orthopa

Not necessarily totally on the topic of taking gains but a way to get access to some cash would be to sell some puts. 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.

You're the one that brought up a single data point, not me. You're also the one that calls your system TA, which generally implies a high (if not 100%) level of mechanism. I don't understand why your system works or why it should work. If you have had sustainable success with your system, good for you. But a value investing forum is not the place to be gloating about a result of a system that is, from a value investor's perspective, indistinguishable from guesswork. Oh really? When did I say "this is a single data point"? I thought you are smarter than putting words into my mouth to make your arguments look strong. I came to this thread with the genuine intention to help, but look at the hostility you gave back in return. I am putting you on my ignore list, so no need to respond to this post anymore. muscleman your call from 2019 was epic. no one can deny that. going forward please contribute additional calls with any color on your TA work for FnF and don't look back. There's a good chance your return in that capacity would be appreciated by most or all here. No one? you sure? It wasn't 'epic', it was just him supposedly selling on short term bullishness. Doing so has been smart with FnF, I'll give him that if he actually did, but if you really believe his 'chart' instructed him, you should know it doesn't work that way. No chartist works on stocks/preferreds which trade 10k/day. His chart is absurd. He's basically claiming he called the pandemic. Correct, I would note too that he didn't tell us to buy last week which is a strike against also ;D I get it, some people like his input as an attempt of forecasting. That's fine but for a while I didn't get it. But after going to a strip club I realized I didn't mind watching the fat girls dance too, so now I get it. Even if it doesn't add value it didn't cost you anything if you were going to the strip club/message board anyway. Its usefulness wouldn't be worth going in the back for lack of better comparison. To be fair, it's not as if he called that the stock would go down. He called the top of an idiosyncratic investment, which topped several months before the top in the overall market. Luck or skill? I can't say, but he certainly did more than what you're implying. Did you sell all or a signficant portion of your position when he/she posted that?

The serious risk to the housing market is a result of doing nothing and not having private capital in front of the taxpayer. The risk we are hearing about now relates to mortgage servicers and is manageable and frankly on them/Fed. The majority of what is being discussed relates to capital at FnF and the path to raising it. It does not involve housing policy or the housing market. Your conflating the two.

Some stuff that comes to mind immediately reading this: We know what COVID19 from Sars-COV-2 looks like, right? If we started getting infections in November and in the interim had had millions and millions of infections, in such a scenario, why did nobody notice clusters of anomalous multi-day fevers, pneumonias and deaths, especially in older populations? X-rays and CT scans showing glass opacities? Why nothing until the WA infection clusters and such? Why hasn't healthcare system been sounding the alarm much sooner? And would all other countries also have not noticed? South-Korea and the US had their first cases at the same time (showing how much different they've handled it), were they both fooled by the virus for months and just happened to notice at the same time? Infections started in November in China, but at that point the number was so small for a country of 1bn+, what are the chances that infected people happened to travel on a plane to the US? If this started in November, then China would still be ahead on getting herd immunity, right? And if this thing was so asymptomatic, then the whole country would've gotten it before they could've locked down Wuhan, right? Much easier to move around China than to fly across the world to the US. Yet why hasn't the rest of the country seen the Wuhan experience replicated everywhere with fevers and pneumonias and deaths? Is China that good at hiding it around the country with lots of western companies watching locally and people on VPNs able to leak info? And why did things only start in Wuhan that late if the R0 is high enough for infection to proceed as fast as you theorize? Coronavirus isn't the influenza. The influenza has a way of mutating and evading vaccines that the coronavirus isn't known for, so trying to compare flu shot effectiveness to theoretical corona herd immunity doesn't work. Seems like the facts on the ground don't line up with your theory. i think there's clearly a lot more people infected than people who got tested positive, that's not controversial at all. Experts have various estimates, I've seen 10x, 30x.. But to think that the number is 100x or 200x over many months and nobody has noticed sounds implausible. Early serum tests seem to show low single digit positives, but time will tell. And trust me, I really want to believe that this is way more asymptomatic and that we're way closer to herd immunity than it seems. That would be AMAZING. But the data doesn't show that, afaict. We surely still don't have the answers and as a clinician without a test and symptoms mimicking the flu I think many were blinded by experience and diagnosed such as flu like symptoms and or pneumonia. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3076334/coronavirus-strange-pneumonia-seen-lombardy-november-leading There is that, surely anecdotal and at this point unless you dig up the dead bodies who knows. But again in medicine if your not looking for something (ie cant test for it) it can be under your nose and have no idea its there. Exact opposite now FWIW. I don't remember hearing about a strange pneumonia in Italy in November either just like you I'm sure, and look what happened there. I am aware of the ability for the flu to mutate, thus my hypothetical efficacy at 50% which is maybe on the high end of history but a round number so I chose it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine Although early this data may change your mind. Will be interesting to follow for sure. https://www.bccourier.com/these-are-the-first-lessons-of-the-heinsberg-study/ These are the first, but already representative interim results: 1) at 15 Percent of the examined Gangelts residents were found to be infected 2)The likelihood of dying from the disease lies in gear at 0.37 percent 3)For comparison: According to the Johns Hopkins University, the lethality in Germany is currently 1.98 Percent – five times higher. Not herd immunity levels but worth following.

