rros

Probably delay anything material until July when the likely next decision point occurs post-Seila. That's consistent with the stock price and Calabria's repeated misleading statements on timing of capital rule and especially financial advisors. "... Calabria's repeated misleading statements... " Finally, someone who has noticed. I let go of most of my position -held since 2010- last summer after he flip-flopped. The fact that he reconsidered his views or showed cracks in his stance back then was the last -shockingly disappointing- straw. For me. I kept a few up until recently. But finally accepted the fact that those of us who had to withstand the advent of the NWS may never see justice. What I am left with is both a personal error in judgment -correctly assessing the difficulty of fighting the US government- but also an unpleasant taste for its inner workings. Specially, a leftist administration. Good luck to everyone. rros I take it from your comment that you held high hopes for a political/administrative solution, hence the negative view once Calabria waffled. You sound like you have made up your mind on the whole thesis as if it's all over. My question to you is how do you see the (negative) thesis playing out now? Delay? To me, the preferred have a pretty rock-solid case and the only negative thesis at this point is significant, continued delay coupled with hollowing-out of the GSE (e.g. spinning off CSS, new market competition, new onerous regulations, SIFI-type restrictions, etc). I think a lot of harmful regulations would have to go through Congress though which makes them unlikely. For what it's worth I have always placed a fairly high emphasis on the court cases, which is one of the reasons I have stayed in this investment. Yes justice is slow, but it is inexorable. I do not have a positive or negative thesis anymore. And I have not kept close track to most recent events. No, I did not come to the conclusion that "it is all over". I came to the realization that I could use the funds in a better, more predictable way. A way that may suit my emotional needs better, too. With facts I could put my hands on in spite of the perennial volatility of financial markets. Maybe the preferreds are made whole. Maybe shareholders get rewarded by courts. I do not know. I simply stopped being interested. Purely a personal decision.

Probably delay anything material until July when the likely next decision point occurs post-Seila. That's consistent with the stock price and Calabria's repeated misleading statements on timing of capital rule and especially financial advisors. "... Calabria's repeated misleading statements... " Finally, someone who has noticed. I let go of most of my position -held since 2010- last summer after he flip-flopped. The fact that he reconsidered his views or showed cracks in his stance back then was the last -shockingly disappointing- straw. For me. I kept a few up until recently. But finally accepted the fact that those of us who had to withstand the advent of the NWS may never see justice. What I am left with is both a personal error in judgment -correctly assessing the difficulty of fighting the US government- but also an unpleasant taste for its inner workings. Specially, a leftist administration. Good luck to everyone.

I am not sure what this means in terms of the big picture. But Sweeney did not sound like she would be happy rewarding post-nws buyers. Perhaps her ruling reflects this?

They now have the incentive to beat Aramco's IPO lol.

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/fnma-and-fmcc-preferreds-in-search-of-the-elusive-10-bagger/msg388515/#msg388515 Where my Mr. Muscle? Mr. Muscle is in his muscle training session at the moment. ;) Unbelievable that after I said this was my last post here a while back, you guys still wouldn't let me go. Didn't know you love me that much. ;) We need your input for some quick bucks :)

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/fnma-and-fmcc-preferreds-in-search-of-the-elusive-10-bagger/msg388515/#msg388515 Where my Mr. Muscle?

They could have been before the sweep. A strong reason to have purchased the shares after HERA and prior to the sweep. There was a path to getting out which Obama blocked. I do not think the commons or preferreds are or ever were a good short. I just feel this Administration and prior aren't (haven't been) really forthcoming with a solution. Although this year Calabria spoke a lot. And Mnuchin did in the past. I keep the remaining shares in part because of inertia, do not have to sell them for any other reason and would certainly like the courts to disentangle this mess or throw a bone to the FHFA or Treasury, one that will pave the way for them to act. At present, while the Srs. continue to build up, recapitalization is just talk. The above has nothing to do with how shares trade. I hate to admit this but over the years the preferreds have been a phenomenal trade (trade in which I never engaged in). And as I said a few days ago when there was a lot of gloom here, all preferreds were trading at a similar bottom like in the past 3 years. I think if they run again say, by next summer, I will simply let go of these final shares. The pre-sweep holders like me have suffered a devastating emotional blow. Compounded by the fact that placing hope on the courts has been also enormously frustrating. Sure, a ruling a ruling there... but no true relief.

