Top-News
Neuester,
zuletzt geles. Beitrag
Antworten | Hot-Stocks-Forum Übersicht
Zurück
Weiter
... 1226 1227 1229 1230 ...
Antworten | Hot-Stocks-Forum Übersicht
Zurück
Weiter ... 1226 1227 1229 1230 ...
Potential ohne ENDE?
Beiträge:
44.396
Zugriffe: 9.556.460 / Heute: 6.860
Zugriffe: 9.556.460 / Heute: 6.860
|
Werbung
Entdecke die beliebtesten ETFs von SPDR
SPDR S&P U.S. Financials Select Sector UCITS ETF
Perf. 12M: +52,15%
SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF
Perf. 12M: +49,82%
SPDR MSCI World Technology UCITS ETF
Perf. 12M: +42,66%
SPDR S&P U.S. Industrials Select Sector UCITS ETF
Perf. 12M: +41,66%
SPDR S&P U.S. Utilities Select Sector UCITS ETF
Perf. 12M: +40,98%
Mit " F&F "s UND " Wamu-Escrow+WMIH "s wartet es sich leichter.
Aber irgendwie ist das bei beiden so :-)
Aber irgendwie ist das bei beiden so :-)
Ich denke mal es wird Zeit das ich meine noch verbliebenen Fannie-Aktien mit in mein Testament einbeziehe.
Ich rechne nicht mehr damit zu meinen Lebzeiten mit einem ordentlichen Gewinn wieder aussteigen zu können....
Ich rechne nicht mehr damit zu meinen Lebzeiten mit einem ordentlichen Gewinn wieder aussteigen zu können....
Trump wirft Mnuchin raus ( nimmt ein Papajahr) und Berko übernimmt den Job.... ich denke alleine die Idee würde eine Explosion des Kurses bedeuten ;-)
Ist es trotzdem....
viel Geduld ist gefragt... aber für uns kein Problem! Das haben wir nun schon gelernt!
viel Geduld ist gefragt... aber für uns kein Problem! Das haben wir nun schon gelernt!
FEDERAL STRESS TESTS MAKE COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO END FANNIE AND FREDDIE NET WORTH SWEEP
Time for Trump administration to stop GSE earnings theft
Jerome Corsi | Infowars.com - AUGUST 11, 2017
Sie sehen nur die Mrd.Quartalsgewinne bei F+F
Time for Trump administration to stop GSE earnings theft
Jerome Corsi | Infowars.com - AUGUST 11, 2017
Sie sehen nur die Mrd.Quartalsgewinne bei F+F
Neues von Obamas Raub von vielen,vielen Mrd.$ von Fannie Mae und Freddie Mac und auch von uns Aktionaeren…….Court reveals Secret Obama Plan to STEAL ALL GSE profits and Prevent Loan Repayment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg4TToaqpZU&list=
fanniefreddiesecrets.org/resources/
Wer wissen will, ob Sweeney die Veröffentlichung der jetzt 36 neuen Dokumente veranlasst hat, kann sich bei Pacer registrieren und kostenpflichtig nachsehen. Das kostet 10 Cent pro Suchergebnis. Wer also "Sweeney" als Suchbegriff nimmt, ist schnell pleite. (-:
Wer unter 15 Dollar im Monat bleibt, muss nichts zahlen.
www.pacer.gov/
Es wäre schön, wenn da mal einer nachschaut. Mutige vor!
Der Fairholme-Fall hat folgende Bezeichnung: Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS
Das letzte mir bekannte Dokument ist der Joint Status Report vom 30.06.2017: "Document 382".
gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0382.pdf
Wir suchen also "Document 383", das es wahrscheinlich noch nicht gibt, da Sweeney bestimmt nicht angeordnet hat, dass die Dokumente der Öffentlichkeit zugägnglich gemacht werden sollen. Das würde ihrem eigenen vorherigen Urteil widersprechen.
Ich vermute, dass die 36 Dokumente heimlich ihren Weg an die Öffentlichkeit gefunden haben. Aber wer es genau wissen will, kann Pacer zur Klärung heranziehen. Mehr als 38,30 Dollar wird es schon nicht kosten... (((__;
P.S.: Der ein oder andere wird sich in den nächsten 10 bis 12 Jahren bestimmt noch bei Pacer anmelden. Also warum nicht gleich?! (-;
P.P.S.: Nur Spaß.