Gloating over what amounts to a lucky guess is poor form. From what I remember, some of us didn't disagree with your conclusions but instead the methods used to come to them. There is nothing to suggest that your investing method produces reliable results. Perhaps you really do have a real alpha-generating system that the rest of us just don't understand. But one data point doesn't prove anything. I have been bullish all the time last year until the end of September, and you call it "one data point"? If that's your understanding of statistics, then I have nothing further to say. I don't believe a pure mechanical system such as one magical moving average crossing another can provide alpha. My analysis is based on the assumption that Mr. Market may have deeper knowledge than us and watching how Mr. Market reacts to major news may tip off what he thinks. Too early to tell. Correct, as he has done in the past he will let you know after it happens.

You're the one that brought up a single data point, not me. You're also the one that calls your system TA, which generally implies a high (if not 100%) level of mechanism. I don't understand why your system works or why it should work. If you have had sustainable success with your system, good for you. But a value investing forum is not the place to be gloating about a result of a system that is, from a value investor's perspective, indistinguishable from guesswork. Oh really? When did I say "this is a single data point"? I thought you are smarter than putting words into my mouth to make your arguments look strong. I came to this thread with the genuine intention to help, but look at the hostility you gave back in return. I am putting you on my ignore list, so no need to respond to this post anymore. muscleman your call from 2019 was epic. no one can deny that. going forward please contribute additional calls with any color on your TA work for FnF and don't look back. There's a good chance your return in that capacity would be appreciated by most or all here. No one? you sure? It wasn't 'epic', it was just him supposedly selling on short term bullishness. Doing so has been smart with FnF, I'll give him that if he actually did, but if you really believe his 'chart' instructed him, you should know it doesn't work that way. No chartist works on stocks/preferreds which trade 10k/day. His chart is absurd. He's basically claiming he called the pandemic. Correct, I would note too that he didn't tell us to buy last week which is a strike against also ;D I get it, some people like his input as an attempt of forecasting. That's fine but for a while I didn't get it. But after going to a strip club I realized I didn't mind watching the fat girls dance too, so now I get it. Even if it doesn't add value it didn't cost you anything if you were going to the strip club/message board anyway. Its usefulness wouldn't be worth going in the back for lack of better comparison.

There is no way this is possible. A couple people here told me so. Cant wait to see those antibody tests. Hopefully for everyone this speeds the timeline to herd immunity up. Two ideas that I still cant bring together are 1. The virus is very contagious, 2. A low level of the population has been exposed. Looking at normal flu year and the number of people that become infected compared to a virus like this that is "much more contagious" it doesn't make sense at first glance. I dont posit flu based on deaths but means of spread via sneezing, coughing, close contact etc. Flu Luckily we have a known benchmark, the 2018-2019 flu season with 35.5 million cases, wide spread testing and a cheap available vaccine given. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html 160ish million flu vaccines given in 2019 (not sure of efficacy for argument sake assume 50% so you protecting 80 million people from spreading it once exposed via respitory mechanisms) https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1819estimates.htm Flu season running from November peaking in Jan and out to March/April. Partial/Inherited immunity Corona First cases in a country with daily flights to US in mid November, lockdown from said country 2.5 months later, widespread lock down mid march. Point is plenty of time for unfettered spread into the country at major international airports across the entire US. No vaccine and no monitoring for months. More contagious then flu, no herd immunity or individual immunity. Suspected very high asymptomatic and mild symptomatic case load contributing to exponential spread while in unoticed incubation period. ___________________________________________________________ That being said we come to the conclusion that the number exposed is very low? I dont get it, and didnt get it from the beginning. How do those 2 statements come together, anyone? 10% of the population definitively gets the flu with 50% of the nation vaccinated but only 1-5% has Corona now? Idk. :o

This is like capitulating and buying at the top.

