JSmith5
4時間前
Anyone (ahem, KThomp) who thinks this is going to go the exact same way as an AIG is going to be sitting there scratching their head when this is over.
Anyone who completely discounts that possibility may be handed their head (and their shares) when this is over.
I am not hoping for this. But I have never, NEVER, NEVER, seen or heard of a consultant who deals with the Government that had an original thought. That's not their job or MO. Its Google, cut and paste (like HERA). It may not go exactly that way as an AIG - but I am sure THE STUDY borrows (or steals) pretty heavily from it. So we need to start lobbying against this outcome. I think it would be to our advantage to do this rather than laugh off the possibility.
Nats
jwood9207
5時間前
I bought 10,000 shares at $2. Sold 5,000 shares at $6. So my remaining 5,000 shares cost me a total of negative $10,000. Well below zero cost basis. That's what I call it. Don't know or care if that is technically correct. My background is marketing, not finance. My numbers are hypothetical, not actual.
navycmdr
5時間前
the American Dream is "Owning a Home"
& Fannie & Freddie make that possible
by ensuring the 30 yr fixed rate mortgage
is available for qualified Americans 🇺🇸
from AI :
American Dream home ownership" refers to the widespread belief in the United States that owning a home is a key component of achieving the "American Dream," symbolizing financial success, stability, and personal independence, often considered more important than other life goals like career advancement or college education; however, affordability issues can make this dream difficult to realize for many people.
Key points about American Dream home ownership:
Central to the American Dream:
Most Americans view owning a home as a crucial part of achieving the American Dream, signifying personal accomplishment and prosperity.
Economic benefits:
Owning a home can provide financial benefits like building equity, tax deductions on mortgage interest, and potential property value appreciation.
Social implications:
Homeownership is often linked to a sense of community, stability, and rootedness in a place.
Accessibility concerns:
Rising housing costs and strict mortgage requirements can make homeownership difficult for many Americans, particularly younger generations.
Fully Diluted
7時間前
Hi kthomp19,
Let's look at the points where we are not in agreement:
I don't understand those definitions. Safety = adequate capital, and soundness = good business practices
If you relate safety and soundness to the GSEs, your point of view is okay. But if you relate the two terms to the housing market, as Pulte does, they take on a different meaning: the market is safe if it has good standards, which the GSEs largely set. And it is sound and stable if it is maintained even in times of crisis. This requires sufficient liquidity, which the GSEs should provide.
How do exorbitant capital requirements provide more liquidity than lower ones? FnF provided plenty of liquidity to the housing market from 2012-2018 when their net worth was close to zero, and their regulatory capital levels way below zero.
You're overlooking that Fannie and Freddie were in conservatorship in 2012-2018, which suspends capital requirements. These requirements were deliberately suspended so that Fannie and Freddie could carry out their duties without limitations.
Higher capital requirements ensure more available capital, which provides more liquidity, especially in bad times. This is logical in itself. And that's what Calbria said when he introduced these exorbitant capital requirements. Even in the podcast you linked to in a recent post, he says that he set the capital requirements at 4% so that Fannie and Freddie could meet their counter cyclical nature. That's why the companies were created by Congress, he added.(Somewhere around minute 20+, I think)
The first part of that equality is false. Treasury will determine how much dilution the legacy commons face and that's independent of the capital requirements.
The higher the capital requirements, the more likely a capital raise becomes. This is true regardless of the proportion held by Treasury. To think that it is the aim of the Secretary of Treasury to determine exactly how high the shareholders' profits will be is communist and misses the point. That may be what people like Bob Corker had in mind, but you haven't heard the argument for a long time that F+F shareholders were to blame for the financial crisis and therefore shouldn't be allowed to make a profit on a release.