Fannie May Just Be Worth the Risk

Fannie Mae (FNM) (28.55, $27.8 billion) is a tough company to understand in my opinion. Having been a professional mortgage trader and portfolio manager in a different life, I have followed the company and its sister (or is it brother?) Freddie Mac (FRE) for 22 years. I have viewed them for the past decade as huge hedge funds with a very low funding cost, and I continue perceive that to be the case. The challenge, in my opinion, is that mark-to-model accounting prevails at both firms. Even tougher than understanding the company is investing in it.

I shorted the stock last summer as I perceived that the credit quality of their massive portfolio would deteriorate. If I recall, I sold it at 62 or so, watched it go to a 52-week high a few weeks later of almost 70 and then covered at 57 or so, feeling lucky at the time. It wasn’t exactly my best trade!

Big picture, what was going on then and continues to this day is the trade-off between paying for the sins of the past and enjoying the opportunities of the future. The political situation has improved dramatically over the past nine months, and it seems clear that these Federal Agencies will be a large part of any solution to the housing woes. Meanwhile, though, the focus on credit losses and the need for additional capital has overwhelmed investor sentiment, and I believe that the pendulum is about to swing the other way. Hence, the eye-catching title.

As you may be aware, I had been very bearish from last July until January, at which time I wrote about a range-trade that I expected to develop (The Bear Turns Mildly Bullish). My most recent prognostications in March about the market (Get Ready for the Last Rally and The End of the Bear Market?) discussed a testing of the top of the range, with a likely extension that would include leadership from the beaten-down Financial sector. While it has been somewhat slower to develop than I anticipated, it does appear that we are on track to visit 1410 to 1455 on the S&P 500 and “at least 29” on XLF, the SPDR ETF for the Financials. While not the subject of this article, I could probably go both ways arguing “is the Bear over?” While I believe that it is unlikely that the market will advance from here significantly over the balance of the year, I am less sure that we will make new lows. My expectation is that we will work lower after hitting this interim peak, essentially biding time as we close the year out somewhere between where the market is now and what the lows were. Maybe we get a new low, but I am no longer as confident that we actually do.

So, what could possibly lead me to believe (and bet on) FNM stock could jump as much as 40% soon? It is really a case of not over-thinking the situation but rather incorporating some basic technical analysis, betting against sentiment and smelling an opportunity. As you can see in the chart below, FNM’s decline has been rather extreme:

Not only has the stock fallen 71% peak to trough and obviously underperformed the broad market, but it has actually trailed the entire financial sector by over 30% over the past year. Unlike some other mortally wounded entities, though, this one is part of a duopoly that will ultimately benefit from the environment. In the 20-year chart below, you can see that the company earned at its peak almost $9.

Analysts officially expect the company to earn about $2 per share in 2009, though the range is quite wide ($0.25-$4.25). Rich Pzena, the founder of Pzena Investment Management, stated in a Barron’s article at the end of 2007, that the company has earnings power of $9. Let’s say he is only ½ correct. If so, ultimately the stock should merit at least a 10PE and earn a valuation, then, of $45. Similarly, while the book value is most likely overstated, the multiple is still quite low for an entity that operates as part of a duopoly. Let’s take 50% off of the stated book value and apply a more typical 3X multiple, and we get a price more than 100% in excess of the current one. Longer-term, assuming FNM gets through this mess, there is clearly a lot of value. Part of my interest is that folks may be willing now that we have found some stability to begin to think about that potential. For now, though, the fear is great, as reflected in the high implied volatilities of the options and the high absolute amount of short interest: $1.8 billion. The analysts loved it at 70 and don’t like it any longer – go figure:

To get to the $38-40 short-term target I maintain wouldn’t take a great deal. The PE for 2009 is relatively low for a company whose earnings have imploded. Any CONTINUED rise in expectations should get some multiple expansion. Yes, that is right – the consensus for 2009 has been rising:

So, we have a low valuation and poor sentiment. Technically, a 38% retracement from the peak of 70.57 to the trough of 18.25 is 38.24, while a 50% retracement would yield 44.41. The 200dma is at 46. So, we could have a monster rally in FNM and it would still be in a bear trend. Chart resistance appears to be 38-40. I think that this is a time to take some risk – the mortgage credit story is well played out, and it appears that the market may have been a bit too punitive on the GSEs.