Excellent, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. That alleviates one of my concerns. I know checking twitter is a broad statement but I think maybe Holdenwalker sp? Had a screenshot of the verbage.

One concern of mine has been that people would take 12 months of not paying their mortgage even if economy opens back up in 2 months. However, Rosner's piece says that the forbearance assistance is only "during the covered period." Can anybody confirm that the "covered period" officially ends when Trump declares we're no longer in a national emergency? Does "national emergency" = "covered period"? Logic would say it does, but I want to be 100% sure. Thanks. Another way to put it, is there a chance "covered period" could mean the 180 days + 180 days and NOT be tied to the status of whether we're in a national emergency or not? I don't have the verbiage per verbatim in front of me but the bill did say that it was while we were in a national emergency. I do remember reading that.

California sending back ventilators! Who ever would have thought this was going to happen already. The most populous state in the country thinks the curve is flattening there already. 4/30 is looking better every day. https://m.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/California-to-send-500-ventilators-on-loan-15182045.php Seven days ago the worst was coming in 6 weeks.In actuality its here or passed. We are way, way further up the curve then we think we are. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/03/31/california-governor-newsom-covid-projection-april-may/

81k is on par with a model I posted here a few days ago. The model that Fauci presented with 100-240k dead was an outlier compared to anything else I have seen. ...and why the country has a stay at home order until 4/30. Hopefully very over estimated.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-bailout-there-is-going-to-be-complete-chaos-mortgage-ceo.html "In an interview Wednesday on CNBC, Mark Calabria, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said he estimated about 2 million borrowers would seek forbearance by May. He did not agree that servicers need liquidity now, only later. “If this goes beyond two or three months, and we start to get worse than that, then that’s going to be a lot of strain, and certainly we’re going to start to see some firms get into a lot of liquidity trouble,” Calabria said." “Throwing this out there without showing evidence of hardship was an outrageous move, outrageous,” said David Stevens, who headed the Federal Housing Administration during the subprime mortgage crisis and is a former CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “The administration made a huge mistake bringing moral hazard in and thrust extraordinary risk into the private sector that could collapse the mortgage market.” Stevens said borrowers should have been required to show at least some proof of hardship, which they had to do during subprime mortgage bailout. Moral hazard aside, he, too, contended a liquidity facility for servicers is essential. “This is a crisis so easily correctable,” he said. “The GSEs [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] for years have always assured the servicing community that in the event of a major credit event, they’ll be there to make sure they provide the liquidity. From what we are hearing, and we can’t verify it, the FHFA director instructed the GSEs not to set up a liquidity or advance facility.” When asked for a response to the industry plea, Calabria on Monday declined to comment. Man talk about turning a deaf ear! Holy Shit. Go Calabria! Stevens wants liquidity now! LOL He didnt want them to recap and fought it for years! If it wasnt super obvious why this is happening it is now. Justice is being served. Calabria told Stevens to go play with a bag of dicks lol.

I think the "virus" bottom is in stock market wise. Where we go from here depends on when the country opens. NY is rolling over big time so is it 4/30? Is it before 4/30? Restrictions placed afterwards on restaurants, theaters, plane capacity, etc? I think thats what determines how fast we bounce back. For a bit we will get those that will ridicule others that do not show an abundance of caution while in public. Said group will delay spending on a large scale until they either forget or feel comfortable again. Most seem to think we are going to have a slow economy, sluggish, lagging etc. That being said it will likely be the opposite. Its almost too easy to look at the situation and say it will be a slow rebound doesn't it?

I think you could be roughly right about this date, though I think it'll be on a state by state basis, with most coming after this date. (That said, as far as I can see, there still isn't evidence for your "COVID-19 is widespread" theory. I think it'll open up based on declining cases, quarantine fatigue, and the balance of pain shifting from dying people to a dying economy. So we end up in the same place, just with different explanations.) I hope 4/30 is close and I agree it will be State by State. I hope the pressure to open up will build up as fast as the pressure to close did. I will be vindicated or will look like a fool when the serology data starts coming in. Looking forward to it.