Wer wissen will, ob Sweeney die Veröffentlichung der jetzt 36 neuen Dokumente veranlasst hat, kann sich bei Pacer registrieren und kostenpflichtig nachsehen. Das kostet 10 Cent pro Suchergebnis. Wer also "Sweeney" als Suchbegriff nimmt, ist schnell pleite. (-:
Wer unter 15 Dollar im Monat bleibt, muss nichts zahlen.
www.pacer.gov/
Es wäre schön, wenn da mal einer nachschaut. Mutige vor!
Der Fairholme-Fall hat folgende Bezeichnung: Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS
Das letzte mir bekannte Dokument ist der Joint Status Report vom 30.06.2017: "Document 382".
gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0382.pdf
Wir suchen also "Document 383", das es wahrscheinlich noch nicht gibt, da Sweeney bestimmt nicht angeordnet hat, dass die Dokumente der Öffentlichkeit zugägnglich gemacht werden sollen. Das würde ihrem eigenen vorherigen Urteil widersprechen.
Ich vermute, dass die 36 Dokumente heimlich ihren Weg an die Öffentlichkeit gefunden haben. Aber wer es genau wissen will, kann Pacer zur Klärung heranziehen. Mehr als 38,30 Dollar wird es schon nicht kosten... (((__;
P.S.: Der ein oder andere wird sich in den nächsten 10 bis 12 Jahren bestimmt noch bei Pacer anmelden. Also warum nicht gleich?! (-;
P.P.S.: Nur Spaß.
August 14, 2017
Investors Unites
A few more documents relevant to machinations about the Net Worth Sweep have been made public and they add to an already compelling case of a disconnect between private deliberations and public statements about the policy shift on the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac five years ago this week.
On August 14, 2012, officials at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) discuss via email the finances of Fannie and Freddie as preparations were being finalized for the public announcement of the Net Worth Sweep. It was noted that the subject of “…re-recording certain deferred tax assets that had been written off“ based on the view that the Companies were going to be profitable going forward.” There was a question about the logic of this given the fact that the Sweep was meant to “demonstrate wind down” but the assumption was that there would be additional discussion of this matter down the road.
What is interesting about this exchange is that it directly contradicts the statement of Mario Ugoletti, a senior FHFA official who acted as liaison with Treasury, in a previously unsealed court document in which he said, “…at the time of the negotiation and execution of the Third Amendment, the Conservator and the Enterprises had not yet begun to discuss whether or when the Enterprises would be able to recognize any value to their deferred tax assets.”
The question of how the deferred tax assets were booked has a direct bearing on the decision to implement the Sweep. When the Sweep was under consideration in the summer of 2012, it was clear that big profits were on the way for the enterprises, creating deferred tax assets worth tens of billions of dollars. Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), FHFA was to “preserve and conserve” the assets of Fannie and Freddie. But instead of applying the deferred tax assets to the GSEs’ balance sheets, the companies were required to make a cash payment to Treasury. This made them appear to be in weaker shape than they were, thus helping to create a rationale for the Sweep.
The latest email exchange to come to light further demonstrates government officials recognized there was an accounting feature to exploit. Recall that documents unsealed a few weeks ago revealed officials were aware that the treatment of the deferred tax assets was bound to raise questions because there was no policy rationale for not letting Fannie and Freddie retain them for accounting purposes.
The second of the three newly released documents is part of an email exchange from June 2012 that shows Fannie CFO Susan McFarland had let officials at FHFA know that Fannie was projecting $5 billion in earnings for the second quarter of 2012 and that “it is possible that Fannie may take a negative provision of $1 to $2 billion in the reserves (this would increase income) due to lower than expected credit losses.”
A third document is an April 2012 presentation Fannie Mae officials prepared for the FHFA. What is interesting about this one is that it is so uninteresting. It is a dry, factual presentation about finances. Yet somehow, the government wanted to keep it under lock and key. That level of secrecy seems odd, unless officials were trying to hide something from shareholders and citizens.
Investors Unites
A few more documents relevant to machinations about the Net Worth Sweep have been made public and they add to an already compelling case of a disconnect between private deliberations and public statements about the policy shift on the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac five years ago this week.