Disclosure: Long FNM

Comments

[JoeChristmas:]

If your time horizon is 3-5 years, I have a hard time not seeing this stock trading 2-3 times higher. There may be some ups and downs in the short term, but all the stars have aligned in their favor. Perhaps most importantly, their competition is non-existent. Add to that a loan portfolio that is not nearly in as bad shape as people think (check their recent presentations for details), and Congress that will bend over backwards to ensure Freddie and Fannie thrive. I am already long in Freddie and expect to be very overweight in the coming months.

2008 Apr 21 08:44 AM

[venividivici:]

"The analysts loved it at 70 and don't like it any longer-go figure".
Well maybe it might tell you something about analysts. Their opinions along with those of a lot of other so called "experts" are not worth a bumper.

2008 Apr 21 10:06 AM

[phdinsuntan...:]

is a too tough company for you to understand in my opinion, probably will be statized from here to december, short it or leave it...

2008 Apr 21 02:52 PM

[moonscope:]

Richard Pollak [e-mail] Alvin Texas 77511 Born 09/17 Constitution Day, “We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident!” All Justice Denied because Damage simply relates International Commerce’s permission that Payments Deserve Credit, Affronted Authority places Laws Subservient by emboldening forsakenly.

Standard 6.5 Fixed 180 Month Loan Closed on May, 2001 for $77,000.00, $60,000.00 Available Credit Card Credit “0” Due, Loan Originator received all 2001 Coupon Payments, then Transferred Loan, and First Three 2002 Payments were Also on-time Current.
Payments Lost in 2001 Created Escrow Shortage, Felonious Credit Report Blocked Outside Refinance, Bankruptcy was Forced, Payment History was Denied, Stay was released and Lender Supplied 48 Month Coveted Loan History same Day, Lender Admitted Faults, Sued Lender, Appealed Award, Appeal Denied Five Times, Lender Returns $7,515.25 Mooting Judgment, Threatening Foreclosure 05/06/2008 to “Case Law” Theft “Common Practice” Blanketing Defendable.

Foreclosure offers Different Protections from Justice relating Financial Accountability to the Following; Homeside Lending is/or Washington Mutual, First Bankruptcy Attorney, Second Bankruptcy Attorney, Bankruptcy Trustee and San Antonio Credit Union all Misdirected Funds.
Foreclosure Relates to the Following; Bank One Transferred Account with intentional Damage, Judge allowed Theft “Common Practice” Defended, Enron Judge Protected Both Houston Courthouse and DOJ Systematic, Fifth Circuit Protected DOJ, Appellate Attorney ignored Merit of Assured Supreme Court Victory that Promised Numerous Damage Awards, by seeking Trial Attorney information.

1. Sued Washington Mutual for Damages because Lender Admitted Payment Misapplications in 2001of $1,415.56, Homeside Lending had Protected Loan History for 48 Months allowing intended release of Stay to advance, Action was Suspended by Fault Admittance on Day’s following release of Stay.
1a. Meager $1,000.00 Award for ignored RESPA request was Appeal, because Attorney’s RESPA request was First ignored {ruled inadmissible} and by ignoring My Lay-person RESPA request release of Stay was allowed, Funds Lost, Damage Awarding and Costs was Appealed, relating all the Substance that was seeking Constitutional Justice, including First Attorney Draining Bankruptcy Trustee Account and San Antonio Credit Union Rav4 Loan advancement of Term Commitment.
1B. Day Rate damages was Substance of Lawsuit, $1,000.00 Award was Appealed, Bankruptcy Attorney received expense Judgment, December 2007’ Washington Mutual returned $7,515.98 Loan Payment, Muting Judgment with Fault Admittance, skirting Commitment Damages keeping Curtailments, picking Damage with willingness forfeiting Accountability and Address, Rushing Foreclosure 5/6/08 seeks Dismissal out of Hand.
1C.Foremost Credit Report Notation of Bankruptcy’s Faults Blame notation, on Loans Credit Report equates.
1D. Demanding Credit for Payments made at Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing, Judge Ordered Attorney to File “Proof of Claim” on the recorded record. Judge required and accepted Signature but Stayed Conformation for 60 Days, Ignoring Judge Attorney Quit all Houston Caseload.

