount of lobbying efforts these companies have to made to keep FnF under conservatorship and insist on NWS to keep the urgency pressure on Congress.
LikeLike
Andrew Woody said:
Does Treasury have the capacity to to give GSEs money in the event the debt limit is reached and if not what is the sweep paying for? Is there a commitment if the money is not set aside for only the GSEs, as would certainly be required of any non govt entity taking on the role the Treasury has?
LikeLike
anon said:
Probably debt limit is on spending and not for investment.
Feds will create money with a push of a button.
LikeLike
anonl said:
Interesting articles about lawless legacy of Obama.
————————————————————————-
Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President
By Ilya Shapiro JULY 6, 2016
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/
Excerpts:
—————
Obama Thinks He Deserves to Rule Unchecked
The government’s arguments across this wide variety of cases would essentially allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants without meaningful constitutional restraint. This position conflicts with another unanimous decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant’s right to challenge her federal prosecution. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.”
No, this is a situation where, as noted Supreme Court advocate Miguel Estrada put it a few years ago when asked to opine on the administration’s poor record: “When you have a crazy client who makes you take crazy positions, you’re gonna lose some cases.”
LikeLike
anonl said:
How is that these cases go all the way to SCOTUS on questions of basic Citizen rights?
Why one needs lower courts if these lower courts can not make rights decisions?
Is it not because of this, the bureaucrats keep on violating Citizens rights with impunity?
It is time to make sure that bureaucrats are well educated in protecting Citizens rights?
LikeLike
Anon said:
In Sackett v. EPA (2012), the government denied property owners the right to contest an order to stop building their house. The court ruled that access to courts is the least the government can provide in response to “the strong-arming of regulated parties.”
While the conventional wisdom about Arizona v. United States (2012) is that the high court smacked down a perniciously anti-immigrant state, Arizona actually won unanimously on its most controversial “show me your papers” provision. Not one justice accepted the theory that mere enforcement priorities trump state laws.
LikeLike
Anon said:
In Sackett v. EPA (2012), the government denied property owners the right to contest an order to stop building their house. The court ruled that access to courts is the l e a s t the government can provide in response to “the strong-arming of regulated parties.”
While the conventional wisdom about Arizona v. United States (2012) is that the high court smacked down a perniciously anti-immigrant state, Arizona actually won unanimously on its most controversial “show me your papers” provision. Not one justice accepted the theory that mere enforcement priorities trump state laws.
LikeLike
anon said:
It is highly deplorable that MBA lobbyists have blatantly chosen to mislead and misrepresent public with their barefaced lies.
Here is another propaganda news full of lies from MBA lobbyists:-
——————————————————————-
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mba-plan-would-provide-hoosiers-with-more-affordable-housing-options-300507806.html
MBA Plan Would Provide Hoosiers with More Affordable Housing Options
Families with children, senior citizens, disabled adults, and veterans among those struggling to afford housing
NEWS PROVIDED BY Mortgage Bankers Association ”
“Nearly a decade has passed since the 2008 financial crash, and we are still feeling the repercussions,” said Alan Thorup, Executive Director of the Indiana Mortgage Bankers Association. “The government continues to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship, discouraging capital and competition, which is devastating the affordable housing market in Indiana and across the country.”
“As the current housing finance system stands, the affordable housing crisis is bound to get worse,” said Thorup. “Only a legislative solution will provide the housing market with long term, sustainable reform.”
————————————————————————
MBA lobbyists have tried for decades to destroy affordable Gov housing policies. Because of MBA lobbyists and their proxies in Gov, FnF have been under fake conservatorship for more 9 years. MBA lobbyists and their proxies in Gov have bankrupted FnF through NWS. MBA lobbyists have continued to lobby for continued conservatorship and NWS, putting economy on a path to another massive crisis.
It is long over due that Congress, Administration and FHFA conservator recognize the lies and real motives of MBS lobbyists and stop listening to MBS lobbyists.
FHFA conservator need to recognize that in the end, all including even FnF haters will start blaming FHFA conservator for continued conservatorship and all the harm it is inflicting on the economy and affordable housing.
LikeLike
anonl said:
Here is another propaganda news full of lies from MBA lobbyists:-
MBA Housing Finance Reform Plan Would Address MA Affordable Housing Crisis
Households across Massachusetts spending significant portion of paycheck on housing
NEWS PROVIDED BY
Mortgage Bankers Association
Aug 22, 2017, 12:05 ET
————————————————
Nobody complained about affordable mortgage loans until Tsy/Fed under the lobbying efforts of MBA lobbyists, forced FHFA to seize and put FnF under conservatoship.
What MBA lobbyists do not tell is that it is MBA lobbyists who are lobbying hard to prevent FHFA from releasing from conservatorship, even though FnF have fully paid back (almost), all the forced bailout money along with 10% interest.
With NWS reversed and Conervatorship terminated, FnF do not need any help from Gov in foreseeable future.
