orthopa

It seems Milbank was brought on for more of what seems the recap aspect then the litigation. Does Milbank replace Arnold & Porter at some point in entirety? I appreciate the Milbank advising FHFA what the bad new would be but would the DOJ do the same for Treasury? They seem to be the most stubborn.

The main problem with Fhfa's and Tsy's lackadaisical approach to date is they are putting all of their eggs into a basket of a 2021-2022 capital raise which is wildly risky due to personnel and economic uncertainty. We could have Tsy scty Warren, FHFA head Waters, and/or an economic collapse in 2021. In addition this servicer drama is harming many Americans who need a real break not a non bank company making citizens' lives unnecessarily difficult out of fear of the servicers' own demise. The GSEs need capital asap. Private is preferable but in the absence of that a fair public infusion is necessary. Calabria bought himself time until mid to late May which is reasonable. Imo the country needs him and Mnuchin to get Plan B done. I do agree the lackadaisical approach is annoying. Especially with what we got out of Otting early last year. We may never know unless someone writes a memoir but someone slammed on the brakes big time last spring. It appears that the election and the projected capital levels are playing heavily into what they plan to do. Again if we are to take their stated goals and work thus far to be genuine then for lack of better options we have to trust the plan. The concerns about 21-22 are real and in an act of blind trust I have to believe Treasury/FHFA are aware of them also and have a plan. I don't think I would ever blindly trust another investment like this and type a similar sentence but if you understand the entirety of this investment and spent as much time as we have you see "it" clearly where others would just pass. In Mnuchin and Calabria we trust.

To the moon is fun to think about but I think it is being brought up because as unlikely as it is, its most likely to occur during a time of stress. The preferred can trade to par and all of your criteria can be met and to me this is all that matters for my investment. The common is less clear as it always has been. Our juniors could also trade less than par. Who says seniors must be extinguished? AFAIC, all the treasury needs to do is find a way to reimburse us for the $118 mil it stole. But seniors could be amended and IPO'd @ say 8%. We wouldn't want to but FnF could deal with that $16 bil/yr. And that $118 bil credit (or whatever) would become core capital, resolving everything except warrants. They could safely be extinguished because 1) it would historically consistent to do so, and 2) 90% of Congress doesn't even know what a warrant is. And there's no rule that says we must be converted to commons. They could just tell the hedgefunds to get bent, you're non-cumulative. Reject deal at your own risk. FIXED, and we're nowhere near 25/50 Probably not but come on, the very clear future we see for ourselves seems to have a few holes. 1 year 5 bagger on most. Sure anything is possible like you said and all scenarios should be considered. I appreciate the apprehension and its been good to have all along as these securities have never really seemed to trade in lockstep with reality. That being said all scenarios are not realistic. Sure Treasury could take steps as you say but a lot of those scenarios are very unproductive and interfere with a recap which I really think is just the opposite goal of Treasury/FHFA. The path of least resistance for both sides will be the most likely and FWIW the closer we get to the election the more both sides are incentivized to move this along due to uncertainty on November 3rd. What holes do you see in Treasury/FHFA goals or actions thus far?