Its rolling over big time in NY already good news! https://twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1247194815160291328/photo/1 Here is latest modeling of bed usage in NYC/NY. Need to key in on the new estimate which is the purple line (kind of hard to see). Just a tincey little bit off huh? Sheesh. https://twitter.com/bespokeinvest/status/1247195584643170308/photo/1

I hope you're right Orthopa, and thanks for chiming back in this thread. In the spirit of trying to better understand the situation I have a few points / questions: 1) miles traveled is likely closely correlated to population density. If you live in Montana on a ranch, your miles traveled is irrelevant vs. miles traveled in Chicago. Not suggesting what you're saying could not be correct - for sure it could, especially in Southern / more rural regions, but I think it conflates a few factors. 2) I'm unclear how you're drawing the conclusion that the lockdown isn't doing anything. I mean, if it was effectively would you not expect it to reduce the infection rate (and the whole reason to lockdown)? This doesn't prove that the lockdown is as effective as everyone thinks, but it certainly does not prove it to be ineffective ("did nothing"). 3) Miami metro area seems to have ~50% of the cases. Does this not confirm density vs. weather may be more of a factor? 4) For herd immunity with R0 of 2-3 I've seen numbers between 50-70% in terms of percentage of the population that need to be immune / recovered. It seems like we're very far from that? I don't know that anyone really even knows the % of the population that may have had it at this point - do you have some data sources that have cited this? Lastly, how do you think we emerge from this? Youv'e cited end of the month being a demarcation line - why? Based on immunity, or that face masks are really effective and we can bring R0 down below 0 with them, or some other factor? Just trying to understand your line of reasoning. I think population density does matter no question, NYC the best example of this. My main referencing was that the NYT picture Dalal posted a while back. The areas with the highest amount of travel, ie not staying at home have a lesser number of infections. FL just instituted a stay at home order (remember the beaches?) and Texas still does not have one!. Granted TX, FL, GA are spread out in rural areas but you there is still some significant density in Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Atlanta etc. How much more interaction is there in large Texas cities with no stay at home order then in a locked down state? Main difference for NYC outlier maybe ultimately high reliance of subway travel in NYC compared to other cities. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html I think what will answer a lot of our questions is serologic testing regarding herd immunity, need for masks etc. Whats a reasonable conclusion if 20-40-60% of the population has been exposed? The R value will be different for different locations and has been in multiple studies but something doesn't in vibe with a virus that is severely contagious but has only infected a small % of the population. A very small Italian study has shown that 70% of blood donors had antibodies. There is the Stanford paper and oxford paper suggesting the same. Again as I thought was possible a while back I think we are much further up the curve then we think. Why end of April? I think as the month goes on deaths, new infections, admissions<discharges and there will be societal pressure to start to get back to normal. States may do what they want but I can envision many things opening up, especially for those who have antibodies. I envision serologic testing becoming much more available and that as a gateway in some function to return to a work place with others who have been exposed. Maybe restaurants limited to 1/2 capacity? Theaters limited seating etc? I would hope we would avoid an Orwellian tracking system but some may call for that. I thought I read some governors discussion some return to work protocol. Certainly none of what I am postulating is scientific but honestly what data have we had that has been indisputable from a CFR, R0, chinese data, iceland data, etc etc. Its all been a mishmash learn on the go but I think things are looking up for the first time in a while. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/04/coronavirus-new-stanford-research-reveals-if-youve-been-exposed/ "This gives scientists a snapshot of how many people in the county have already been infected, but weren’t seriously sick and didn’t realize it. And it tells residents whether they carry potentially protective antibodies – so may be immune to future infection. “This is critical information,” said principal investigator Dr. Eran Bendavid, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine with Stanford Health Policy. “We will show the country what to do and how to do it,” he said. The project, coordinated with the Santa Clara County Department of Health, was applauded by Gov. Gavin Newsom during a Saturday press conference in Sacramento, who called it “the first home-grown serum test in the state of California.” It can guide public health measures and policies – showing where the epidemic is heading, when it is safe to lift shelter-in-place restrictions and how far away we are from “herd immunity,” when it becomes harder for a virus to spread." The answer to your question regarding what returning to normal and herd immunity will be based on these tests. I would keep a close eye on all of these.