Congress has not acted on ever changing MBA plans for more than 9 years, because there are no safe alternatives to FnF business models.
LikeLike
anon said:
MSM (mainly CNN) refer to Sen Corker as most respected lawmaker amongst GOP lawmakers to add weight to Sen Corker’s criticism of DJT.
Who is rotten? GOP lawmakers or CNN
LikeLike
anon said:
https://economics21.org/html/treasury-should-not-bail-out-fannie’s-and-freddie’s-subordinated-debt-2521.html
Treasury Should Not Bail Out Fannie’s and Freddie’s Subordinated Debt
Alex J. Pollock
AUGUST 20, 2017 REGULATION FINANCE
————————————————————————-
Once again lobbyists are at it again with false narratives.
Lobbyists needs to be truthful with facts, if they do not want to discredit the cause for which they are lobbying for.
In 2008 FnF were fully compliant with FHFA capital requirements and did not ask for Gov help. In fact it is Hank and Ben who created the problem by denying pre-approved Gov credit lines to FnF, made it difficult to raise capital with leaks to traders, and pressuring FHFA director to seize and impose conservatorship on FnF. FHFA Director in official statements made it clear, the reasons for conservatorship. It was to provide liquidity to mainly illiquid banks.
Lobbyists and MSM have made persistent efforts to spread the lies and false narratives with conniving journalists.
FHFA is fully responsible of FnF conservatorship without any outside influence. During Obama administration laws were ignored and rights of investors were violated.
FnF have fulfilled all their obligations and paid back. so there are no reasons for Tsy to interfere in managing FnF conservatorship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
http://ww2.cfo.com/auditing/2017/08/kpmg-settles-charges-improper-energy-audit/
KPMG Settles Charges of Improper Energy Audit
The firm’s client, Miller Energy Resources, inflated $5 million in oil and gas assets to nearly $500 million, according to the SEC.
“Auditing firms must fully comprehend the industries of their clients. KPMG retained a new client and failed to grasp how it valued oil and gas properties,” Walter E. Jospin, director of the SEC’s Atlanta regional office, said in a press release issued on Tuesday that announced the settlement.
——————————————————————-
When is SEC going hold auditors of FnF responsible for Conservatorship accounting frauds that resulted in 100s of billions being siphoned off of FnF ?
LikeLike
Scott S. said:
Still here waiting Bob!
LikeLike
anona said:
How does it matter what DJT says on social issues, if the job of the CEOs on economic councils is to help administration to formulate good economic policies?
It is about serving the nation and not DJT.
The same CEOs supported Obama adminsitration when FnF and FnF shareholders were abused and their rights were violated and 100s of billions of dollars were stolen from FnF.
Now the same CEOs are offended by DJT comments, forgetting that all have rights to express their views and debate.
These CEOs simply want to
1. outsource all manufacturing and service jobs,
2. import everything cheap without any taxes,
3. hire cheap foreign workers to exploit both foreign and US workers,
4. pay as little taxes as possible,
5. park all the profits outside country,
6. use all profits to buy back their own company shares instead of investing in future,
7. cut down all regulations and labor laws,
8. be large monopolies with no competition
9. pay themselves hugh salaries and bonuses
10. Want free trade as long it makes money for them.
Obviously the CEOs are not happy with DJT policies of America First and bringing back the manufacturing and jobs to US.
DJT should not be depending on these Globalists, traitorous fat cats.
DJT should do what is right even when it is not politically correct.
LikeLiked by 2 people
anon said:
If you ask these CEOs to whom they owe their allegiance, they would say without any hesitation that they owe their allegiance to shareholders (that is major shareholders whether controlling shareholders or not).
If these major shareholders are foreigners, then CEOs basically owe their allegiance to foreign shareholders. It is doubtful such CEOs will add any value to building the nation.
LikeLike
anon said:
https://www.americanactionforum.org/daily-dish/no-need-gse-reform/
The Daily Dish August 15, 2017
No Need For GSE Reform?
Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Eakinomics: No Need for GSE Reform?
Doug Holtz-Eakin has a distinguished record as an academic, policy adviser, and strategist. Currently he is the President of the American Action Forum.
—————————————————————
Another clueless revolving door lobbyist/expert dishing out article with false narratives to promote the need for serious housing finance reform.
Author Douglas refers to Mark Zandi as a prominent housing expert from Moody’s Analytics. But fails to mention about roles played by rating agencies leading up to 2008 crisis. These lobbyist are real experts in scratching each others back.
Tim Howard, former CFO of FNMA has written extensively about how CRTs are siphoning off FnF profits without any added benefits but increasing the costs for borrowers. These CRTs are becoming popular with big investors because CRTs provide higher rate of returns without any significant risks.
Author writes “In short, nothing has really changed, and the need for serious reform remains unaddressed.” without any details.
LikeLike
anon said:
It is time to move FHFA under HUD control.
Enough of independent FHFA under the control of Tsy.