Today, yes, I think the risk is acceptable, based on general reports of curve flattening and general lack of overwhelmed local ERs and ICUs. The "re-opening" of local economies should be conditional on: 1. universal mask usage 2. maintaining 6-ft social distancing 3. no large crowds This can allow many businesses, restaurants, maybe some schools to re-open. The decision regarding timing, pace, and extent of re-opening will be left to state governors and local authorities, who can fine-tune the above conditions, based on local factors. If a surge of serious cases start to show up in ERs and ICUs, they'll have to clamp down again. The federal government level can mostly give permission to states and localities to open up around April 30 (maybe even before), when they feel ready. They can veto crazy decisions that might happen in some regional southern areas, such as large church services, movie theaters, sports arenas. As you say, there is no good medical treatment/vaccine, and testing has been disappointing. (Whenever you rush out with new tests for a new disease, being unable to evaluate accuracy and reliability systematically, we really can't trust the results.) But you don't need testing or treatment in new pandemics, since the only effective measure is various levels of quarantine and travel restrictions. (If South Korea had no testing but had only lockdowns, they would have still been fine.) Today, I think the risk of economic recession/depression (deaths, suicides, depressions, lack of confidence in authorities) is greater than the risk of swamping the medical system, especially if the heavy lockdown extends beyond April 30. I think this feeling is widespread, and is percolating from the bottom-up. Any heavy handed top-down governmental restrictions will be answered by spontaneous bottom-up rebellion - so in a way, I think your question is moot. Improvement in testing should go on, but their utility will primarily be in retrospective analysis for future outbreaks. We don't need precise knowledge from test results to know what to do now (again, the only thing to do is isolation with masks and some form of quarantine). And even if a vaccine is developed, I don't have confidence that it will be effective or safe enough, especially if it comes earlier rather than later. +1 If once testing becomes available by all means get tested to see if you have antibodies right? Already being exposed verified with an eventual reliable test will relieve a lot of concerns. Wear a mask as the virus typically enters through mouth/nose. Wearing goggles may not be the most fashionable but glasses should help if want to be extra vigilant. As cobafdek says worst case if you do need ICU care it likely will be more available. I cant help but think if you are of the genetic make up (obesity, CVD, CA, DM) or have medical conditions that put you at risk your at risk regardless. How would you (hypothetical you) plan to out run this for 12-18-24 months? If your medical make up predestines you to a severe case with this virus that will be the case now, in July, Sept, Dec etc. Losing weight, stopping smoking, vaping, getting cholesterol down may go a long way to helping with comorbidities too which outside of getting the virus puts you most at risk. Cant change your age though.

Sure. It's pretty simple. You were saying early on that hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the USA probably had it, and that testing was pointless. Then, hundreds of thousands of people in NYC actually got it and more than 10K died, which wouldn't have happened if all those people were infected already. And the countries that have done the best have been the ones who were good at testing and tracing. That said, I have come down more harshly on you than others simply because you're dishonest, and because--if you are actually a doctor--I think that dishonesty makes you dangerous. (I would have no problem whatsoever with you if you were simply wrong and adjusted your beliefs as the evidence changed. In fact, I'd have a whole pile of respect for you, if that were the case.) I also think that anyone who makes the argument that the worst case didn't arise so the worst case scenario couldn't possibly be true--after there was a massive, month-long lockdown to prevent the worse case scenario--is either disingenuous or stupid or both. Today, yes, I think the risk is acceptable, based on general reports of curve flattening and general lack of overwhelmed local ERs and ICUs. The "re-opening" of local economies should be conditional on: 1. universal mask usage 2. maintaining 6-ft social distancing 3. no large crowds This can allow many businesses, restaurants, maybe some schools to re-open. The decision regarding timing, pace, and extent of re-opening will be left to state governors and local authorities, who can fine-tune the above conditions, based on local factors. If a surge of serious cases start to show up in ERs and ICUs, they'll have to clamp down again. The federal government level can mostly give permission to states and localities to open up around April 30 (maybe even before), when they feel ready. They can veto crazy decisions that might happen in some regional southern areas, such as large church services, movie theaters, sports arenas. As you say, there is no good medical treatment/vaccine, and testing has been disappointing. (Whenever you rush out with new tests for a new disease, being unable to evaluate accuracy and reliability systematically, we really can't trust the results.) But you don't need testing or treatment in new pandemics, since the only effective measure is various levels of quarantine and travel restrictions. (If South Korea had no testing but had only lockdowns, they would have still been fine.) Today, I think the risk of economic recession/depression (deaths, suicides, depressions, lack of confidence in authorities) is greater than the risk of swamping the medical system, especially if the heavy lockdown extends beyond April 30. I think this feeling is widespread, and is percolating from the bottom-up. Any heavy handed top-down governmental restrictions will be answered by spontaneous bottom-up rebellion - so in a way, I think your question is moot. Improvement in testing should go on, but their utility will primarily be in retrospective analysis for future outbreaks. We don't need precise knowledge from test results to know what to do now (again, the only thing to do is isolation with masks and some form of quarantine). And even if a vaccine is developed, I don't have confidence that it will be effective or safe enough, especially if it comes earlier rather than later. You must have missed this post by cobafdek right before yours. My assumption is you think he/she is a dishonest doctor too. We will in time see if 100's of thousands or millions had it.