2. Defendant was colluded from Washington Mutual to former entity Homeside Lending under Seal, later reversed for Damage Award Payment.
2A. Attorney’s ignored Certified Mail RESPA “qualified written request” was Inadmissible.
2B. At Pretrial Hearing unknown Surrogate Attorney appeared to Defend, stating Case was just dropped in Lap without Time for review, or Proper Court paperwork. Judge threatened Dismissal, Ordering Attorney’s Appearance to Defend Three Day Core Adversary Hearing.
2C. Washington Mutual Halfheartedly offered Arbitration if Costs were split, before Second Pretrial Hearing, wanting preferred Arbitrator, not being a College consideration passed.

3. Washington Mutual Trial Arguments related to Line-item Challenge of Washington Mutual Fault Admittance Statement that was evidenced, countering self by newfound Date Augmentation, excusing Accountable reasoning with Assorted Derelict Avoidances of Law.
3A. Judgment accepted Lender Defense of “Principal Curtailment” claiming “Common Practice” relating to Breach of DEED Commitments highlighted damage Precedent.
3B. Judgment accepted Lender Defense of Erroneous Escrow reduction claiming “Common Practice” Argued Funds reduced in November for December Payment, Argued Taxes increased Loan Payments, Argued “Principal Curtailment” reduced Loans overall Interest despite reduction of 180 Term Commitment, Argued {48 Month} Concealed Prepayments were not Curtailments but were Prepayments, Argued Escrow was reduced on 11/28 not 11/10, Argued April ISF Check corrected in May Paid April, {belittlement} In Attorney Cross Lender Admitted “Curtailments” created the Escrow Shortage Demand that started in April and Admitted Large May Payment made Loan 100% Current including Damages before June 2002 and Admitted before April 2002 all Payments were respectfully Paid before Due.
3C. Judgment accepted Lender Testimony that Escrow Surplus return from Escrow already in arrears was unexplainable, root stem relates to Choice of intentional Damage Doubling, relative to Loan Payment Investigation Teams requirement of Canceled Check Front and Back sent in November 2001, Damages Stemmed from Closed Faulty Investigation Report that resulted in unknown Tax Payment responsibility Escrow Damage, Teams final Conclusion Dated Escrow reduction of 11/10 suspended to 11/28 but missed the Fact that it was Erroneous, forcing Escrow reduction to be reported on 1098 Tax Form as received Funds, and forcing December 2001 Payment History’s Shading/Blank Void report to Credit Agency, Second Time Simple Penny for Penny Swap opportunity missed.