LikeLike
anon said:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/346392-fannie-and-freddie-face-a-moment-of-truth-on-their-taxpayer
Fannie and Freddie face the moment of truth on their taxpayer bailouts
BY ALEX J. POLLOCK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 08/14/17 09:00 AM EDT
————————————————————————comments
Alex,
You need to update your thinking with correct facts.
Then you make a very good expert. Here are some fact checks.
Thanks for confirming the truth that there are no better alternatives to FnF model.
1. Almost nine years ago, in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were broke and put into government conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Fact Check:
At the time of conservatorship FnF had $98B core capital (Jul 2012) as per FHFA Director Lokhart. So FnF were not broke. As per FHFA, FnF were put in to conservatorship to provide liquidity and stabilize the markets. BTW why TSY and Fed denied statutory credit lines to FnF.
2. As everybody knows, the U.S. Treasury arranged to bail them out with a ton of taxpayer money, ultimately totaling $187.5 billion, in order to get their net worth up to zero.
Fact Check:
All of this $187.5B was paper loss and dividend payments on loans that FnF never needed. BTW why TSY and Fed denied statutory credit lines to FnF.
3. By agreement between two parts of the government, the FHFA as conservator and the Treasury, the dividend was changed starting in 2013 from the original 10 percent to essentially 100 percent of the net profit of the two companies, whatever that turned out to be, in this notorious “profit sweep.”
Fact Check:
When FnF entered highly profitable golden age, dividend was changed starting in 2013 from the original 10 percent to essentially 100 percent of the net profit of the two companies plus $600M out of company net worth.
4. The 10 percent compares to the interest rate of 2 percent or so on 10-year Treasury notes and is greater than the average return on equity of 8 percent to 9 percent for banks in recent years.
Fact Check:
10% does not compae to 2% on tsy notes. Before conservatorship there were many private parties interested in providing finance at much cheaper rates. On the other hand banks availed $16T loans at less than 5%. BTW why TSY and Fed denied statutory credit lines to FnF. FnF had 100s of billions in AAA assets based on which they could have borrowed easily at much cheaper rates.
5. When the internal rate of return gets to 10 percent, the economic payoff will have been achieved. I call this the “10 percent moment.”
Fact Check:
FMCC have fully paid back 10% interest + capital + few billion more
FNMA needs to pay les than $2B to fully pay back 10% interest + capital
6. Treasury should then also exercise all its warrants, to assure its 79.9 percent ownership of any future retained earnings and of whatever value the common stock may develop, guaranteeing the taxpayers the equity upside which was part of the original deal, and also assuring its voting control.
Fact Check:
After 2008 bailout, all banks were allowed to buy back the warrants following some Gov standards. It is more than fair to use the same standards to allow FnF to buy back the warrants. Banks paid less than 5% interest. FnF were made to pay 10% interest on forced bailout.
7. At that point, should it develop, the capital of Fannie and Freddie would still be zero.
Fact Check:
Under current NWS, the original $187.5B remains as unpaid on FnF books.
When all dues are paid back as per original SPSPA agreemnt (capital+10%) then NWS needs to canceled. Then this $187.5 needs to be accounted as fully paid and credited to capital reserves. There after FnF may never need treasury money for foreseeable future.
8. The massive systemic risk they represent should be supervised by the Federal Reserve, and their minimum capital requirement should be set at a 5 percent leverage capital ratio.
Fact Check:
Under FHFA stress test, FnF need maximum of $100B. So with more than $187.5 capital reserves FnF meet the FHFA cpaital requirement by twice the amount. FnF are insurance companies. FnF are NOT Banks. So the FHFA should set the capital requirements based on true weighted risk which is far less than 5%.
9. They must immediately start complying with the law which sets their guarantee fees at the level which a private financial institution would have to charge to cover its cost of capital.
Fact Check:
FHFA sets these fees as per Gov laws to comply with affordable goals.
10. Finally, they should pay the relevant state and local corporate income taxes, like everybody else.
Fact Check:
Congress makes these laws. How about Gov paying for unfunded social mandates imposed on FnF that cost 10s of billions.
Conclusions:
Since FnF are insurance companies, they should be regulated by appropriate regulatory agencies. FHFA should be reformed to comply with constitution and should be moved under the direct control of HUD.
Since Treasury/Feds and HUD/FHFA have conflicting missions, Treasury/Feds should regulate only banking institutions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thombiz said:
Outstanding!
LikeLike
Anon said:
I sent a copy to Pollock thru email.
LikeLike
anon said:
Thanks for your efforts to public and FnF shareholders.
LikeLike
anon said:
It is so sad. These former Gov officials continue to lie, misrepresent and mislead with their false narratives.
LikeLike
anon said:
” As per FHFA, FnF were put in to conservatorship to provide liquidity and stabilize the markets.”
Is it not a very rough justice for FnF?