That's one thing we're likely to see with the uneven testing around the country... Some places may stay under the radar for a bit and then seem to come out of nowhere because suddenly they start testing more. True and you will get "hotspots" but even the in the most overexagerated model Texas does not come close to available medical services. All beds needed 3,682beds All beds available 28,633beds Bed shortage 0beds ICU beds needed 712beds ICU beds available 2,259beds ICU bed shortage 0beds Invasive ventilators needed 605 ventilators https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

I have been following this model all along. Yesterday predicted 94k deaths in US, now 81k. This model has come under a lot of criticism. I only mention this as this was the model Dr. Birx had cited before. https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Orthopa: Along the lines of "unintended consequences - what is your opinion on this article? - which I find surprising: https://www.dailywire.com/news/coronavirus-hospitals-across-nation-lay-off-tens-of-thousands-of-healthcare-workers I keep getting urgent bulletins here in Illinois about the shortage of healthcare workers and a call for them to come out of retirement. This is my post from 2 weeks ago I believe every bit of that article. I'm not in NYC but am in NY. At least in my area everything was modeled as worst case ie Italy, Spain. One local system has 650 free beds and had 80 corona virus patients as of a couple of days ago. I got a call from NYS DOH 2 weeks ago regarding my skill set experience etc. Haven't heard back since and don't expect to either. I think people in NYC have come out of retirement and or working cross specialty. I dont think its makes much sense to pull anyone else state wide going forward All that was occurring in my above post is still the same now. Hospital system still shut down outside of emergency surgery, ERs etc. Some of the local hospital employed specialty physicians have been asked to take a pay cut. Low census and no elective surgeries make for no money. Crazy to think hospitals are asking doctors to take a pay cut during a pandemic but what we are seeing in many areas is that the amount of covid patients are not superior to normal patient volume for every day community care. We certainly will see exceptions in "hot spots" but nationwide this is not the case it seems. out of curiosity: don't you guys in the US move patients around? seems so utterly weird some hospitals are "over-run" (at least that's what we're told in the media), while others in the same state have plenty of spare capacity. Problem with moving pts around is a couple 1. Transporting a critically care patient one at a time would be terribly expensive, dangerous and very time consuming to do 1 at a time. 2. Since the areas affected are nearly pin point relative to availability it allows for one area to get hammered and another 50-100 miles away dead. So far in this country this really has been a NYC ground zero problem with very, very manageable covid patient population in the rest of the country.

I hope you're right Orthopa, and thanks for chiming back in this thread. In the spirit of trying to better understand the situation I have a few points / questions: 1) miles traveled is likely closely correlated to population density. If you live in Montana on a ranch, your miles traveled is irrelevant vs. miles traveled in Chicago. Not suggesting what you're saying could not be correct - for sure it could, especially in Southern / more rural regions, but I think it conflates a few factors. 2) I'm unclear how you're drawing the conclusion that the lockdown isn't doing anything. I mean, if it was effectively would you not expect it to reduce the infection rate (and the whole reason to lockdown)? This doesn't prove that the lockdown is as effective as everyone thinks, but it certainly does not prove it to be ineffective ("did nothing"). 3) Miami metro area seems to have ~50% of the cases. Does this not confirm density vs. weather may be more of a factor? 4) For herd immunity with R0 of 2-3 I've seen numbers between 50-70% in terms of percentage of the population that need to be immune / recovered. It seems like we're very far from that? I don't know that anyone really even knows the % of the population that may have had it at this point - do you have some data sources that have cited this? Lastly, how do you think we emerge from this? Youv'e cited end of the month being a demarcation line - why? Based on immunity, or that face masks are really effective and we can bring R0 down below 0 with them, or some other factor? Just trying to understand your line of reasoning. I think population density does matter no question, NYC the best example of this. My main referencing was that the NYT picture Dalal posted a while back. The areas with the highest amount of travel, ie not staying at home have a lesser number of infections. FL just instituted a stay at home order (remember the beaches?) and Texas still does not have one!. Granted TX, FL, GA are spread out in rural areas but you there is still some significant density in Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Atlanta etc. How much more interaction is there in large Texas cities with no stay at home order then in a locked down state? Main difference for NYC outlier maybe ultimately high reliance of subway travel in NYC compared to other cities. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html I think what will answer a lot of our questions is serologic testing regarding herd immunity, need for masks etc. Whats a reasonable conclusion if 20-40-60% of the population has been exposed? The R value will be different for different locations and has been in multiple studies but something doesn't in vibe with a virus that is severely contagious but has only infected a small % of the population. A very small Italian study has shown that 70% of blood donors had antibodies. There is the Stanford paper and oxford paper suggesting the same. Again as I thought was possible a while back I think we are much further up the curve then we think. Why end of April? I think as the month goes on deaths, new infections, admissions<discharges and there will be societal pressure to start to get back to normal. States may do what they want but I can envision many things opening up, especially for those who have antibodies. I envision serologic testing becoming much more available and that as a gateway in some function to return to a work place with others who have been exposed. Maybe restaurants limited to 1/2 capacity? Theaters limited seating etc? I would hope we would avoid an Orwellian tracking system but some may call for that. I thought I read some governors discussion some return to work protocol. Certainly none of what I am postulating is scientific but honestly what data have we had that has been indisputable from a CFR, R0, chinese data, iceland data, etc etc. Its all been a mishmash learn on the go but I think things are looking up for the first time in a while.