4. Judgment ignored Core of Core Adversary Hearing Primary responsibility of Damage Awarding the DEED Stipulation Paragraph Verbatim.
Precedent Clause clearly defines Prepayments requirement of Signed Authorization forbidding Concealment, Itemizing abuse Damage Award Amount.
Importance of Paragraph Commanded notation on Judgment, but Judgment edited Substance’s Importance without Authority by cropping off top Half of Paragraph, in effort to revise intended meaning by omitting forward Substance, “Quoting” only bottom half of Paragraph their Collusion Supported Curtailments.
4A. Six of the Coveted Ten Day Timeframe allowance was received to find, hire and Convince Appellate Attorney Versed in Bankruptcy Appeals, Twelve Day after Judge Signed Attorney Appealed but foolishly, Persistently, Ignored Merits Arguing Excusable Neglect. Judgment accused Predisposed to Bankruptcy.
4B. Bankruptcy Judge Chaired from Conformation to Award Appeal is famed for Worlds largest Historic Billions of Dollars Bankruptcy Case Dismissal, Schlumberger oilfield Russia claimed 10 day appeal time-frame expired, without exposing Time-frames exactness beforehand, Clerk of Court recorded holding Judgment Two Days before Posting, Mail took Two Days, Attorney called Two Days after Home Mail-Box Delivery stating not willing to pursue further.
4C. Justice Circumvented the Federal Bankruptcy Court “RULE” that extends all Judge Appeal Timeframe for Five Additional Days RULE #2005. Famed Houston ENRON Judge received and Denied Second Appeal, Appeal waited for ENRON Trials Conclusion.
Fifth Circuit refused to overrule ENRON Judge, Printer never received Desired U.S. SUPREME COURT Appeal and Time expired.
4D. Thousands of Bankruptcy’s relate and Hundreds of Bankruptcy’s have resulted since because Proved Damages were Denied, Lender Accountability Reforming Day-rate Damages was Award sought, if 5/6/2008 Foreclosure receives Action Theft was allowed, Case Law results that Lender Defense of DEED restricted Curtailments, Errant Escrow Reductions and Misapplications are “Common Practice” Defendable, opening the floodgate of Attorney exploitation, Theft Defended as “Common Practice” allowable.

5. On April 2002 Loan Damages created insurmountable Escrow Shortage Arrears increasing the next Twelve Monthly Payment Demand from $813.49 / $812.28 to $915.83 effecting accountability, $8,000.00 new Credit Card Home Improvement Balance reached 30% interest exactly and instantly relating.
5A. Priority became Credit Card over Home Loan seeking outside Refinance of $100,000.00 for 25 Years to install Rental Home on Lot was Goal.
5B. Credit Report Damage of December 2001 Shaded Box Void/Blank entry Blocked outside Refinance to force Bankruptcy, then Bankruptcy Attorney was Denied “Proof of Claim” {Judge ordered at Conformation Hearing, Staying Conformation 60 Day’s} included Bankruptcy Attorney’s RESPA “qualified written request” that was also being ignored, again Payments were halted for Court appearance to Demand Credit for Check Payments, 9/2005 Attorney missed Attending Release of Stay Hearing.
5C. Bankruptcy Trustee ordered Attorney’s Presence 10/2005, then ordering Attorney File Core Adversary Hearing was Conversed, at that same timeframe My Lay-person RESPA “Qualified Written Request” crafted was being ignored, Better Business Bureau assisted and Expelled Washington Mutual Chief Arbitrator Chair with Three Year Suspension for being ignored.
5D. RESPA “qualified written request” is simply a request to open Loan Discovery by itemization of Questions. Construction of request follows a formula and Lender is Time-line required to first admit receiving, second form reply and Third reach resolve.
Attorney Formally Back-dated RESPA Request to expired Time-line allowance when Posting and Predating our first meeting, understand relates to Judge’s refusal to allow into evidence, confusion relates to Attorney Award and Justice denied, compounding Justice Denied harbors Protection from Assorted Malpractices.
Attorney repeated relating Intent to File Core Adversary Hearing was in Progress.
5E. Homeside Lending Loan Manager became Washington Mutual Loan Manager.
Loan Manager that Protected Loan History released Bankruptcy Stay on 12/15/2005.
Washington Mutual Loan Archive’ Department E-Mailed Loan History on 12/15/2005.
Washington Mutual was Informed to explain, discrepancies on 12/16/2005.
Bank One “Principal Curtailment” and Loan Managers Escrow reduction became Evidence.
Washington Mutual claimed My Ignored RESPA request was on File.
Washington Mutual claimed to have never received Attorney RESPA Request, Faxed Attorney RESPA Request to Washington Mutual 12/16/2005.
Attorney Meeting after 12/16/2005 for Legal Process, Core Adversary was not yet Filed, Loan History was reviewed with Attorney Lender Telephone Communications.
Core Adversary was Dated Filed on 12/15/2005.
Washington Mutual Admitted Both Lenders Damaged Loan with Formal Written Document.