FnF did not contribute to 2008 crisis in any significant way according to US Gov commissioned bipartisan “THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT”.
It is the “financial establishment” that caused 2008 crisis through web of fraudulent practices.
Instead of putting “financial establishment” in conservatorship, Gov bureaucrats chose to put FnF in to conservatorship to provide liquidity to the “financial establishment”.
One needs new one liners to describe this conduct.
LikeLike
anon said:
It is very well that, FnF under FHFA conservatorship were to used cleanup the toxic assets owned by the financial establishment at the cost of affordable housing.
That is the misuse of FHFA conservatorship authority as well abuse of FnF. FHFA conservatorship used FnF to provide liquidity to illiquid financial establishment instead of provide affordable housing finance to common people.
FHFA Conservatorship has used FnF to provide financing/guarantees worth billions of dollars to mega corporations to buy foreclosed properties at rock bottom prices and the rent at sky high prices.
The mandate for FHFA is to promote affordable housing finance to common people and ensure prudent regulations of GSEs. It is not to bailout financial establishment.
LikeLike
kishorshah1944 said:
Even if Gov bureaucrats chose to put FnF in to conservatorship to provide liquidity to the “financial establishment”
IT is time to release now.
LikeLike
anon said:
MBA badly wants competition in housing finance. Let MBA get what it wants badly.
End fake FHFA conservatorship and free enslaved FnF .
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
IMFnews ….. Friday, Aug 11, 2017
“Then again, we’ve also heard the FHFA director might take action if he can find political cover, though we’re not sure what that means.”
—————————————————-
What was the purpose of creating “independent” agency FHFA if FHFA Director is looking for political cover?
Is it not a big mistake to appoint a career politician to “independent” agency FHFA ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
gordonzman said:
Astute observation. One would think that Trump would have learned a lesson from the Obamacare fiasco to just recap Fannie and Freddie via executive order.
He still thinks he can work with congress about the conservatorship? If so, he is really dumb as a box or rocks.
LikeLike
anon said:
DJT adminsitration, Mel, CrkrWrnr, MBA lobbyists, Shorties… and all know this truth very well. Obviously in to the10th year of fake conservatorship, one would be naive not to know this. Each one may be doing slow dancing for their own reasons.
DJT Administration may be doing this for the other legislative and political reasons like obamacare repeal, tax reform…
Mel may be waiting for right political cover or negotiating for another term.
CrkrWrnr, MBA lobbyists, Shorties may be doing this, knowing very well that soon FnF will be running on zero capital. This uncertainty and instability may trigger another market crisis/crash. This will result in big payoff for shorties. MBA lobbyists may be thinking that the crisis like this will create another opportunity like 2008 crisis to sink FnF.
Only surprising thing is, the complexity that the deep state Judges have added to this fake conservatorship status quo problem. These judges are playing dangerous politics from the bench and judiciary has become third unchecked and unelected political branch of Gov like FHFA.
LikeLike
anon said:
Watt’s response to the idea of creating a “mortgage market liquidity fund” to protect Fannie and Freddie from losses
————————————–
Mel Watt, FHFA conservator states that he does not want to create a mis-perception that FnF will ever be recapitalized and released, or a mis-perception that FHFA Conservator is interfering with congress’s important work to advance housing reform.
It looks like FHFA bureaucrats want to make life time career out of FHFA conservatorship. There has been no reform from congress even after nine years and also there are no viable alternatives. At the same time FHFA keeps on telling that “Courts do not have any jurisdiction and people do not have any rights” .
It is time for DJT administration to drain the FHFA swamp, the legacy from Obama administration.
LikeLike
gordonzman said:
Watt’s appointment is not for life.
LikeLike
anon said:
Fake Conservatorship is now in its 10th year, and already has seen 3 presidents, 4 presidential terms, 4 Tsy-sy, 3 FHFA conservators. Still there is no sign of any end. This unscrupulous fake conservatorship wants to keep the status quo going on for ever, putting the blame on Congress.
One needs to read this letter carefully to understand the crafty hidden intentions. Congress would not have taken more than 9 years on “important work to advance housing reform”, if there were any alternative solutions. After 9 years there is nothing to show on this other than few hearings involving MBA lobbyists and clueless experts.
So far conservatorship has siphoned off $270B from private shareholder companies and has bankrupted the conservatee companies. Conservatorship has mislead taxpayers in to thinking that all this money is revenue and principal remains unpaid. If Courts annul the NWS or FnF go into liquidation then the principal amount of $187B has to be written off as loss to taxpayers. Besides this conservatorship has exposed taxpayers and national economy to massive uncertainty and risks.
Bureaucrats, lawmakers and their cronies are in with love FHFA conservatorship because there is no public accountability. Big short investors are hoping that there will be another big market crisis/crash when FnF start running on zero capital.
