BeerBBQ

What was the original strike price for those warrants?

Tim Howard has talked about $90B being needed and that DeMarco/others estimates for equity capital needs are too high. I think $90B is about 5x actual credit losses experienced.

at 60bp g-fee, Ackman suggested 14x $15 net income would be around $23. A more conservative 10x multiple would put you at $17. Tim Howard (ex CFO) suggests 10x his net income number of $10.6B (I think he uses a lower g-fee?) and then adds 10% for favorable surprises and subtracts 20% for negative surprises and gets about $15-20 on a fully diluted share count.

Why are commons wiped out in that scenario?

can you please elaborate on what you mean by government's warrant financial positon is aligned with Pershing Capital? Also, in terms of settlement, how does Washington Federal play into that considering that case is challenging the warrants too?

Is anyone concerned about the Sammons appeal to move the Sweeney Case to a different court? To an untrained eye, the brief makes some compelling points. Curious what those more familiar with the legal system think.

What's up with the intervenor? Now appealing decision to Supreme Court. What is the point in intervening. What is he trying to accomplish?

have the 18 decisions come in same order that the arguments were heard?

her tweet on Aug 25th at12:36 PM says "for Sure" in response to a question "Are you going to publish any more articles concerning the hijacking of Fannie and Freddie?" by invmyers on Aug 25

Care to elaborate re: retail?

Didn't Icahn buy common shares from Berkowitz awhile back?

What is the amount of time a judge/judges can take to make a ruling? Is there a point when a ruling has been delayed so long that a party can claim that due process is being denied? Is there any remedy for a situation where a ruling is being sat on?

another amateur Q: Why can't FHFA be the government in one court but not the Gov't in another court? Hume said FHFA needs it that way for him to lose - is that not a possibility?

http://www.dsnews.com/news/04-19-2016/counsels-corner-the-battle-over-gse-profits-is-raging "What that means is, if the government wanted to receive dividends under the original deal of more than the 10 percent, it had to exercise the warrants for the common and before a common stock dividend could be paid, there had to be a dividend on the junior preferred shareholders, the private preferred shareholders, because they had priority over the common. That was recognized in all the contracts—and when the dividend was paid on the 80 percent of the common, the 20 percent of the common held by private shareholders would get a prorata dividend. That was the original deal. What we're saying is the government isn't allowed to change that originally deal so that it takes 100 percent of all dividends equal to the entire net worth of the companies no matter what—which is what the Net Worth Sweep does."

I assume assets would be monetized and proceeds would payoff liabilities with residual, if any, would go to pref and common? under paragraph a of section 4, seems like assets would have to be less than liabilities to terminate conservatorship and become receivership. Obviously under that scenario there wouldn't be anything for shareholders. However, entire company would have to be in run off with sweep in place for that to occur and I'm not sure that is the case now. Not even sure that would be possible given the risk to housing market and impact on economy if run off were enacted and not enough participants would or could fill void. Not sure bond holders would like that strategy either and from what I understand, keeping certain bondholders happy was part of rationale for putting gse's in current situation. I think court cases have a good chance of prevailing and don't think perpetual conservatorship is likely if court challenges fail. So wondering about realistic resolutions that hurt shareholders. Interested in your thoughts.

I read this commentary on a SA post http://seekingalpha.com/user/326415/comments "And although no one has mentioned it publicly, HERA allows and I think it has been the government's plan all along to slowly strip away the corporate assets and then convert the conservatorships into a receivership (thereby wiping out the existing unsecured creditors and shareholders). On track to have most of their assets erased by then, that action was targeted for 2018. Their work will be carried on by the new successor corporation described in HERA, with the groundwork for its new operations now being put into place via the CSP and CSS programs now being implemented by the companies." This comment reminded me of page 84 of Hera Legislation (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ289/pdf/PLAW-110publ289.pdf) under paragrapgh D of section 4 titled Mandatory Receivership (bottom of page 83) that says: "‘‘(D) RECEIVERSHIP TERMINATES CONSERVATORSHIP.— The appointment of the Agency as receiver of a regulated entity under this section shall immediately terminate any conservator" Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If the court challenges fail, is this how shareholders will lose?

Maybe money is walking out the door and he's trying to keep investors from leaving the fund? A letter to say "we are close, stick with us" seems to serve that purpose. Same thing with Sears, the position is hammered and suddenly he's blogging about it. Do you have a link to the blog post re: SHLD?

Who do you follow on Twitter?