If J. Sweeney rules against the NWS common sense is we go back to 2nd amendment. Isn't it a stretch (wishful thinking) for Bove to suggest the funds paid will offset the Srs. by default? The 2nd amendment still put us squarely at the old 10% dividend, f-o-r-e-v-e-r. The 2nd, like the original PSPAs, says nothing about redemption. J. Sweeney may insert something in her ruling specifically designed to deal with the impossibility of repayment but there is no guarantee. Her complaining about the government tactics to extract all the companies' earnings does not lead to the conclusion the Srs. have been paid off. Under what arguments can the judge change the nature of the original deal? If she rules that not being able to repay the Srs. directly contradicts HERA08 the whole agreement (PSPAs) is in play, not just the NWS. treasury has taken the money. over $180B. if they give it back then there is no preference pay down. they wont give it back. in fact, I am not sure if treasury has that much in its accounts with the fed. "...over $180B." I understand where you are coming from. But if we stick to the letter of the agreement and its amendments, nothing has been overpaid. It is just us that would like to think in those terms. The 10% dividend has been set for eternity, unfortunately. So there is really no "10% moment". There is no finish line. About the only thing that would have been different w/o the 2012 sweep -and my hope is that J. Sweeney can see it this way- is that in 2013 the companies could have seen the 50 bill reversal in their own books after having paid the regular dividends. And that following that reversal the companies may have been able to continue building up capital, albeit at a slow pace because of 18.7 bill yearly obligation to Treasury. This accumulation of capital may have led to the Conservator guide the companies out of conservatorship (raising additional capital) or perhaps redeeming the Srs to reduce the bulky outlays. A path Obama team likely envisioned and sought to obstruct. If J. Sweeney understands the damage done to the organic recapitalization process she may rule in a way that reverses this. But ruling that 187 bill will just evaporate because the nws was illegal is a stretch. For face value the Srs. must absolutely disappear. I do not know if J. Sweeney can legally stretch a ruling that will entail killing the Srs. I am still long but just a fraction of my original shares.

If J. Sweeney rules against the NWS common sense is we go back to 2nd amendment. Isn't it a stretch (wishful thinking) for Bove to suggest the funds paid will offset the Srs. by default? The 2nd amendment still put us squarely at the old 10% dividend, f-o-r-e-v-e-r. The 2nd, like the original PSPAs, says nothing about redemption. J. Sweeney may insert something in her ruling specifically designed to deal with the impossibility of repayment but there is no guarantee. Her complaining about the government tactics to extract all the companies' earnings does not lead to the conclusion the Srs. have been paid off. Under what arguments can the judge change the nature of the original deal? If she rules that not being able to repay the Srs. directly contradicts HERA08 the whole agreement (PSPAs) is in play, not just the NWS.

We are actually at a buying point. Similar to Nov 2017 and 3 more instances. Possibly but likely will take a lot more shareholder turnover before any confidence in a bottom. There are plenty of hedge fund holders who probably aren't interested in waiting on the new timeline and/or courts. In reality, it's all a moving target. Been that for as long as I can remember and things can change in a dime. They did with Obama. They will with Trump. With Watt and Calabria and with Geithner and Mnuchin, same thing. Don't despair. Could be a double by March/April next year.

We are actually at a buying point. Similar to Nov 2017 and 3 more instances.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer lol.

Is the Alex J. Pollock that has just resigned from CME Board to accept a new role at the US Treasury the same as our little old friend?

And... Srs. at?

and of most news... and of most articles, commentaries... and of any technical signals... and of