Glen Bradford

Value, growth at reasonable price, long-term horizon, portfolio strategy
Glen Bradford
Value, growth at reasonable price, long-term horizon, portfolio strategy
Contributor since: 2008
Company: Glen Bradford
Thanks for sharing this perspective.
Berkowitz owns common shares in FAIRX, but is mostly preferred.
aei recently came out and suggested repealing the nws void ab initio, meaning that we pretend it never existed.
if you roll back to 10% i think that the two companies still have a senior preferred of 30B outstanding.
pretty pathetic.. but the government stole $15B of cash per year since conservatorship began to render the companies penniless..
this is basic vendor financing fraud
the government if they can arbitrarily enter into agreements forcing companies to pay them massive amounts of money at arbitrary rates and then convert them to taking all of the money by lying
then i will fight the government if it comes down to it. but it won't... anyway, these government officials all have friends and families and if you look at how many people work at fannie mae and freddie mac and how big these companies are and how much of the united states economy runs on them and companies that produce good work like them then you'll surely begin to understand that this is the law of large numbers
we simply outnumber them and they're lying.. sure they may look like majority shareholders and we may look like the minority, but our numbers dwarf theirs and our biggest asset is they have produced 11,292 documents basically proving guilt (why else would they mark these as priviledge?)
That's a lot of documents! This isn't like a few documents that they are trying to cover up.. Imagine how long it takes to make that many documents. Imagine you have 100 people involved and they are all making a document a day.. that's like 112 days of documents that the government is withholding.
lol, maybe you don't appreciate the scale of the fraud, that's cool, you don't have to...
but that's what she said
FHFA in in charge and the administration has expressed an interest in ensuring common equity shareholders get nothing.
I think what you're referring to is John Carney's analysis.
John Carney is practically a Treasury spokesperson. I'm just assuming that he'd be fired if he actually did some investigative journalism on the subject, because let's face it, I'm not the only one. I am one person out of thousands that has figured this all out. I'm just trying to increase awareness and suggest that David H Steven's isn't right when he says the Law is Tired and Old, and that it's too bad that he doesn't get a first hand experience like the rest of the people who have been in the wrong and have undergone deposition so far.
Who knows how this all irons out, it's really messed up and what else do you expect? I mean, everytime I sit down and look at my computer I connect more disgraceful dots of government lies and deceit and motive..
These warrants are pretty sweet.
Options are between market participants.
Warrants are with the company. I'm not sure when these expire but we're not even close and exercising them at a nominal value is a joke-all-the-same.
FHFA is the conservator and is part of the government.
The government has leaked memorandum opinions in which they reveal their intentions to make sure the common equity shareholders get zero.
That and capital levels.
To your point, the government has been busy taking everything and doesn't want to share. $108B of cash have been swept from the GSEs on a net basis since conservatorship began and the government wants to continue taking $18.5B per annum going forward.
Sounds like a sweetheart deal, considering that the losses were all accounting fiction made simply to cover up the true profitability at the GSEs.
They have been caught red handed. The evidence is overwhelming and diametrically opposed to Treasury's public statements/propoganda.
Thanks for sharing this insight azbroker.
I love your darkest before pitch black analogy.
I owe $175K. I have 65,000 shares of FNMAS equivalent. I am like 61,000 of FNMAS and 5,000 of FMCKJ. I'm buying another 1500 FNMAS January 2 to celebrate the first trading day of 2016.
These have a par value of $25.
If you do the math after tax...
65,000 * 25 * 80% - $175,000 = my after tax net worth post recapitalization at a minimum.
In America, these things don't continue to happen. They are fixed, sometimes politically, sometimes not. Sometimes these things are fixed in the court room when people can't seem to agree and people have been harmed.
It's time to fix this all. After looking at mortgage rates going back to 1990, Fannie Mae's researchers came to the surprising conclusion that while rising rates were likely to hurt the number of home sales, they had virtually no impact on home prices.