How wide spread was it on March 11th?

Dear orthopa, not taking sides, but Exponencial growth makes it possible. numbers were growing over 30% a day in most places prior to lockdown, which means healthcare capacity would be overwhelmed in those places were it not for the lockdowns: lockdowns earn you time by reducing case growth from over 30 to sub 10% (over here after a few weeks we are now on a 3-4% case growth per day). with that time you can plan, prioritize, buy supplies, organize campaign hospitals, etc. at over 30 % a day (in some places maybe over 50% a day) everybody gets sick before you can do anything. However, millions of cases is not something strange in a country as big as the us. And with a double in less than 3 days you very quickly reach the millions. The lockdowns however might have turned many millions into a few millions, which means this thing will last longer, but should not kill so many I agree, and believe probably millions. Spreading rapidly and what that means is highly up for debate and probably useless to discuss right. Throw a number and situation out there and it seems plausible. My point was if the lock down slowed the spread and people stayed in their house, wore masks etc then the growth should have slowed exponentially. NY has been on a "pause" for a month. New cases caused by community spread should have hit rock bottom and in reality only now be from spread within families/close contacts etc. Once the pre lockdown infections progressed to recovered or death where else would the infection be coming from? So if NY is at 2 million cases after a complete lock down taking into account the slowest possible spread from the most extreme measures contemplated, that number of infected now is coming from a higher then expected initial base before the lock down. Whether or the lock downs actually worked or not maybe up for debate around the country. Different states locked down at different times. Different restrictions in each state. Some have only essential services, some don't. All seem to be working. Its likely the social distancing, standard precautions, hand washing, masks, etc that is having the most effect since that is probably the most consistent measure practiced across the entire US.

At the risk of sounding misanthropic: I think the lesson here is that, this WILL happen again (could be next year, next decade, next century - but viruses do not go away) ; and we will NOT be prepared, we will not learn from this, and to think otherwise is to grossly overestimate the ability for a bunch of tribal nations and populist leaders to "do what is right". Look at China and the US to see what the world powers are doing: totalitarian misinformation vs. egotistical misinformation. Nonsense all around. Not only that but how well are we prepared for: 1. A tsunami that destroys the east/west coast 2. An earthquake that devastates California/west coast 3. A nuclear attack and associated fall out 4. An asteroid hitting earth 5. insert recent hollywood end of world movie. Hindsight is always 20/20. Any natural disaster(virus/disease included here) in the future will take us by surprise and we wont be prepared for it. We cant think of everything and as powerful as we think we are the natural forces that rule our world are way stronger then us. The BP spill was a shit show. The Haiti earthquake was a shit show. Katrina was a shit show, etc etc. We are humans, we make mistakes, we are forced by default to react in situations with limited knowledge and are horrible at making predictions. That being said is it any surprise this may have not been handled perfectly at every step along the way?

No, they were appallingly bad, to the extent that I'd lose a some degree of respect for all doctors if it weren't for Dalal's sensible posts on this thread to pull me back off that ledge. Frankly, it terrifies me that doctors exist who ignore evidence for gut feel, make wild speculations not even supported by common sense let alone facts, and then when the evidence proves them wrong, continue to insist that they were right. (What the heck is one to do if one seriously needs a doctor, and this is the doctor one gets? Just roll over and die?) Lol. Please point to me where I was wrong Dick? Dalal's sensible posts? Jesus Christ, which ones? the chicken little the sky is falling ones? the never ending cock sucking of Taleb? The tiresome Buffett and Munger quotes? The personal attack ones? The one where he told Gregmal "Fuck you" when he was wrong? The never ending Trump bullshit and political innuendo. The ones where he insulted myself and others unabated? Cherzeca was right, you belong in the Dalal pile too. You want to align yourself with that childish bullshit? Be my guest. We could have a 10 page thread of just his/her insults throughout the message board. Quite a character on the end of that keyboard. Self assumingly witty, smart, and bumptious but in all honestly if the real life personality matched what has been typed out on this message board a DSM-5 evaluation would be in order. You mean i told that guy to fuck off after he mocked NYers dying in “the cesspool”. You continue to make things up. It’s ok, in your corner you have: - Gregmal - cubsfan - chezerca A.k.a. The best of the best You typed that stuff no one else, and it has nothing to do with corners or teams. If in real life you treat people with same vitriol and aggression that you do on here then maybe you need to actually re read those Munger/Buffet quotes because let me tell you are not even in the same galaxy.