6. 48 Months of Loan History Protection forced Loan Manager to rush release Stay on 12/15/2005 in avoidance of Core Adversary Hearing, but on the same Day, Washington Mutual Archive’ Department E-mailed Coveted Loan History that Self Evidenced Missing Payment direction Detail.
6A. Washington Mutual was forced into written admittance, Loan Damage Assessment Statement that exacted, Bank One Misapplied Payment calling it “Principal Curtailment.”
6B. Washington Mutual admitted their Loan Manager Errantly Misapplied Escrow attempting to reverse “Principal Curtailment” then Argued in Court opposition claiming November 2001 Escrow reduction was Intended anticipating needed December 2001 Payment, all Proof of Payment Date Augmentation and Conflicts in History were Evidenced.
6C. Coveting was preformed to protect Lender from Contractual Damage expenses of $10,286.25 in trade falsified Credit Report to force Bankruptcy, ignorant of simple Penny for Penny exchange in 2001 to reverse Damage.

7. 80 Months ago Loan Transferred 11/01/2001, Lender Denied Payment Credit of $778. 34 for “Principal Curtailment” and Lender Denied Payment Credit of $637.22 for “Escrow Curtailment” recorded on First real-time Payment Breakdown Statement of 11/10/2001 {Lender Investigation Team required Canceled Check Front/Back Proof of Payment early 11/2001 and incorrectly reported resolve around 11/28/2001} equaling Loan Payments of $1,415.56 missing Credit to Date.
7A. Loan History that was Coveted to Protect Breach of DEED Contractual Damage expenses of $10.286.25, was followed by Errant Escrow reduction, that forced False Credit Report to Protect Lender from Both Curtailments, forcing Voluntary Bankruptcy, now 80 Months without Payment Credit.
7B. Bank One N.A. Breached DEED of $10,286.25 Damage became Contractually Transferred on 11/01/2001 to Homeside Lending with $1,289.85 Escrow Funds.
On 11/28/2001 Loan Manager erroneously Reduced Escrow attempting Damage reversal.
On 12/10/2001 County Tax Payment $1,168.26 created Shortage, amounting to $-515.63, Second simple Penny for Penny exchange reversal opportunity missed.
On 12/12/2001 Escrow Surplus of $336.23 increased Shortage amounting to $-851.86.
Escrow Reduction of 11/28/2001 was Reported received funds on 1098 Tax Form.
December 2001 was Void of Payment on all received Loan Histories “Then and Now.”

8. December 2001 is recorded as Shaded Window {Void/Blank}. Void reported on real-time Loan Statements also was reported to fourth Independent in-House Credit Report Agency {Named in Testimony} that Supplies the Three respected Credit Reporting Agency’s.
8A. Both Bank One and Loan Manager refused Production of Loan Payment History’s relating to Escrow Shortage.
Denied Bank One History accomplished “Principal Curtailment” Protection.
Denied Homeside Lending Loan History was accomplished by Lender receiving Loan on 11/01/2001 but requested received Payment History began on 11/28/2001 omitting Escrow Misapplication “Escrow Curtailment.”
8B. The Twelve additional Escrow Shortage Payments of $103.34 increased from $813.49 / $812.48 to $915.83 Started April 2002.

