onyx1

2001 BAC $31/share 2006 BAC $54/share 2009 BAC $4/share Yep! The old rules worked out great for shareholders. We should totally revert back to that full speed. And in 2006 BAC had no problem because the share price was high. My LPs are grateful you guys are looking out though. The same LP's who are forced to pay a GP who angrily rants about politics for several hours a day on an anonymous message board.

I had the same reaction. If the answer is true, I'm glad I'm not one of the limited partners.

I didn't think that they specifically challenge HERA as opposed to issues surrounding HERA, overreach , etc.? Apologize if I'm incorrect. If so, could you point me to the specific cases? http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0001.pdf Collins vs. FHFA, filed in Texas

The preferred shareholder's don't have a right to a dividend. But, they do have leverage because the common shareholder's cannot receive any distributions unless the preferred shareholder's dividend payments are current. Any attempt to recapitalize by selling common shares to new buyers with new money will fail unless the common sold is eligible to receive distributions.

That is what happens when there is no hope of improvement. In a capitalistic society even the poor get better and better off. The only reason there is a wealth disparity is that the pie is growing exponentially. When your piece is growing every year and life keeps getting better, you might bitch about others getting more and vote for handouts if possible, but you don't start lopping off heads. Yes. Uprisings will happen, justifiably, when basic needs like food are not available. They won't occur over someone else having a better TV.

I had the same reaction.

I wouldn't be surprised to see rights offerings distributed to preferred/common. Agree. It's not over until I've heard from a fat lady. But the past few weeks have been a welcome change from the last two years. :) Its been a wild five-year ride for me, with price swings anywhere from 18% to 500% of my cost basis. Though I've never been so optimistic, my champagne remains in the fridge.

I think both prefs and common kill it. It may be important to remember that Mnuchin is on the Board of SHLD with Berkowitz so surely they've discussed Fannie, and Berkowitz only owns prefs. It's possible Mnuchin converts prefs to common. I only own prefs. Just a thought. Too many moving parts for me to predict with any conviction. So, I own both.

The last sentence indicates he plans to avoid a fight with shareholders. Hard to quantify, but anyway you cut it, shareholders win. Maybe bigley.

I'd be shocked if BB hasn't already made his case. Mnuchin is a sharp guy. I dealt with him directly in the mid 1990's while exploring a mortgage transaction. He understands MBS's and the role of the GSE's. It wouldn't take BB more than 30 minutes to explain the lawlessness of the NWS, and his idea of moving the GSE's to a utility structure. I've no idea what Mnuchin's view is on the GSE's in general (of of the NWS in particular), but I'd bet heavily that he understands the legal & balance sheet issues, and the potential for a UST warrant windfall.

I asked Wilbur Ross in 2014 in Toronto (at one of the dinners associated with the Fairfax annual meeting) to respond to a recent statement by Jim Lockhart while a Vice-Chairman of WL Ross & Co., where Lockhart said in April 2014 about the GSE's: "It's a stretch, the stock and the preferred (stock) is worthless and should be worthless." Ross responded, in effect, that it was a stupid statement for Lockhart to make and does not represent the view of WL Ross & Co. I haven't heard a peep from Lockhart since then. Ross didn't offer any additional words of support for the shareholders or the government though. Many board members from COBF where in attendance, so maybe they can offer their interpretation as well. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-u-regulator-says-fannie-222316531.html

Latest New Yorker issue: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency "And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter." Looks like the MSM are just catching on to the reality that facts don't matter in politics.

Once you accept that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA. Sadly mistaken: Who exactly is part of this we? The 42 million Americans living in food insecure households? Food insecure household? This is another government contrived term that is designed to mislead the gullible. Laughable. The definition is so broad that someone who wanted organic kale but can only afford regular kale is considered "food insecure", and most people labeled "food insecure" are obese. The non-profits exploit the gullible by creating an illusion of a nationwide hunger crisis. September is Hunger Action Month, got to keep the money coming in! Sadly this charade dilutes the very small portion of people who are truly in need.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2011/09/b2607/b2607_chart1.ashx?w=500&h=536&as=1 Americans in poverty today live better the the richest people in the world did 100 years ago.

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA. Sadly mistaken:

News flash: In the USA, the Constitution provides that the people give rights to the government, not the other way around.