Don't be too hard on these guys - they were only off by millions. Kind of like Gavin Newsome - in another couple of weeks, 56% of Californians were supposed to be infected - around 24 million residents, but since there are no subways and crowded busses in CA, these guys made up all kinds of excuses why it didn't happen. What else is new? Exactly. I get my nuts roasted for saying 100's of thousands/millions have the virus 5 weeks ago but at the same time Dalal, Gibbons, and alwaysdrawing are choking on their models predicting EXPONENTIAL DEATHS My assumption is still up for debate, theirs is totally, 100% without question wrong. But I guess what you do is scream and yell, and insult and rub someones face in it to prove their point.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wheels-are-in-motion-for-widespread-coronavirus-antibody-testing-in-new-york-2020-04-15?mod=mw_latestnews Antibody testing will be key to getting economies around the country moving again. “We have these estimates that it could be millions of people” in the U.S. who will qualify to go back to work once an antibody test is deployed, said Joshua M. Epstein, a professor of epidemiology at the New York University School of Global Public Health. "Until the tests are available, there’s no way of knowing just how many New Yorkers have had the virus, Racaniello said. He estimates it could be 10 times more than the official tally, due to lack of early testing and the potentially large number of asymptomatic carriers. " And no one hit me with that its been spreading since you said millions of people 5-6 weeks ago so thats why I could be that high now. If Dalal can say the curve was flattened and disaster was averted because of the lock down, then you cant in same breath said it has been spreading rapidly. Cant have it both ways.

Uh, yeah, that about sums it up - but why miss a chance to blame it all on Trump when you have the opportunity? John - you're kind of taking the grown up view, which doesn't fly around here..just ask Orthopa No shit, I have tried taking the high road with many here but god damn its hard.

No, they were appallingly bad, to the extent that I'd lose a some degree of respect for all doctors if it weren't for Dalal's sensible posts on this thread to pull me back off that ledge. Frankly, it terrifies me that doctors exist who ignore evidence for gut feel, make wild speculations not even supported by common sense let alone facts, and then when the evidence proves them wrong, continue to insist that they were right. (What the heck is one to do if one seriously needs a doctor, and this is the doctor one gets? Just roll over and die?) Lol. Please point to me where I was wrong Dick? Dalal's sensible posts? Jesus Christ, which ones? the chicken little the sky is falling ones? the never ending cock sucking of Taleb? The tiresome Buffett and Munger quotes? The personal attack ones? The one where he told Gregmal "Fuck you" when he was wrong? The never ending Trump bullshit and political innuendo. The ones where he insulted myself and others unabated? Cherzeca was right, you belong in the Dalal pile too. You want to align yourself with that childish bullshit? Be my guest. We could have a 10 page thread of just his/her insults throughout the message board. Quite a character on the end of that keyboard. Self assumingly witty, smart, and bumptious but in all honestly if the real life personality matched what has been typed out on this message board a DSM-5 evaluation would be in order.

I made it policy to no longer respond to you (Schwab711 does a good job anyway), but you attempt to call me out here and grossly mischaracterize my statements--"fearing a collapse in the healthcare system" does not equal "predicting complete collapse of healthcare system": No, collapse did not happen thanks to - NYC lockdown, - every single hospital in NYC turning itself inside out, - Cuomo, - cancelling all elective cases, - A military ship, - Javit's center, - A tent in central park, - And more unprecedented, never before done actions taken Saying I should be criticized for fearing healthcare collapse in early March (before any of these things were put in place) is laughable. And btw, the deaths were exponential until the curve flattened thanks to all of these unprecedented, never-before-done measures. Finally, You are and have been consistently wrong and refuse to eat your bowl of crow. So, your bowl is going cold--can I just have it instead? Groceries are hard to come by these days. Thanks. That still means you were wrong though and every model you quoted and took to heart was also, and yes you quoted models. Tough to take I know. Your predictions never matched reality, and never were going to. You were unhinged and scared. People do weird things and are irrational when they are scared, and it was obvious you were. Your forgiven.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fannie-mae-home-sales-will-decline-by-nearly-15-in-2020-due-to-coronavirus-2020-04-15?mod=home-page Home prices projected to be steady/increase this year making it less likely home owners will walk away ie default. Good so far for FnF.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/04152020_covid_19_responses.asp Calabria teaming up with CFPB to make sure no funny business with servicers. He is really laying the lumber to the MBA, Chris Whalen, Dave Stevens crowd. No love lost there.