Big short investors are using the same play book that caused 2008 crisis to make another big kill after 10 years. If nothing is done to end this fake Conservatorship and NWS then there is a very good chance that Big short investors will do it once again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bill said:
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/finance/news/goldman-abacus-144604786.html
How 2 US senators profited from America’s financial crisis
-Bethany McLean
——————————————
Before 2008 crisis/crash, many big investors had taken the large short positions through TBTF investment banks. So it is not unfair to be suspicious, that these people had the all the incentives to influence or act to cause the crash.
One needs to understand the role of FIs and people like Hank, Ben, Tim who were in positions where they could have prevented the 2008 crisis. This understanding is essential to prevent future crises by big short investors.
Was seizing FnF and putting FnF under conservatorship, played any part to benefit these big short investors?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gordon Zernich said:
huh? that sounds criminal to me
LikeLike
bill said:
There is a need for independent investigation to understand how big short traders influenced and caused 2008 crisis/crash with the help of revolving door bureaucrats?
LikeLike
anon said:
http://www.dsnews.com/headline/08-09-2017/hud-enough-enough
HUD: Enough is Enough
-Scott Morgan
“Carson added that by pursuing housing finance reform, the Trump administration seeks to “unwind the federal government’s role in the private mortgage market and ease the stress on rental markets.”
————————————————
Under the previous administration and FHFA conservatorship America has become renter’s nation.
Mega corporations used robo signing for mortgage foreclosures and then bought back the same properties for pennies on dollar using mega financing deals from FHFA conservatorship. Now these corporations are renting the same properties with jacked up rents.
It is time to bring FHFA under HUD control. Let FHFA under HUD control take care of common people and small businesses.
DJT, HUD-Sy Carson. Tsy-Sy Mnuchin owe this to workers, common people and small businesses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cjohn said:
Does any one know why HUD-Sy Carson is not so much visible in FHFA Conservatorship matters?
Once OFHEO was a HUD agency before FHFA.
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA seems to have outsourced its Attorneys from a country run by dictators and FHFA attorneys seems to know only one defense argument “Courts do not have any jurisdiction and Citizens do not have any rights”.
FHFA’s Attorneys have presented only one defense argument against $270B heist and 9 years of unaccountable conservatorship.
HERA seems to be one section law.
———————————————————-
FHFA filed brief in the Seventh Circuit
Click to access 17-1880-0028.pdf
ARGUMENT
I. SECTION 4617(f) BARS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
A. Section 4617(f) Bars Courts from Ordering Declaratory or Equitable Relief that Would Restrain or Affect FHFA’s Exercise of Conservatorship Powers
B. The Third Amendment Is Within FHFA’s Statutory Conservatorship Powers
C. Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Circumvent Section 4617(f) Are Meritless
1. Allegations of Failure to Comply with a Purported “Duty” to Preserve and Conserve Assets Cannot Overcome Section 4617(f)
2. Allegations that Treasury Acted Unlawfully Cannot Overcome Section 4617(f)
3. Allegations of Improper Motive Cannot Overcome Section 4617(f)
4. Allegations that the Third Amendment Was an Unfavorable Deal Cannot Overcome Section 4617(f)
5. Allegations that the Third Amendment Is Improperly “Winding Up” the Enterprises Cannot Overcome Section 4617(f)
6. Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Section 4617(f) by Alleging that Treasury “Supervised” or “Directed” the Conservator
a. Plaintiffs Lack Prudential Standing to Enforce Section 4617(a)(7)
b. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for an Alleged Violation of Section 4617(a)(7)
c. Plaintiffs’ Belated, Indirect Attempt to Challenge theOriginal PSPAs Through Section 4617(a)(7) Fails
D. Plaintiffs’ Nondelegation Argument Is Meritless
II. HERA’S SUCCESSION PROVISION BARS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
A. The Conservator Succeeded to All Stockholder Rights
B. The Conservator Succeeded to Plaintiffs’ Claims Whether Those Claims Are Characterized as Derivative or Direct
C. There Is No “Conflict of Interest” Exception to HERA’s Succession Provision
III. PLAINTIFFS’ SPECULATIVE POLICY ARGUMENTS CANNOT SALVAGE THEIR CLAIMS
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA conservatorship has tarnished the reputation of the country by repeatedly using 4617(f) (“Courts do not have any jurisdiction and people do not have any rights”).
FHFA conservatorship has turned this country in to “Banana Republic”, as mentioned by no less than Honorable USCA-DCC Judge Brown.
It is time to remove independent status of FHFA and make it an agency under the control of HUD like OFHEO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nyc subway sucks said:
This is what will happen in order to avoid any further scrutiny of GSE release, government criminals will delay the process until we another fake war with North Korea
LikeLike
anon said:
So far there have been 3 shareholder cases in district courts filed under constitutional violations.
After their learning experience in district courts, plaintiffs in all other cases will also be focusing on constitutional violations in appeals courts.
It will be very interesting to see how FHFA’s attorneys are going to continue to use the only imbecile defense of 4617(f), they have used so far.