On August 14, 2012, officials at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) discuss via email the finances of Fannie and Freddie as preparations were being finalized for the public announcement of the Net Worth Sweep. It was noted that the subject of “…re-recording certain deferred tax assets that had been written off“ based on the view that the Companies were going to be profitable going forward.” There was a question about the logic of this given the fact that the Sweep was meant to “demonstrate wind down” but the assumption was that there would be additional discussion of this matter down the road.
What is interesting about this exchange is that it directly contradicts the statement of Mario Ugoletti, a senior FHFA official who acted as liaison with Treasury, in a previously unsealed court document in which he said, “…at the time of the negotiation and execution of the Third Amendment, the Conservator and the Enterprises had not yet begun to discuss whether or when the Enterprises would be able to recognize any value to their deferred tax assets.”
The question of how the deferred tax assets were booked has a direct bearing on the decision to implement the Sweep. When the Sweep was under consideration in the summer of 2012, it was clear that big profits were on the way for the enterprises, creating deferred tax assets worth tens of billions of dollars. Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), FHFA was to “preserve and conserve” the assets of Fannie and Freddie. But instead of applying the deferred tax assets to the GSEs’ balance sheets, the companies were required to make a cash payment to Treasury. This made them appear to be in weaker shape than they were, thus helping to create a rationale for the Sweep.
The latest email exchange to come to light further demonstrates government officials recognized there was an accounting feature to exploit. Recall that documents unsealed a few weeks ago revealed officials were aware that the treatment of the deferred tax assets was bound to raise questions because there was no policy rationale for not letting Fannie and Freddie retain them for accounting purposes.
The second of the three newly released documents is part of an email exchange from June 2012 that shows Fannie CFO Susan McFarland had let officials at FHFA know that Fannie was projecting $5 billion in earnings for the second quarter of 2012 and that “it is possible that Fannie may take a negative provision of $1 to $2 billion in the reserves (this would increase income) due to lower than expected credit losses.”
A third document is an April 2012 presentation Fannie Mae officials prepared for the FHFA. What is interesting about this one is that it is so uninteresting. It is a dry, factual presentation about finances. Yet somehow, the government wanted to keep it under lock and key. That level of secrecy seems odd, unless officials were trying to hide something from shareholders and citizens.
... statt um 0,4 zu wachsen um überraschende 4.x % eingebrochen. ???
He started investing in the GSEs four years ago,
but the conventional wisdom then - that they would be
wound down - no longer holds given Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin's views, says Ackman.
but the conventional wisdom then - that they would be
wound down - no longer holds given Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin's views, says Ackman.
Geht es wieder looos
Huge buys going through right now......
250,000 shrs
29,800
60,200
50,000
50,900
109,051
41,500
81,035
Huge buys going through right now......
250,000 shrs
29,800
60,200
50,000
50,900
109,051
41,500
81,035
Gut fuer F+F ......Donald duerfte nicht erfreud sein....(Corker ist gegen F+F)
Sen. Corker calls for "radical changes" at the White House
www.axios.com/...l-changes-at-the-white-house-2474187705.html
Corker is less than a full cup.
He is a radical himself and should take his "millions" and retire.
His kind we don't need.
Wish him the best. At home on the ranch.
Just not in DC and not representing me.
Sen. Corker calls for "radical changes" at the White House
www.axios.com/...l-changes-at-the-white-house-2474187705.html
Corker is less than a full cup.
He is a radical himself and should take his "millions" and retire.
His kind we don't need.
Wish him the best. At home on the ranch.
Just not in DC and not representing me.
hält noch Fannies - und ist guter Dinge.
Er lobt sogar Corker und Warner für ihre "fiskalische Raffinesse". Wenn's hilft...
keine 30-Jahreskredite ohne F+F
staatlicher gebührenpflichtiger Katastrophenschutz
privates Kapital ist nur anzulocken, wenn Aktionärsrechte wiederhergestellt werden
www.businesswire.com/news/home/...iannual-Financial-Statements
Fannie Mae (FNMA) / Freddie Mac (FMCC)
Fannie and Freddie have cost us substantial performance this year as their large share price gains after the November U.S. Presidential election have nearly completely retraced. Both stocks have fallen by approximately 30% year-to-date. They are trading modestly above our average purchase prices of nearly four years ago despite substantial increases in intrinsic value since that time (albeit these increases have been offset by a nearly 100% sweep of the profits of both companies by the U.S. government), and the growing potential for a resolution of their status.