And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch. You said testing was pointless. You said everyone already had the virus 5-6 weeks ago. There would not be 36% of a sample actively infected if that was true unless we didn't have immunity to the virus after recovering. You were wrong about the random things you made up without support. We do need testing. Not everyone was infected 5-6 weeks ago. It doesn't matter, but it does seem necessary to remind you. This is a dumb disagreement though because I don't want it to look like I'm cheerleading for bad outcomes or that I'm taking credit for anything I've written. I personally didn't come up with any idea. I just read ideas and pieced them together. You didn't personally come up with anything. You described them as a gut feel. Guesses by another phrase. They were wrong. It's not that they were wrong that is important. It's that you passionately held opinions about guesses on a topic that can be studied. It's that you didn't see the importance of testing so that experts didn't have to make educated guesses (and countries throughout the world didn't have to shutdown due to the unknown). I'd also note that 36% infected simultaneously in a population like homeless is similar to the cruise ship samples. Asymptomatic rate is high because many were infected just before the testing (thus <5 days infected and asymptomatic). Hopefully they follow up with this population. High asymptomatic rate is consistent with everything we know in high infection growth rate situations since all infected <5 days are asymptomatic + some % of the infected at 5 - X days (the % that remain asymptomatic). Again, we don't have enough data to know so I'm not married to this explanation. Only pointing out that both pregnant woman in NYC and homeless in Boston studies are consistent with everything experts have said about the virus thus far (and not your guesses). Whoa!! who put sand in your panties!! So let me get this right. You hammer on my guesses but in hindsight when you chose not to stick your neck out. You prefer to read everyone else then opine in hindsight. Ok bud! :) Not to mention I said they were opinions right? ...And from what I gather from your posts you seem to think you have a reasonable understanding of things medical but honestly based on what you have posted/discussed, you don't to be frank. You seem to have a bone to pick with me which is fine I don't give a fuck, but to return the favor Ill follow your posts and hammer you going forward. Fine with me, please make sure ANYTHING remotely close to dealing with medicine you research, talk to some friends, and google the fuck out it because I will hammer you. That being said I dont think my guesses were too bad. Weren't we just arguing about this in my example of extended contact at airport ? Now because he says it, its true? LOL Orthopa, do you think you can slow down a bit and try to communicate a little more clearly? I think you are making some good points, but it seems your points may not be getting across clearly or that you may even be misunderstood. This post in particular makes me think that is the case. I also thought your earlier point about testing the role of testing in a diagnosis is likely a good point, but was probably too hasty to get your point across. Maybe some other medical professionals could weigh in on that, especially if you're to busy to respond. I dont know how much more I can slow down. I have probably posted 50 times? Trying to get some points across. Am I completely right?, of course not but I have experience FWIW. Others have graphs, twitter links, and or political angles which are underwhelming at best sometimes. Again points that I have made that I believe are true FWIW (we are allowed an opinion right?) 1. The virus has been here for months, likely early January and has been seen/dealt with in the health system under other diagnoses for months. 2. The first test confirmed, was not the first test here. 3. There was nothing the government or any nation in the world could do to stop the initial spread 4. Older people and those most at risk will die. There is no cure, and viruses kill people. Elderly people should take appropriate precautions. 5. Because the virus has been here for months testing is borderline useless and your going to chase your tail the entire time. This is due to numerous contacts and the extended incubation period. 6. If you don't test everyone the virus will continue to spread quickly, again via asymptomatic people and kids. Best policy is to test everyone, but its impossible and too late. 7. Best way to prevent spread is standard precautions! This includes isolation, hand washing, yada, yada. NOT TESTING. 8. If a patient test positive and there has been minimal definite contacts say someone who is home bound with a handful of contacts testing may make sense but these are limited cases. 9. The the spring/summer will bring a reprieve in new cases and hopefully that was well as the fact that nearly everyone will have been exposed or infected this will limit virgin hosts. 10. A vaccine is useless if the virus mutates significantly. 11. The number of cases are vastly under reported, probably numbering in the millions by now in the US. 12. If someone you know or yourself had a cold/URI/flu symptoms that tested negative, and was "way worse" then the common cold there was very high chance it is/was the corona virus. 13. Every case of the virus is not severe, so don't model it as such. Corona virus dx does not = ICU and ventilator. 14. I believe eventually those in charge medically will come to the conclusion that its inevitable that this becomes a pandemic with everyone getting infected in time. 15. If your human, you will get the virus in your lifetime. Nothing you can do. 16. Flattening the curve makes sense but I question when the curve will bump as the virus again likely has been here for months. Time here and number of cases up for debate and apparently others are wondering too as studies continue to come out regarding antibody testing. Does that bother you? Others are posting these not me and apparently others are thinking its a possibility too. Did you see who I said we had to test above? Did you see how I said we should stop the spread? Stick your neck out or sit in the peanut gallery and shut the fuck up please. Are you aware of a resource I should have accessed on March 11th? I think you have an excellent understanding of this at this point, and apparently able to put it down on paper better then me. Thanks. Just trying to make sure I fully understand the various perspectives. Again, apologies again for the comment before re: the profession you've chosen. It meant no disrepect. I do want to ask you - if you were to take a step back and think about your position, where could you be wrong? I could be wrong by how much of a hit this will be to the ICU/need for respirator, ie breakdown of health system. I can only think back to working during the H1N1 outbreak and the 17-18 flu season and that volume load which was ~15 million cases if I recall correctly. The system was stretched, but did not collapse, My opinion is the virus has been here for 6 weeks/months and cases are vastly under reported. So in my mind we are currently in an environment of where many think we will be from documented patient 1 say 4-6 weeks from now, already! Its in this mind frame I have a hard time rectifying a wickedly high death rate and medical system collapse if we are operating in this environment currently. I certainly could be wrong on this, I hope I'm right of course. We will see. The fact of the matter is if the cases are severely under estimated and we are handling it now maybe we are further along on the curve then we think, and handling it fine. Here is another prediction I made and now in hindsight we know the models were estimating 5-6 times the need for beds and ICU's ventilators and outside of NYC we have not seen nearly the worst case scenario envisioned. Sorry if I dont have the time to sit down, run a small study, spend endless hours citing papers, articles, etc to your satisfaction. Ill try harder next time I promise. Finally I haven't seen you piss all over Dalal, alwaysdrawing etc who foresaw exponential deaths and complete collapse of the healthcare system in WA and NYC. Those two cities were supposed to be a sign of things to come for the rest of the US which as of right now, is completely wrong. Please get a hard on for them too as I dont feel its necessary to run back and rub their nose in it. Be fair and do it for me.