Probably DOJ attorneys will try to use sovereign immunity defense in these cases involving private contract agreements not related to any sovereign functions. But it will be interesting to see how they will defend violations of US laws once 4617(f) gets correctly reinterpreted to comply with Constitution.
Plaintiffs like Berk are already sensing that DOJ is going to find it very difficult to defend against shareholder lawsuits not only from legal point of view but also based on foundational principles.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anon said:
Lamberth accepted DOJ/FHFA bullshit. Otherwise, the whole mess would have ended much earlier. A good justice understands not just “law”, but more importantly justice.
LikeLike
Tony Edwards said:
In United States constitutional law, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a non-constitutional basis.
LikeLiked by 2 people
anon said:
It also means that the laws need to be created and interpreted so as to comply with constitution and avoid any conflicting interpretations.
Judge Lamberth did not resolve the case, he told plaintiff to go to Congress because Congress created HERA. If congress creates unconstitutional laws or FHFA misinterprets the law how does doctrine of constitutional avoidance works?
LikeLike
Tony Edwards said:
I’m just a plaintiff, not a lawyer anon, so I’ll have to defer your question about constitutionality avoidance to one of the legal beagles on this board to answer. But regarding your other statements,..I agree. Stay strong Brother, you sound a little down. There is no reason to be! It’s just a matter of time before lady justice will be forced to acknowledge there are no more legal defenses that can justify the undeniable transfer of wealth from two privately owned companies (FNMA &FMCC), to the to the US treasury…without due compensation to the rightful owners.
LikeLike
anon said:
Tony,
Thanks, FHFS/Tsy attorneys need to answer this question.
However it is quite troubling that the Gov agencies are consistently using one line “Courts do not have any jurisdiction and Citizens do not have any rights” argument and courts are agreeing with Gov agencies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
kishorshah1944 said:
each and every one in congress who wanted HERA and said that judges have no right , should be blamed along with Judges
LikeLike
cjohn said:
Kishorshah1944,
Probably other than few lawmakers, and financial establishment, nobody supports HERA. HERA does not say that judges have no rights. It is the interpretation by the deep state bureaucrats and judges. It will be changed under Constitutional challenge.
Also there is good chance that HERA itself will be changed by the Choice act.
LikeLike
anon said:
The problem is, deep state Judges are equally complicit in this Conservatorship mess along with deep state bureaucrats.
Looks like, Perry appeals majority judges were equally reckless in keeping this Conservatorship mess alive.The well accepted non-controversial traditional interpretation of HERA/FHFA based on FIRREA /FDIC would have resolved this lawless conservatorship mess easily.
LikeLike
anon said:
Click to access 17-50201-00514102101.pdf
Sammons Ruling: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
“During the financial crisis of 2008, the two entities faced a sharp reduction in
the value of their assets and a loss of investor confidence. ”
—————comments———-
How did these judges find out this without the trial and without any evidence?
Is this not what defendants are saying and discovered evidence shows that it is not true?
There are similar false narratives in Perry’s appeal ruling and other District court rulings.
Why Judges are using these false narratives without evidence while ruling that facts do not matter?
Why plaintiffs are not asking courts to strike out these narratives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon said:
Mr Sammons essentially said: Emperor has no cloth.
LikeLike
anon said:
FHFA Director in his court filings claims that FHFA Director can legally, not only violate any laws with impunity but can also can provide immunity to others to violate any laws with impunity. The reckless judges have agreed with FHFA Director in their ruling.
These claims by FHFA Director provide good cause for POTUS to fire FHFA Director any time. The judges may also be due for impeachment.
LikeLike
anon said:
Lamberth essentially said: Congress wanted to rob you guys. Better challenge it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
If Judges think that Congress has created unconstitutional laws or the interpretation of the law is unconstitutuional, then Judges have the duty to amend the laws or revoke the provisions like in CFPB case.
Judge acted like lifelock persona without doing anything about it and threw plaintiffs under the bus. Many Judges are simply ideologically indoctrinated or appointed for ideological views, and so they create lengthy and expensive litigations.
Unfortunately Plaintiffs attorneys did not catch the hint, while caught up in their understanding of traditional common law conservator.
LikeLike
Anon said:
Congress changed Claims court judges to a 15 year term, from a life term. It had some real purpose. If a judge does not favor government, he can be fired.
LikeLike
anon said:
This Sammons enbanc appeal raises very interesting questions.
1. This Court has made decades old precedented rulings but has not updated those rulings after changes to laws.
2. According to this Appeals court rulings, Congress can defeat or ignore Constitutional provisions by simply invoking sovereign immunity. In Sammons case, basically it means Congress can ignore fifth amendment by confiscating any private property but not providing for compensation in the laws it creates.
3. Also as per this Court rulings, Congress can put conditions like who/when/where /what/how-much on cases involving constitutional claims.
Sammons argues that putting these conditions on constitutional claims is unconstitutional. If some one choses they can waive their rights on Constitutional claims like filing cases in article III courts but congress can not put conditions on constitutional claims about where to file cases based on conditions.