Over the last nine years since the financial crisis, the Congressional dialogue around Fannie and Freddie has changed dramatically, and in a manner which we believe is favorable for shareholders. We believe the consensus view in Congress and the White House is that the 30-year prepayable fixed rate mortgage, which is the bedrock of middle-class housing values and affordability, is essential for the economy and the American people, and would not exist without Fannie and Freddie. In addition, there is a growing consensus that the U.S. government must play a role as a catastrophic guarantor for the housing financing system, and that the private sector should pay a market-based fee for that support. As importantly, the government would like the private sector to invest a large amount of capital in a first loss position to protect the government’s guarantee from ever being called upon.
We believe that there is a growing consensus that the simplest and lowest risk solution to address each of these key considerations is the reform and restructuring of Fannie and Freddie supported by a large capital raise from the private sector and the retained earnings of the two companies. In order for this capital to be raised, the investment proposition for new investors has to be appealing. No new investor will invest in Fannie and Freddie unless historic investors are protected from, and compensated for, the expropriation of profits from the two companies that took place with the cash-flow sweep transaction that has swept more than $270 billion of profits from Fannie and Freddie since the crisis.
Wall Street’s memory of injecting tens of billions of dollars into Fannie and Freddie just prior to their conservatorship, and the expropriation of both companies’ profits forever, just as they began to turn profitable, is still fresh. Completing the largest capital raise in history in a newly restructured Fannie and Freddie will not be achievable unless and until investors in the companies are treated fairly and receive commitments that the extra-legal action of the past will be reversed and not reoccur. We believe this is understood in Washington.
We are fortunate that two of the most financially sophisticated Senators in Washington, Senators Corker and Warner, have taken the lead on housing finance reform and have suggested that they will put forth new legislation shortly to address this last remaining restructuring of the financial crisis. We believe that this initiative combined with support from the Treasury Secretary has dramatically increased the chances of a favorable resolution for the country and for investors in Fannie and Freddie, including the government, which is not reflected in their current share prices.
Since the government and taxpayers own 79.9% of the common stocks of both companies, the interests of shareholders and the government are largely aligned. Fannie and Freddie offer one of the few potential opportunities for political compromise in the current political environment as a resolution could generate tens of billions of dollars for taxpayers and reduce the risk of future government outlays. For all of the above reasons, we believe that there is likely to be significant positive developments at both companies in the short term which are not reflected in their share prices.
Er lobt sogar Corker und Warner für ihre "fiskalische Raffinesse". Wenn's hilft...
keine 30-Jahreskredite ohne F+F
staatlicher gebührenpflichtiger Katastrophenschutz
privates Kapital ist nur anzulocken, wenn Aktionärsrechte wiederhergestellt werden
www.businesswire.com/news/home/...iannual-Financial-Statements
Fannie Mae (FNMA) / Freddie Mac (FMCC)
Fannie and Freddie have cost us substantial performance this year as their large share price gains after the November U.S. Presidential election have nearly completely retraced. Both stocks have fallen by approximately 30% year-to-date. They are trading modestly above our average purchase prices of nearly four years ago despite substantial increases in intrinsic value since that time (albeit these increases have been offset by a nearly 100% sweep of the profits of both companies by the U.S. government), and the growing potential for a resolution of their status.
Over the last nine years since the financial crisis, the Congressional dialogue around Fannie and Freddie has changed dramatically, and in a manner which we believe is favorable for shareholders. We believe the consensus view in Congress and the White House is that the 30-year prepayable fixed rate mortgage, which is the bedrock of middle-class housing values and affordability, is essential for the economy and the American people, and would not exist without Fannie and Freddie. In addition, there is a growing consensus that the U.S. government must play a role as a catastrophic guarantor for the housing financing system, and that the private sector should pay a market-based fee for that support. As importantly, the government would like the private sector to invest a large amount of capital in a first loss position to protect the government’s guarantee from ever being called upon.