1) Perhaps Treasury can give FnF a credit of $125B rather than sending a check, similar to the idea that they would give FnF a $25-30B credit in the seniors-extinguished remedy. It could also be an arrangement where Treasury sends FnF 80% (or some other number) of all cash proceeds from the sale of its (converted from senior) common stock up to $125B. That would guarantee Treasury a profit. I don't know if this liability would count towards the debt ceiling, though. 2) Treasury had a 92% stake in AIG at one point and I don't think they had to consolidate AIG's balance sheets onto the government's, though I could be wrong. Does anyone here have knowledge of how that transaction was structured? 3) Treasury should easily be able to structure a senior conversion to avoid 80% ownership, or even 50% if controlling shareholder issues matter. One option is to convert the seniors to convertible non-cumulative prefs (which count towards core capital), but with a provision that Treasury can convert them to commons at any time up to a specified date, at which point the conversion to common would be forced. This allows for an easy piecemeal conversion over time that gives Treasury an eventual 99.5% common stake (or whatever number is enough to recoup the $125B plus whatever the warrants would have brought in) but doesn't ever trigger the 80% or 50% thresholds. The unwinding of Treasury's stake basically is the re-IPO here, but this resolution allows for immediate release (because FnF would be fully capitalized), or at the very least before the election. Releasing FnF and getting rid of the seniors (and thus the NWS) are the two major irreversible steps this administration can take. Incidentally, this scenario answers the questions of how Treasury gets paid and how hedge funds don't make a huge windfall. The juniors do go to par here, but I don't see a recap/release scenario that doesn't involve this. Maybe FHFA and Treasury can strong-arm the juniors into accepting a "haircut" exchange for commons (at less than par) as a condition for going through with recap and release at all? If we are to believe what Calabria/Mnuchin have said, as well as the steps they have taken so far then we have to believe at some point FnF will be recapped and released. I agree dont really see a scenario where preferred does not go to par or is compensated in some way if a hair cut is taken. That being said 4-500% still can be made via some preferred. Crazy. Question to those on the board. Which step taken in the future will give the biggest push to preferred? 1. Capital rule in late May? 2. Freddie/Fannie hiring advisers? 3. Final PSPA admendment Fall/winter? I would have to imagine they really wont pop until the most clarity is given via the final amendment. By year end capital at Fannie should be ~22-23B. If the senior preferred are gone by year end at that level of capital shouldn't the preferred trade near par or be worth par anyway? Dividends wont be turned on but the capital will be there to make the preferred worth par. If that is the case there will have to be a sweetener to get preferred to convert at a haircut before that level of capital builds on the balance sheet and PSPA amended. Otherwise why not just let the capital build and wait? I think this is why some have contemplated a surprise bang/announcement where conversion is announced with a PSPA agreement based on previous 30 day trading price of common etc. Otherwise why would preferred be motivated to convert? Just thinking out loud. Dont want to count chickens before they hatch but we are coming up on 7 months till end of the year and 6 to the election.

