onyx1

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals? Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns? Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall! Cheers! Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms. How is that working out? About as well as those "Gun Free Zones" protect our school children.

Im sure he had Fannie and Freddie shareholders first on his mind. /s I'm surely hoping.

"We are going to do things that I said we were going to do, and we are going to take care of a lot of people that were mistreated by government for many, many years." Trump, 1/26/2016

"according to the staff members" The always reliable unnamed sources.

If you are still scratching your head over Trump, this short explanation is the best I've seen on how the politically correct bullies sparked a backlash. Mid-American got fed up, voted in a bully of their own, and they are cheering him on. Like it or not, right or wrong, this is how tens of millions of American feel: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368084.php

Please, make my day! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3927506/Celebrities-promised-leave-Canada-decide-stay-just-coincidence-Trump-planning-tax-cuts.html

Wait, what? Build a wall, out of the blue, with no warning?

Since we are making predictions 4-years forward, I'll offer another: Race relations in America, as measured by opinion polls, will show overwhelming improvement from today.

Thanks for posting Liberty. Just put in my pre-order.

I'm all for this truth crusade, but when the White House claimed the following, where was the outrage? "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan". "The Ft. Hood shooting is not terrorism, it's workplace violence". "Benghazi was the result of a You-Tube video". "11,000 inter-agency documents from 2008-2012 related to the GSE's will destroy the financial markets if released".

the problem is humans are wired for stories, and the most persuasive stories arent necessarily aligned with the truth (in fact its often the opposite). the "gse caused the crisis" narrative may be The Big Lie, but you cant deny its effectiveness. and unfortunately, the one thing we can be certain of about trump is that he will tell the most compelling story, truth be damned. i think its fair to say that the truth re: fannie and freddie is too complicated and uncomfortable for most people to overcome The Big Lie This speaks truth. When it come to articles-of-faith, like politics or religion, simple emotion-based persuasion tactics will always win over facts & reason because the truth is not provable. But, we as shareholders have something that separates us from an article-of-faith issue: The law. The justice system, if working properly, should be able to give facts & reason the proper weight.

Who is helping Jeff Sessions prepare for senate confirmation hearings? Yep, that Chuck Cooper.

FMCKJ vs s&p 500 with volume stats included, attached. FMCKJ_vs_SP_500_-_Copy.xls

FNMA, FNMAS, FMCC, FMCKJ daily close prices since 2008, attached. GSE_Daily_Close_Prices_2008-2016_-_Copy.xlsx

Or, Trump simply restores shareholder rights because it's consistent with the rule of law.

Which is why I don't consider the posted returns a fair representation. Survivorship bias drips from this thread.

BBSI

Looks like the talking points have been dutifully distributed to the sympathetic media drones.

This is good strategic thinking Merket. With or without an assist from the courts, the new administration is well aware of the looming "you're helping your hedge fund buddies" hysteria. I expect them to be well prepared with a persuasive response against abusive executive overreach.

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. They are not under "constant jeopardy" as they are under government conservatorship currently. The case can be argued that without the government's backing, these entities would cease to exist and the common and subordinated preferred stock would be worth 0 so why should they receive anything? The case can be made that without FDIC backing of deposits, banks would cease as well. So why should the bank shareholders receive anything? FDIC isn't government backing, members have to pay into the insurance fund. FDIC insurance is a full faith and credit guarantee of the United States government. https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/faq.html

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. The case can be argued that without the government's backing, these entities would cease to exist and the common and subordinated preferred stock would be worth 0 so why should they receive anything? The case can be made that without FDIC backing of deposits, banks would cease as well. So why should the bank shareholders receive anything?

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. Only financially-interested hedge funds are complaining. When did my personal assets morph into a hedge fund?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/business/dealbook/elizabeth-warren-whitney-tilson.html Too funny. Identity politics backfires.

Not much insight. The premise and idea are bad. We cannot predict the future that far out. ^ this

Al, optimism is surging. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/optimism-on-economy-stocks-surges-since-trump-election-cnbc-survey.html http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2016/12/08/economic%20optimism.jpg http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2016/12/08/Party%20reversal.jpg A master persuader with a businessman's orientation in the oval office, Trump is setting the stage for a flywheel of optimism that could easily take hold and boom the economy. The risk I see is that growth gets out of hand and inflation spikes down the road due to higher labor demand. But we will enjoy a robust economy and higher equity prices for years before that happens.