We believe that there is a growing consensus that the simplest and lowest risk solution to address each of these key considerations is the reform and restructuring of Fannie and Freddie supported by a large capital raise from the private sector and the retained earnings of the two companies. In order for this capital to be raised, the investment proposition for new investors has to be appealing. No new investor will invest in Fannie and Freddie unless historic investors are protected from, and compensated for, the expropriation of profits from the two companies that took place with the cash-flow sweep transaction that has swept more than $270 billion of profits from Fannie and Freddie since the crisis.
Wall Street’s memory of injecting tens of billions of dollars into Fannie and Freddie just prior to their conservatorship, and the expropriation of both companies’ profits forever, just as they began to turn profitable, is still fresh. Completing the largest capital raise in history in a newly restructured Fannie and Freddie will not be achievable unless and until investors in the companies are treated fairly and receive commitments that the extra-legal action of the past will be reversed and not reoccur. We believe this is understood in Washington.
We are fortunate that two of the most financially sophisticated Senators in Washington, Senators Corker and Warner, have taken the lead on housing finance reform and have suggested that they will put forth new legislation shortly to address this last remaining restructuring of the financial crisis. We believe that this initiative combined with support from the Treasury Secretary has dramatically increased the chances of a favorable resolution for the country and for investors in Fannie and Freddie, including the government, which is not reflected in their current share prices.
Since the government and taxpayers own 79.9% of the common stocks of both companies, the interests of shareholders and the government are largely aligned. Fannie and Freddie offer one of the few potential opportunities for political compromise in the current political environment as a resolution could generate tens of billions of dollars for taxpayers and reduce the risk of future government outlays. For all of the above reasons, we believe that there is likely to be significant positive developments at both companies in the short term which are not reflected in their share prices.
Corker wollte 'Secretary of State' werden. Aber Trump hat Tillerson genommen.
Bald müsste Corkers neuer Fannie-Eliminierungsplan kommen. Da müssen wir wahrscheinlich noch durch. Ein letztes Mal? Jedenfalls haben unsere Gegner dann ihr Pulver verschossen und ihre Argumente sind durch. Zum Glück ist das Medieninteresse gewachsen. Denn die Argumente sind haltlos. Alle!
Bald müsste Corkers neuer Fannie-Eliminierungsplan kommen. Da müssen wir wahrscheinlich noch durch. Ein letztes Mal? Jedenfalls haben unsere Gegner dann ihr Pulver verschossen und ihre Argumente sind durch. Zum Glück ist das Medieninteresse gewachsen. Denn die Argumente sind haltlos. Alle!
Ganz ehrlich: Ich freu mich sogar auf Corkers Plan. Denn das wird der letzte Plan gegen Fannie sein.
Corker wird diesmal versuchen, Fannie abzuwickeln mit der Begründung, man brauche mehr Wettbewerb. Das ist aber erstens Quatsch und zweitens steht er mit dieser Forderung allein mit Wells Fargo auf weiter Flur.
Zudem wird er wohl wieder nichts über das benötigte Kapital sagen. Risk Share Programme und Kapitalstandards, das dürfte es gewesen sein. Das wäre sehr dürftig. Aber mehr kann er mit seinem Plan einfach nicht leisten.
Und wo bliebe die Staatsgarantie als Katastrophenschutz? Ohne Fannie müßten die MBS versichert werden. Neben dem offensichtlichen Effekt des Geldgeschenkes an Wells Fargo wäre das Risiko für den Steuerzahler exorbitant höher. Zur Erinnerung: Der Staat hat genau 79,9% der Firma in Form eines Warrants an sich genommen und die übrigen 20,1% in privaten Händen gelassen. Damit hat er die absolute Obergrenze in Anspruch genommen, die es ihm noch gestattet, Fannies Geschäfte nicht in die Bilanz des Staates übernehmen zu müssen. Somit bürgt der Staat freiwillig für Fannies Wertpapiere und kann sich jederzeit zurückziehen und die Firma mitsamt ihren Papieren pleite gehen lassen.
Bei einer Garantie auf die Wertpapiere sähe die Sache ganz anders aus und der Staat wäre auch in der schlimmsten Krise verpflichtet, für die Ausfälle aufkommen zu müssen. Einfach festzusetzen, man bürge nur für 100 Milliarden, das geht nicht. Nach Datum oder wie?!