To the moon is fun to think about but I think it is being brought up because as unlikely as it is, its most likely to occur during a time of stress. The preferred can trade to par and all of your criteria can be met and to me this is all that matters for my investment. The common is less clear as it always has been.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/stanford-professor-jay-bhattacharya-coronavirus-death-rate Another Stanford guy that is a Doubting Thomas... good to have skeptics Makes you wonder what the death rate of the flu would be without widespread testing, vaccine, and 2 meds. Likely much closer to the corona virus then we think. Time will tell.

And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch.

This seems to be a play on endless QE obviously. Silver traded way up in 2010-2011 after QE2. Tempting for gamble.

Tons of more options traded as above today.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-13/wall-street-heaps-blame-on-calabria-as-roadblock-to-mortgage-aid There are some great quotes in this one.... "Whalen and others who fault Calabria say he’s putting personal politics ahead of doing what’s necessary to get through the pandemic. A common gripe is that Calabria is obsessed with achieving a Trump administration goal of releasing Fannie and Freddie from the government’s grip, so he doesn’t want the companies to extend what little capital they have to prop up mortgage servicers." Wow Mark is a horrible guy for doing what is right. "“Of course they need to step in now,” Jim Parrott, a former Obama administration official who is a consultant for mortgage companies, said of Fannie and Freddie. “If you’re not willing to allow the GSEs to step in when the private market flees and liquidly freezes, then why have government sponsored enterprises at all?” Revenge is best served cold. Im glad that others in the industry finally see the writing on the wall...the GSEs are on their way to be recapped and we finally have a regulator who is committed to following the letter of the law.

I have been looking at selling some puts as a way to get access to some cash. Puts on BA exp Jan 2021 in the 60-70 range trading at ~$7.00. Selling some of those seem interesting. Gov not going to let BA go bankrupt and CEO doesn't believe a bailout is necessary. A lot would have to and can go wrong but owning BA in the 50s may not be the worst thing in the world. Worst case you buy them back for pennies on the dollar. Thoughts or examples otherwise of companies that likely to make it through but options pricing in a lot of volatility?