9. Bank One Paid $34.14 December PMI, then Breached DEED Commitment Contracted, Applying then Reversing December 2001 Payment to Pay Principal only, before Transferring Loan to Homeside Lending, called “Principal Curtailment” {Curtailment = Lop-off liken-to Horse’s Tail!} then Transferred Loan to Homeside Lending with $1,289.85 Escrow, without informing that 2001 Escrow County Tax Payment was Loan Commitment requirement.
9A. Loan Originator “Principal Curtailment” was a Breach of DEED Cover Page Lender Signed, Bold Print requirement of Signed Authorization Clause as it relates to Prepayment specifying instead of Damage Arbitration, all Loan Originator received Funds and earnest Funds returned, separating a Prepayment from Coveted Curtailment to Contractually support the 180 Month Term Commitment DEED Paperwork, $12,291.54 – Outside Costs = $10,286.25 Commitment Damage.
9B. Damage from 11/28/2001 to 12/12/2001 resulted from intent to Conceal “Principal Curtailment” Damage of $10,286.25 Justifying Interest Due Today, then Relating from Day Loan Transferred, forced Bankruptcy and Rushed Release of Stay Damages Justifies Tenfold Accountability with Interest and Damages.

10. Attempt to reverse “Principal Curtailment” Lender inadvertently reduced Escrow according to Loan History on 11/28/2001 from $1,289.85 to $652.63.
Real-time Loan Statements Itemizes Escrow Reduction on 11/10/2001, Requested Proof of Canceled Check Payment was sent to Lender in that Timeframe, Discovery Question relating to Investigations results was repeated and ignored, Argument that Escrow reduction Paid December Stands Disputing Admittance Statement with Diligent Securitization of Verbatim.
10A. Washington Mutual’s Loan Damage Acknowledgement Report called Bank One Action a “Principal Curtailment” and Homeside Lending Errant Escrow reduction a Misapplication.
10B. Errant “Principal Curtailment reversal attempt, applied funds to Month Bank One already Credited allowing 11/2001 to be Credited Twice. “None the less” Action was Coveted from Loan History for 48 Months so “Escrow Curtailment” Defines Action.
10C. County Tax payment of $1,168.26 on 12/10/2001 created Escrow Shortage, amounting to $-515.63 so Loan Manager Posted Escrow Surplus return 12/12/2001 of $336.23 to increase Escrow arrears, amounting to $-851.86.

11. Homeside Lending Loan Manager’s Coveting of the Bank One 2001 Principal Curtailment was complicated by the Erroneous Escrow Reduction that became intent to deceive lasting for 48 Months to protected Contractual Damage expenses of $10,286.25 in trade for forcing My Bankruptcy, now 80 Months without Payment Credit.
11A. Homeside Lending’s failed attempt at Damage reversal deduction of Funds from Escrow was admitted by Washington Mutual, Erroneously Misapplied.
11B. Washington Mutual acquired Homeside Lending and the Loan Manager that Testified for Washington Mutual’s Attorney being Sued, Arguing’ the ”Bank One N.A. “Principal Curtailment” was “Common Practice” Defendable, Separately Arguing’ the Homeside Lending inadvertent Escrow Reduction was “Common Practice” Defendable, despite ruining Credit Report, Falsifying 1098 Tax Form, Forcing Bankruptcy, Releasing Stay, Arguments were all Moot because Washington Mutual accepted Faults Blame in Written Statement of Bank One “Principal Curtailment” and Homeside Lending Erroneous “Escrow Reduction.”
11C. Bank One did Report 2001 Tax Form 1098! Homeside Lending Reported 2001Tax Form 1098 claiming Escrow Reduction Funds as Received Funds, following Loan Transfer First Payment was in 2002.