4. According to this Appeals court rulings, Congress is the gate keeper for any constitutional claims. Congress can deny constitutional claims and create conditions for any constitutional claims. Constitutional individual rights protections and bill of rights are subject Congressional sovereign immunity waivers.
Basically this means Congress+POTUS+Courts can work together to change the effect of Constitution without changing the Constitution.
So States need to weigh in to protect their rights.
Looks like this Appeals Court needs to be modernized and brought up to date.
It is time for SCOTUS to revisit Sovereign Immunity subject matter and modernize its view.
LikeLike
anon said:
Please move this message under Sammons enbanc case post.
LikeLike
anon said:
If Congress+POTUS+Courts work together to change the effect of Constitution without changing the Constitution, the last resort left to us: revolution.
LikeLike
Anon said:
Congress told then board members not responsible for anything including giving away the companies to government.
it also told FHFA to do anything and allowed no judicial review.
It finally told courts cannot punish FHFA for any wrongdoing such as equitable relief.
Treasury was smart enough in purchase agreement: If anything found illegal in the contract, it can elect to roll everything back with any penalty.
ONCE UPON A TIME IN USA
LikeLike
anon said:
Regulator fines PwC $1 million for faulty Merrill Lynch audit
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the audit industry regulator, censured and imposed a $1 million civil penalty against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP on Wednesday for issuing audit and examination reports without obtaining sufficient evidence to support its opinion for broker-dealer Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Bank of America (BAC), in 2014. Merrill Lynch had reported to PwC that it complied with the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule which requires a broker-dealer to hold certain customer securities in segregated accounts that are insulated from creditor liens if the broker’s business fails. However, PwC did not thoroughly verify Merrill Lynch was in compliance. For several years, including 2014, Merrill Lynch held tens of billions of dollars of its customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities in accounts that were subject to liens by third parties, in violation of the Customer Protection Rule, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. PwC consented to the Board’s order without admitting or denying the findings in the order. A spokeswoman for PwC said in a statement,”We are pleased to have resolved the matter. Delivering quality is our top priority.”
-Francine McKenna; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com
—————————————————————- comments
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, seems to be mostly sleeping all the time and wakes up once in a while to show that it is still relevant.
What about huge accounting frauds at FnF committed by the conservator with the help of auditors?
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is a private-sector, nonprofit corporation created by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee the audits of public companies and other issuers in order to protect the interests of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports. Since 2010, the PCAOB also oversees the audits of broker-dealers, including compliance reports filed pursuant to federal securities laws, to promote investor protection. All PCAOB rules and standards must be approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In creating the PCAOB, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act required that auditors of U.S. public companies be subject to external and independent oversight for the first time in history. Previously, the profession was self-regulated.
The PCAOB has four primary functions in overseeing these auditors: registration, inspection, standard setting and enforcement.
LikeLike
Andrew Woody said:
Glad to see you back. What have you been up too? Great piece here, thanks. Hope to read more from you.
LikeLike
thombiz said:
+1, Well done!
LikeLike
anona said:
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Prepared-Remarks-of-Melvin-L-Watt-Director-of-FHFA-at-the-NAREB-70th-Annual-Convention.aspx
Prepared Remarks of Melvin L. Watt, Director of FHFA at the National Association of Real Estate Brokers’ 70th Annual Convention
————————-
In this remarks, Mel discusses the plight of African Americans and difficult challenges they face in homeownership. It is not just African Americans that are facing these challenges, it is most of the Americans. It is only big mega corporations that do not have any difficulties in getting loans/guarantees in tens of billions from FnF, to buy homes under water and then rent them.
It is difficult to understand how Mel is constrained as most powerful authority as FHFA director, to help common people. It is during last 8 years of previous Obama administration this situation has become worse.
Eventhough Mel has all the authorities to make it better for all through FnF, Mel has allowed depletion of FnF capital and eventual demise of FnF. Eventually, once wall street lenders take over FnF business, the progress made in last 7 decades will be wiped out and wall street loan sharks will rule the world of mortgage finance once again.
Mel needs to show us how he really feels the pains of all Americans, by what he does for them and not by what he says like Obama.
LikeLike
anon said:
The most fundamental things that are totally missing from FHFA, are
1. public accountability,
2. compliance with rule of law,
3. openness, and
4. transparency.
Such an agency is anathema in a any democratic system.
These are the most foundational things for any Gov agency and even more important for an agency that is not accountable to any branches of Gov as well to public.
How can any one have any trust in such a Gov Agency that regulates more than 20% of the economy?
These concerns are very well reflected in the lawless conduct of FHFA conservators, as articulated in Judge Brown’s minority opinion and as well Judge Lamberth’s opinion.
LikeLike
anon said:
It is sad that many Judges have lowered the reputation of the judicial system to give free reigns to such an Gov agency instead of subjecting the Agency to rigors of public accountability and compliance with rule of law.