Fannie and Freddie are the best solution for equal opportunity housing and they are also a solution that didn't actually lose money during the financial crisis of 2008. Look at the accounting fraud reports to understand how their losses were manufactured by government officials.
Raising rates will not impact Fannie and Freddie's earnings as negatively as you seem to think that they will.
Since conservatorship began FnF took $132.2B from US Treasury and has paid them back $241B on a cash basis. That means that on average Treasury has taken $15B from each of the GSEs since conservatorship began. From there, I am just using their own estimates as outlined in this link: - $85K - $50K - $20K - $7K - $15K
Unsecured personal loans.
The agencies do not create a lack of clarity,
the lack of clarity is created by:
FHFA + Treasury + Administration for not following HERA and breaking all sorts of laws with gross negligence.
The lawyers defending their actions seem to be having a real difficult time with the discovery process, both eDiscovery and depositions.. because the truth is as blatant as the illegal attempted beheading of the GSEs and forced nationalization/private slave companies of the government.
The GSEs are private companies and I'm sure the government loves the idea of a perpetual conservatorship where the government now basically can own and operate private companies.
Well, that's not what the government does... ladies and gents.
Either you are the government or you are not.
Fannie and Freddie are legally not.
As such, FHFA is breaking the law(s) by treating them like they are. Many laws have been broken in the process. Accounting, Good faith, best practice, it's horrendus, but what else do you expect from a massive coverup?
Fannie and Freddie: $132.2B is what FHFA forced them to take from the government. $239B+ is what they've paid to the government so far.
Have you not looked into the forensic audits demonstrating accounting fraud?
I've made videos about the accounting fraud but basically the government came in, decided to force Fannie and Freddie to borrow X amount of dollars and arranged a way to do that over time and then within a few years decided that was enough for them to justify taking everything, took everything, and then --- the dividends speak for themselves.
FHFA committed government run accounting fraud, deceit regarding the third amendment, etc. You're still new to all of this. That's great. Start reading the legal filings is my recommendation. Cheers.
Are you aware that fannie and freddie never had an explicit guarantee? i have posted on your stuff before and you seem to be compounding ignorance with this post.
while we are talking about implied government guarantees, you do know that the entire US financial system runs on them, no? maybe you don't.
up to congress to decide?
how much did they actually get forced to take by FHFA? $132.2B how much have they paid in dividends? $239B+ do you not understand accounting fraud?
what is your problem guy? wake up. read david fiderer's book.
There is a lot more wrong with the authors claims than just the only thing you mentioned.
Well Kurt,
There's a big difference in my mind.
I don't think you understand what actually happened here.
I think you've read too much propoganda on the subject.
I encourage you to take a look at the forensic accounting pieces I linked to and to dig deeper.
refer to my 50 years remark
The flaws in the agencies' design would become instantly apparent, leading to either a collapse or a fire sale.
you have no idea what you're talking about
How, exactly, were the agencies' stockholders, at the time of the bail-out, different from those of AIG?
1. there was no liquidity crisis
2003-2007 when the plmbs market went bonkers, look at your own graph... the gses are golden
On the residential mortgage side of the business is the bad news. There would be fewer mortgages, to borrowers that do not serve social purposes, at higher interest costs.
I know what you meant to say but what you wrote as it stands is wrong.
Fanny Mae? Don't you mean Fannie Mae?
The whole process went wrong in 1957, when Congress declared Fanny Mae a corporation.
You're telling me that 50 years of success is a wrong thing?
Are you unaware of FHFA accounting fraud? Is your head really that deep in the sand? How are you so blind? Do you not know how to read housingwire headlines? Have you read nothing that I have written?
As Morgenstern notes
A political football? More like a hot potato that no one wants to touch.
The issue is simple and classic: Do taxpayers want mortgages to be subsidized or not? Pick one.
False choice.
Do americans want equal opportunity to affordable housing or not?
That's the real issue.
You said nothing about the net effect of the conservatorship ending, aka the CEOs get paid more.