Dieser Aspekt ist mir in den Medien noch nicht untergekommen.
Jeder Plan, der versucht, Fannie aus dem Business zu drängen, wirft mehr Fragen und Unsicherheiten auf als Lösungen, die der Markt nicht einmal wünscht.
Und über die rechtliche Seite haben wir noch gar nicht gesprochen...
Corker wird diesmal versuchen, Fannie abzuwickeln mit der Begründung, man brauche mehr Wettbewerb. Das ist aber erstens Quatsch und zweitens steht er mit dieser Forderung allein mit Wells Fargo auf weiter Flur.
Zudem wird er wohl wieder nichts über das benötigte Kapital sagen. Risk Share Programme und Kapitalstandards, das dürfte es gewesen sein. Das wäre sehr dürftig. Aber mehr kann er mit seinem Plan einfach nicht leisten.
Und wo bliebe die Staatsgarantie als Katastrophenschutz? Ohne Fannie müßten die MBS versichert werden. Neben dem offensichtlichen Effekt des Geldgeschenkes an Wells Fargo wäre das Risiko für den Steuerzahler exorbitant höher. Zur Erinnerung: Der Staat hat genau 79,9% der Firma in Form eines Warrants an sich genommen und die übrigen 20,1% in privaten Händen gelassen. Damit hat er die absolute Obergrenze in Anspruch genommen, die es ihm noch gestattet, Fannies Geschäfte nicht in die Bilanz des Staates übernehmen zu müssen. Somit bürgt der Staat freiwillig für Fannies Wertpapiere und kann sich jederzeit zurückziehen und die Firma mitsamt ihren Papieren pleite gehen lassen.
Bei einer Garantie auf die Wertpapiere sähe die Sache ganz anders aus und der Staat wäre auch in der schlimmsten Krise verpflichtet, für die Ausfälle aufkommen zu müssen. Einfach festzusetzen, man bürge nur für 100 Milliarden, das geht nicht. Nach Datum oder wie?!
Dieser Aspekt ist mir in den Medien noch nicht untergekommen.
Jeder Plan, der versucht, Fannie aus dem Business zu drängen, wirft mehr Fragen und Unsicherheiten auf als Lösungen, die der Markt nicht einmal wünscht.
Und über die rechtliche Seite haben wir noch gar nicht gesprochen...
ist der Chefökonom von Vize Pence. Er ist schon lange der Auffassung, dass Fannies conservatorship gegen geltendes Recht verstößt. Hier ein "working paper", das er 2015 verfasst hat, als er noch beim Cato Institute arbeitete:
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/...g-paper-26_1.pdf
Besonders schön zu sehen ist es, dass Calabria die 'stakeholder' auf der Rechnung hat. Damit sind auch wir Aktionäre mit unseren Rechten gemeint.
Am 11. September wird er vor der NAFCU sprechen. Erwartet werden Einblicke in Trumps Witschaftsagenda, insbesondere zur 'housing finance reform'.
www.nafcu.org/News/2017_News/August/...abria_at_NAFCU_Caucus/
Sowohl Calabria, als auch die NAFCU sprachen sich bereits für einen Kapitalpuffer aus; und für den Erhalt von F+F. Allerdings fordert die NAFCU (in großem Eigeninteresse) eine staatliche Garantie auf Fannies Wertpapiere, die MBS. Ich bin gespannt.
Vielleicht erinnert ihr euch noch, welche Euphorie herrschte, als Mnuchin zu Trumps Team stieß. Dann noch Mulvaney, Icahn und eben Calabria.
Diese Leute sind noch immer da. Und ihre Meinungen haben sich keineswegs geändert.
Das wird schon werden...
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/...g-paper-26_1.pdf
Besonders schön zu sehen ist es, dass Calabria die 'stakeholder' auf der Rechnung hat. Damit sind auch wir Aktionäre mit unseren Rechten gemeint.
Am 11. September wird er vor der NAFCU sprechen. Erwartet werden Einblicke in Trumps Witschaftsagenda, insbesondere zur 'housing finance reform'.
www.nafcu.org/News/2017_News/August/...abria_at_NAFCU_Caucus/
Sowohl Calabria, als auch die NAFCU sprachen sich bereits für einen Kapitalpuffer aus; und für den Erhalt von F+F. Allerdings fordert die NAFCU (in großem Eigeninteresse) eine staatliche Garantie auf Fannies Wertpapiere, die MBS. Ich bin gespannt.