It is sad that common people are suspecting the integrity of the Judicial system to protect their constitutional rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon said:
Congress: assigned a conservator to do anything, even if illegal.
Judges: No thing wrong with that.
I’m anxious to hear what Supreme Court says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
Most probably Congress did not create HERA to be used for unlawful activities.
HERA is based on FIRREA and the expectation was HERA will be interpreted same way as FIRREA.
Most lawmakers are not happy with how HERA has been misused. That is why the Financial CHOICE Act is being legislated to reform HERA/FHFA.
No one in sound mind will agree with FHFA’s interpretation of HERA. So the judges who agreed with FHFA needs to be examined. Probably even FHFA was not expecting Judges to rule in its favor but Judges were more eager to destroy FnF than FHFA itself.
LikeLike
Gordon Zernich said:
Mel is more or less a self-serving bureaucrat who will not act on principle, sound business practice or even the law since all court decisions rendered so far have fell for the defendant’s charade and — generally — the case has garnered little public unction.
Fannie and Freddie’s top corporate officers and board of directors are little more than puppets themselves. My hope is that they will hold the bag should Fannie and Freddie need a new capital infusion from the Treasury … although I doubt it will come to that.
Watt will be implicated in too, and its imminent threat will probably get him to act responsibly — if only for the sake of covering his own ass.
LikeLike
Anon said:
An analogy: Your bank foreclosed your home because it thought you would default on the loan although you had not.
LikeLike
anon said:
They told home owners to stop making monthly loan payments to be eligible for relief an then they foreclosed without due process.
LikeLike
anona said:
https://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/imfnews/1_1160/daily/not-your-parents-freddie-mac-says-ceo-don-layton-1000042319-1.html#Login
Freddie’s CEO Comments on Declining Capital Buffer / This is Not Your Parent’s Freddie Mac
“Layton also told IMFnews that he’s no fan of “the old GSE model,” noting: “This is not your parent’s Freddie Mac. The fundamentals are strong and residual flaws are gone…””
Layton needs to be realistic about what he says. Both FnF are operating on zero capital, and current BOD /CEO are responsible for this, even though they are doing it under the mandates from fake unaccountable conservatorship.
The biggest fundamental flaw in current GSE model is fake unaccountable FHFA conservatorship that is plundering th companies.
LikeLike
anon said:
Thanks for Excellent Analysis.
Please send the copy of the article to FHFA, SEC, TSy and HUD, POTUS and the members of Congress..
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon said:
President Trump Now Fully Justified In Cutting Off Illegal Cost Sharing Reduction Payments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/07/31/president-trump-now-fully-justified-in-cutting-off-illegal-cost-sharing-reduction-payments/#62b78419789e
“As rightly determined by federal district judge Rosemary Collyer back in May of 2016 in a strong 38-page opinion, the payments by President Obama (and President Trump) were and are illegal. Insurers receiving them have effectively been receiving stolen funds.”
———————-Comments
Article explains how previous administration ignored laws and ignored congress.
Insurers and their auditors need to properly account for stolen funds received from taxpayers and need to restate their accounts for previous years.
Most probably these funds came from FnF, private shareholder companies under conservatorship, and FnF are the real owners of these funds.
It is best for P-DJT to stay clear of this lawless mess. Congress/DOJ have obligations to make sure that stolen funds from FnF are returned to them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mizaza said:
I have a question for decent people…when if ever we the people start dragging these criminals in suits aka law makers/politicians/congressmen to the streets in order to perform public executions of lowlifes, who deprive regular people of freedoms and happiness….Anyone ready to get their micro-chip implant?
LikeLike
anon said:
“These are the arguments against the Discretionary Appointment of Conservatorship or Receivership. In my opinion, the burden of proof of placing GSEs under conservatorship should be upon the FHFA as Regulator.”
Considering the deception, misrepresentation, racketeering and corruption by previous administration officials and FHFA directors, plaintiffs need to consider:
1. Challenge the appointment of Conservator and undo all the malicious decisions using 4617 (a)(5)(A).
2. Holding previous administration officials and FHFA directors responsible for their lawless conduct.
LikeLike
thombiz said:
for clarity I have posted 4617 (a)(5)(A):
(5) Judicial review
(A) In general, If the Agency is appointed conservator or receiver under this section, the regulated entity may, within 30 days of such appointment, bring an action in the United States district court for the judicial district in which the home office of such regulated entity is located, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for an order requiring the Agency to remove itself as conservator or receiver.
This same paragraph could question the appointment of FHFA as Receiver. The FHFA got FnF into this no capital mess so they are not qualified to be Receiver.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andrew Woody said:
Good to see you again Bob.
LikeLike
thombiz said:
Hi Andrew, same here to you. I occasionally wander what you are up to these days. We need all the insight we can muster.
LikeLike
Gordon Zernich said:
first
LikeLike