12. December 2001 was Void of Payment on all received Loan Histories “Then and Now” December 2001 is recorded as Shaded Window {Void/Blank}. Void reported on real-time Loan Statements also were reported to fourth Independent in-House Credit Report Agency {Named in Testimony} that Supplies the Three respected Credit Reporting Agency’s.
12A. Demanding on the Recorded Record, Credit for Payments made, Judge at Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing, Ordered Attorney to File “Proof of Claim” Trustee and Lender were Chaired {Judge Required Paperwork Signed or Foreclosure} Sixty Day “Stay” of Conformation Resulted for Dispute resolution.
12B. Either Lender refused to reply or Attorney Ignored Judge Order requirement of “Proof of Claim” but Time Expired, Attorney said on Phone that he was Quitting, Months Later Large Credit Union Check Posted to make Account Current, Paid in Full.
12C. Month Later Attorney sent New Letter-headed San Antonio Credit Union Payment Coupon Book that had Additional Coupons, Stating he Quit and Suggested Attorney.
12D. Attorney Quit, including sending bulk of Houston Bankruptcy Case-load to Board Certified Attorney I hired, latter found out he Charged an additional $1,200.00 to My Bankruptcy Trustee relating over $200.00 a Month overcharging.

13. Instantly New Attorney sent Homeside Lending Certified mail RESPA “qualified written request” with Her Guidance Her Legal Secretary Helped with Credit Union.
13A. Seven Months later with Loan History Denied {E-Mailed to Regulators & Assumed Regulators that Lender fails to respond to Attorneys RESPA Request, fair assumption’s Review was Forced and Privileged ignored} Payments were Suspended for Audience with Bankruptcy Court resolution, Attorney failed to attend release of Stay hearing, Trustee required attendance 30 days later.
13B. San Antonio Credit Union Denied Adjusting Terms or sending New Coupon Book that had Three Additional Months, Attorneys Legal Secretary was Arbitrating {I Shut-up and Listen Great but Jump Topics with Excitement when Talking/Arguing} Legal Secretary was used to eliminate that problem forehand. Coupon Books at Hand and unresolved Payoff Schedule was requested and received, Two Additional Months were Added, Loans remaining Principal was Larger than Original Loan’s Principal Financed and resolve was Denied, Current on Rav4 Loan, Fighting Home Loan told Credit Union to expect No more Payments, will properly clean before Repossession Day, then Trustee reported additional Rav4 Arrears Charged by First Attorney for Rav4.

13BA. Briefly First Attorney failed Judge “Proof of Claim” Charged $200.00 a Month Trustee’s Bankruptcy Fee’s Raided Rav4 Bankruptcy Account and Raided Rav4 Credit Union Account before Credit Union Raided Rav4 Account, Second Attorney Protected to Malpractice RESPA and Failed to Attend Hearing, sent Substituted Attorney to Court failing to Attend Hearing and Misdirected Appellate Attorney with Confusion.

13C. Ignored Attorney RESPA request was used to format “My layperson” RESPA “Qualified Written Request” Posted Certified Mail using California address supplied by Security Exchange Commission relating to Washington Mutual, it was also Ignored, request was also Posted to Bank One, Bankruptcy Trustee, Attorney, former Attorney, DOJ, CC, OTS and Better Business Bureau and more including California Attorney General that Promised Active Silent Case Review, but Lender moved to Nevada, not Seattle.

14. Better Business Bureau was being Ignored and reported no response from Washington Mutual, I challenged their Existence, then Chief Arbitrator Chair with Membership was removed from Washington Mutual for Three Years, understand Loan History was supplied on release of Stay Day 12/15/2005 Pretrial, itemizing the Curtailments, Washington Mutual Admittance of Fault called for Court Action.