Vielleicht erinnert ihr euch noch, welche Euphorie herrschte, als Mnuchin zu Trumps Team stieß. Dann noch Mulvaney, Icahn und eben Calabria.
Diese Leute sind noch immer da. Und ihre Meinungen haben sich keineswegs geändert.
Das wird schon werden...
White House blasts Republican senator's 'outrageous' criticism of Trump
Olivier Knox
Chief Washington Correspondent
Yahoo News
August 24, 2017
0:01 0:29
Sarah Sanders calls Sen. Bob Corker’s comments about President Trump’s competence ‘ridiculous and outrageous’
The White House on Thursday angrily rejected as “ridiculous and outrageous” comments from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R.-Tenn., questioning President Trump’s stability and competence.
Corker told reporters in Tennessee last week that Trump “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.” The lawmaker also said Trump “recently has not demonstrated that he understands the character of this nation,” an apparent reference to the president’s response to the white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Va. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., delivered a blistering rebuke of President Trump in Chattanooga last week, saying he has not yet demonstrated the stability or competence required for an American president to succeed. (Photo: Tim Barber/Chattanooga Times Free Press via AP)
Asked about those comments, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders replied, “I think that’s a ridiculous and outrageous claim.”
Corker’s comments came as Republican lawmakers have shown increased willingness to criticize their party’s leader on a range of fronts.
Trump has reportedly vented his anger directly at the Tennessee Republican over the passage of a bill strengthening sanctions against Russia. Trump reluctantly signed the legislation into law earlier this month.
The comments from Sanders came hours after Trump sharply criticized Republican leaders in Congress on Twitter. He blamed them for the looming legislative “mess” over raising the nation’s debt ceiling and took aim at Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Asked about the increasingly fraught relationship between the president and his top allies in Congress, Sanders replied, “I think the relationships are fine.”
She added, “Certainly, there are going to be some policy differences, but there are also a lot of shared goals, and that’s what we’re focused on.”
The president is “disappointed that Obamacare, they failed to get it repealed and replaced,” she said. “But at the same time, President Trump has worked with leader McConnell to reach out to other members and to work on those shared goals, and we’re going to continue to do that when the Senate comes back from recess.”
0:01 1:24
Sen. Corker questions Trump’s ‘stability’ and ‘competence’ to govern
________________________________________
www.yahoo.com/news/...trageous-criticism-trump-195321668.html
Hi,
der gewaltige Hurrikan "Harvey" wird sicherlich zu Hypothekenstreckungen oder gar Ausfällen führen. Damit dürfte ein geringerer Gewinn für das laufende Quartal und auch für die Folgezeit erwartet werden. Auswirkungen auf Privatisierungspläne?
MfG
der gewaltige Hurrikan "Harvey" wird sicherlich zu Hypothekenstreckungen oder gar Ausfällen führen. Damit dürfte ein geringerer Gewinn für das laufende Quartal und auch für die Folgezeit erwartet werden. Auswirkungen auf Privatisierungspläne?
MfG
Reuters
Fannie Mae says over 36,000 homes in its portfolio in Harvey's path
www.reuters.com/article/...-military-transgender-idUSKCN1B81GN
Fannie Mae says over 36,000 homes in its portfolio in Harvey's path
www.reuters.com/article/...-military-transgender-idUSKCN1B81GN
Es gibt keine neuen Beiträge.
|
Neueste Beiträge aus dem Fannie Mae Forum
| Wertung | Antworten | Thema | Verfasser | letzter Verfasser | letzter Beitrag | |
74 | 44.395 | Potential ohne ENDE? | ogilse | lerchengrund | 07:57 | |
| 5 | 160 | Einschätzung Depot | AlexBoersianer | tagschlaefer | 12.02.20 21:49 | |
| 34 | FANNIE MAE geht noch was? | LQMT | Grieschischer Wein | 11.01.17 15:30 | ||
| 3 | 546 | Die Hypothekenbanken - Langfristig lukrativ? | Captain178 | 24dan | 12.12.16 15:40 |