Orthopa: Along the lines of "unintended consequences - what is your opinion on this article? - which I find surprising: https://www.dailywire.com/news/coronavirus-hospitals-across-nation-lay-off-tens-of-thousands-of-healthcare-workers I keep getting urgent bulletins here in Illinois about the shortage of healthcare workers and a call for them to come out of retirement. This is my post from 2 weeks ago I believe every bit of that article. I'm not in NYC but am in NY. At least in my area everything was modeled as worst case ie Italy, Spain. One local system has 650 free beds and had 80 corona virus patients as of a couple of days ago. I got a call from NYS DOH 2 weeks ago regarding my skill set experience etc. Haven't heard back since and don't expect to either. I think people in NYC have come out of retirement and or working cross specialty. I dont think its makes much sense to pull anyone else state wide going forward All that was occurring in my above post is still the same now. Hospital system still shut down outside of emergency surgery, ERs etc. Some of the local hospital employed specialty physicians have been asked to take a pay cut. Low census and no elective surgeries make for no money. Crazy to think hospitals are asking doctors to take a pay cut during a pandemic but what we are seeing in many areas is that the amount of covid patients are not superior to normal patient volume for every day community care. We certainly will see exceptions in "hot spots" but nationwide this is not the case it seems.

How do you mean, exactly? In terms of potential settlement negotiations or A&P's approach to the litigation as a whole? at some point the center of gravity regarding legal matters at fhfa should shift from litigation (Arnold & Porter, Kaye Scholer) to settlement (first preparation, then execution) (Milbank). I am not suggesting that Milbank will be substituted as litigation counsel of record (though that would make perfect sense). I am suggesting that fhfa will need a coherent strategy going forward, in which the litigation hand works in harmony (or at least not at cross purposes) with the settlement hand. I have no idea whether anyone at fhfa is experienced enough to know how to run a deal process, but it sure doesnt involve having litigation counsel sit outside the settlement loop and do things that are counterproductive. until Milbank was hired, there was no one at fhfa telling litigation counsel what to do. now I have to believe that Milbank will make sure it is the last voice of advice heard by fhfa going forward. Great point. Next will be capital rule, then we should get FnF hiring their financial advisers. Relative to the progress (albeit very slow) the share price has never been so low to what seems to be reality. Biggest question mark is timing but the end result seems to be more and more clear. Granted I have become frustrated regarding the length of this investment but added recently twice. Even in light of the market down turn where else can you get 4-5 times your money in the next 12-18 months? I have given up reading the tea leaves with this investment but what is happening with the servicers is very telling. Calabria turned his back and told those concerned his job is to conserve and restore FnFs capital. Mnuchin is very quiet on the issue also. What better way to convince the last group of doubters then to hold their feet to the fire? We may have to dodge the hedge fund narrative eventually but the FnF should go away crowd should be silenced pretty good going forward.

Eventually we will start to see data that wearing a mask unless around a high risk population/nursing home is going to be useless. Are masks a thing of the past by next fall?

Wow what an idiot! LOL. ;D The flu? No way!!!! We will see.