15. Sued Washington Mutual Core Adversary under Seal Judge changed Defendant to Homeside Lending allowing Washington Mutual Attorney to call Homeside Lending Loan Manager to Testify, reversed for Judgment Award Payment, but Board Certified Attorney Certified Mail RESPA “qualified written request” {sent to Homeside Lending ignored by Washington Mutual} became Inadmissible in Court!
15A. Week before Three Day Core Adversary Hearing was Pretrial Hearing, unknown Surrogate Attorney arrived to Defend stating Case Dropped in Lap without review or required Documentation filed, Judge Stayed Pretrial hearing for 30 Days, Threatening to Dismiss unless Attorney attended to Defend, fear of voicing any Objection Resulted.
15B. Judge Allowed ignored RESPA request to received the only damage Judgment $1,000.00 {thanks to the BBB support} substance matters related in RESPA request that Judge took under advisement at Trial pertaining, was absent from Judgment and ignored to date, Also recorded in Testimony Ignored {Blank} Discovery Questions.
15C. Houston Bankruptcy Judge Chaired from Conformation to Award Appeal, famed for Worlds largest Historic Bankruptcy, Schlumberger oilfield Russia claimed 10 day appeal time-frame expired, without exposing Time-frames exactness beforehand, Clerk of Court recorded holding Judgment Two Days before Posting, Mail took Two Days, Attorney called Two Days after Home Mail-Box Delivery stating not willing to pursue further, Six Days received Twelve Days after Judge Signed Award Judgment Appeal was filed, and Denied.
15D. “RULE” Rule of Law Circumvented RULE #2005 exacts Bankruptcy Court Appeal Mandate allocation of Five Day extension for Time to Appeal, Judge sets whatever Appeal Timeframe and RULE extends by Five Days to eliminate Weekend, Holiday Working Day Confusions, Deadline was met for Merit Appeal Trumps rush to Dismiss by Judge and Attorney.
15E. New hired Appellate Attorney directed Excusable Neglect Defense, extensive Office hours relating to Line-item Case History reviewed, shared in Office, spent on Phone and E-Mailed, Former Bankruptcy Attorney Name on Appeal remains, Real Malpractice Balance awaiting Loan resolve. Trial ended 100 Days later Judgment Signed, despite evidence Clerk delay Posting for Postal Delivery {6 Day received, 4 Day from Attorney} Appeal Denied for expired days.
15F. Second Award Appeal was Judge famed for ENRON, refused Excusable Neglect Appeal, docketed first following Enron Trial conclusion, Houston we have a Problem reasoning or DOJ Broke Problem reasoning!
Fifth Circuit Appeal was asked to Rule over ENRON Judge’s refusal of exploring Excusable Neglect, Imagine that!
15G. Appellate Attorney failed to Post Excusable Neglect Case to Printer for Cert. Petition U.S. Supreme Court, Merits were neglected and contrary then time expired.

16. Closed Loan with $60,000.00 available on Credit Card, “0” owed, Complete Plumbing Electrical and interior Walls replacement ended September 2002, May 2002 Priority became Credit Card balance over Loan Payment {History was Denied to Address Escrow Arrear Demand from Loan with Current on-time Payments, Lender Failed Accountability and refused Bank One Loan History, then Credit Report Blocked outside Refinance} $8,000.00 Credit Card % increased from 5% to 20% to 30% April May 2001, Bankrupted! Day Rate damages, was Substance of Lawsuit, $1,000.00 Award was Appealed, Bankruptcy Attorney received expense Judgment.

17. December 2007’ Washington Mutual returned $7,515.98 of Loan Payments, by Trustee Opening and Reclosing Bankruptcy to Transfer Payment, Mooting Judgment with Fault Admittance, skirting Commitment Damages, keeping Curtailments, Foremost Credit Report Notation of Faults Blame notation on Loans Credit Report equates. Theft reaches Tuition by Foreclosure, as does “Common Practice” Case Law Defense.

2008 Apr 21 03:16 PM

[whisperonth...:]

That got boring really fast.

2008 Apr 21 06:34 PM

[Dan Jacome:]

nice piece, AB: ramping up on SLM on similar grounds: sector leader with a cloud of pessimism right over it. Longer term, I think both these names make it out alive. Broken legs and gouged eyes they will have, but they'll survive.

2008 Apr 21 07:59 PM

[Alan Brochs...:]

Thanks, Dan. I was actually thinking of taking a look at SLM...

2008 Apr 21 10:36 PM

[Martin Snyt...:]

This might be a great time to be bearish on this stock. Trading today like a penny stock. If it FRE and FNM don't go away might be a great time for some very substantial returns.

2008 Oct 28 01:56 PM