Bob Corker on CNBC this morning. I was hoping CNBC would post a video. No such luck. I did hit the audio record though, and here is my transcription: Sorkin: “Senator I wanted to ask you a question about Fannie and Freddie. I spent some time with Bill Ackman the activist investor last week. One of his great hopes is that they get resolved. What do think is going to happen?” Corker: “Well, Mike Crapo is coming into the Head of the Committee in the Senate and I know that he wishes to deal with this and Hensarling does on the house side. I met Bill Ackman and talked about some of the ideas he has. I think what you are going to see is that this is the second priority here. The first being the dealing with the Dodd-Frank excesses, the second dealing with the GSEs. From my standpoint, we have to eliminate the model of public sector losses and private gains. Having two entities that are continually guaranteed by the federal government, yet are stockholder ownership is a model that doesn’t work.” “I will say, while I don’t agree with everything that Bill Ackman has talked about, I do think he understands that. And I think maybe, maybe, there is a way to get to a place that is not the system that we have today. But the model that we have had is totally, utterly, ridiculous. I mean it is ridiculous. To have the GSEs with 0.5% capital and $5 trillion in assets combined is a ridiculous model. We’ll see where that goes. I’m hopeful that will be dealt with. I will say that dealing with GSE’s is the most complicated issue I’ve dealt with since I’ve been in the senate. Far more that dealing with the excesses of Dodd-Frank. It’s going to take some gray matter to get it into the right place.” My take: Positive development as he opened the door a crack for negotiation. But he laid out a marker for eliminating the government support. I have no idea how much influence Corker will have in the process.

Bruce Berkowitz, the firm’s Founder and Chief Investment Officer, will host a one-hour conference call on November 18, 2016, at 11:00 AM EST, with the objective of giving investors the opportunity to participate in the discussion of portfolio outlook and recent performance. Click here to view the press release. The format of the call will mirror that of February's public call: Mr. Berkowitz will provide commentary on investments while responding to comments and questions submitted in advance by the public. Fairholme will accept questions and/or comments until Friday, November 11 at 5:00 PM EST. All topics for discussion may be submitted electronically to [email protected]. Please note that submissions will remain anonymous. UPDATE: Guest Speaker Will Address Fannie and Freddie Legal Progress during Fairholme Conference Call We are pleased to announce that David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, will be joining the conference call. Mr. Thompson, one of the lead attorneys representing Fairholme's interests, will discuss our legal progress with respect to our investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. http://www.fairholmefunds.com/confcall2016

Berkowitz has been fighting a 4-year David vs Goliath battle with the Obama administration to stop the persecution of GSE shareholders. While Berkowitz certainly stands to gain financially, he has stated publicly that as an American citizen, he is horrified with the contempt & disregard for the rule of law this Obama administration declares it is entitled to. If allowed to stand, the theft of assets through the net worth sweep will have profoundly chilling affect on our bedrock principal of property rights. That qualifies him as one of the good guys.

Do you think the economy could withstand 6% rates? Do you think the Fed would let that happen? Federal debt interest expense would be something to see under that scenario! I can only generalize because the world is way to complicated for me to predict. I believe excessive regulation and high taxes have put a "wet blanket" over the country and smothered growth prospects. In order to maintain any growth at all, Washington has used the one tool they have complete control over: the Fed. Remove the "wet blanket" and growth will naturally rise as will interest rates. Banks should be at the front of the line to receive the benefits. Will this scenario play out? I really don't know, but it sounds plausible and since I own BAC and WFC I'll be watching closely.

Jeff Gundlach: "Look for Trump to "amp up the deficit" to pay for infrastructure and other programs - producing an inflation rate of 3% and nominal GDP growth of 4-6%. Given that, there's no way the 10-year Treasury yield stays near its current level of 2.15%, and it could rise as high as 6% in the next four or five years." Hard for me to imagine this scenario is anything but super-positive for bank earnings.

They don't need to do anything. Life offers us all a choice.

So you are saying he is trying to kiss up to POTUS or he is reconciling himself to a very sad event. I am saying people have a choice on how to deal with the turmoil going on in their heads. Ackman chose acceptance and a positive path forward. Others, like these, alt=Image result for trump street protestshttp://images.indianexpress.com/2016/11/election-protests-tex_kuma759.jpg[/img] chose to continue a fight with the monster they hallucinate Trump to be.

Looks like a Verizon map. Can you hear me now?