orthopa

We know for sure Phillips testifies next week?

Crapo and Corker are losing control.

After his bull shit stance and questioning corker got up and walked out. He said something has changed recently...yep it has. Fuck off Corker.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-senators-put-fannie-freddie-overhaul-back-in-play-1494495000 Anyone able to post the entire text?

Then there is this....https://rockytoppolitics.com/2017/05/10/bonaparte-bob/ Again take with a grain of salt but wasnt Jerome Corsi's last article about trump/watt stoping the NWS. This guy hasnt been that far off with his articles.

I would but my position would be smaller. I was in this when Obama was in office but Paulson lobbying for FnF to be released, Paulson Trump connection etc made me confident enough to increase my position. The thesis that FnF cannot be wound down is intact as we are where we are 8 years later. Its the shareholder treatment that is in question and Ill align myself like this anyday. At the same time I would have likely decreased my position after the election if someone was put in office my Clinton. The sword in my mind cuts both ways.

I have a pretty intimate understanding about healthcare from a provider level in orthopedics. To add a couple points to the discussion that certainly add to healthcare costs. 1. Malpractice fears. I myself as well as many others who work in the healthcare field over order tests/admit more then we should, give more meds then we should etc because its not worth getting sued. Id much rather order a CT scan of the head on every patient that walks in the door at the ER that hits their head then have the pt end up with a "bad outcome" If it happens and I didnt do it Im fucked. I then have 2 options, settle for limits of my policy or go to a jury trial and be liable for any amount they see fit. Dont let the BS you hear from politicians fool you. EVERY PHYSICIAN/PA/NP/NURSING HOME/REHAB FACILITY/HOSPITAL over orders tests for this reason. Every day all day long. 2. Compliance. How do we make healthcare better if the pt doesn't comply? Very difficult to do. Sicker non compliant pts means more costs, and usually more expensive costs.

"Ultimately, private capital in the mortgage market requires a transparent process that provides certainty and respect for the rights of investors, both in the current framework and in any transition to a future system." ? I interpret the language in the Blackrock proposal as discussing MBS investors, not GSE equity investors. Of course, as soon as ones interest is affected its ok to extol the rights of shareholders/stakeholders. No coincidence then Blackrock has the position they do in the white paper. That being said I think its probably best Mnuchin tries to respect rights for all shareholders/stakeholders. The common for example may get very unfavorable terms but not totally excluded. This would have the effect to quell ongoing lawsuits IMO. Big risk to reform would be a lawsuit requiring compensation years down the road. Again for my fellow conspiracy theorists Paulson dismisses the lawsuits and leans on a favorable solution from Mnuchin for shareholders. For lack of better reason or knowledge I still think its better to align myself with an Economic Adviser to the president and worry less about the situation as a result. As mentioned above all of these white papers maybe completely meaningless with Mnunchin knowing exactly what will happen already just going through the motions.

That was John Carney piece. Same jerk off that was at WSJ writing all of the negative articles. Not sure you can put much faith in that piece. John Carney has always had an issue with FnF and Carney has no sway Mnuchin. Not to mention that piece says $$$ didnt go to Obamacare when Mnuchin said yesterday the $$$ went to other parts of the gov. Sure cant follow dollar for dollar but Mnuchin just told Carney to F off.

Credit to Jim Hodges on twitter for this...on speculation for a receivership scenario. "$37B of equity. After DTA impairment @ 15%, Jist enough left to pay Sr. & Jr. Pfd's."

Ill be dedicating some time to read this... https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/2439/text

Again more speculation(but hopefully educated) but the Berkowitz, Paulson, Mnuchin triangle would favor a preferred friendly solution as well. A couple of weeks ago some of the preferred could have been had again for 20 cents on the dollar. A much higher chance for a 5 bagger-made and still makes much more sense IMO then a lotto ticket for 10-15x. For those thinking that govt would want to monetize their 80% warrants why not just do rship and get 100%? A secondly in receivership isnt it the balance sheet that would determine money left for preferreds? gov will have clearly been paid back.

All speculation of course but this looks like someone selling common into strength and buying preferred ie Ackman. Ackman started to buy some preferreds at the end of Q4 last year. I bet we see more preferred in his portfolio as the year progresses.

Why arent MBA, etc presenting proposals to Congress? They are being presented to Mnuchin correct? Seems like the FNFA and Mnuchin are working separate from Congress in light of the Corker letter. Is Mnuchin really planning on a legislative process? Does'nt seem like it. That zero capital date is coming really fast.

It seems like as hypothesized my many in Nov the fate of FnF ultimately may fall into the hands of Mnuchin. Question is whether or not shareholders are taken care of. I know the answer is probably obvious as the questions in these interviews are prepared but why hasn't anyone asked about shareholders yet. Mnuchin has reiterated the same thing multiple times over now.

Mnuchin has said we have to get FnF out of govt control and ownership and several times mentioned ending the conservatorship. Those who are feeling much less bullish what does this mean to you? I have posted this before and don't mean to be repetitive but who owns FnF if the govt doesn't? What about what Mnuchin has said do you see detrimental to shareholders, how do we get zero?

Mnuchin has said we have to get FnF out of govt control and ownership and several times mentioned ending the conservatorship. Those who are feeling much less bullish what does this mean to you? I have posted this before and don't mean to be repetitive but who owns FnF if the govt doesn't? What about what Mnuchin has said do you see detrimental to shareholders, how do we get zero?

For those that thought the courts were the best way to resolution in this investment I guess I just don't understand why a case on appeal that was already dismissed held so much weight? Not to mention why the whims of judges are any different then the whims of mnuchin? Who Do you guys/girls trust more mnuchin or the legal system? For those looking for a legal resolution as cherzeca has pointed out there are still other avenues. My money is on Mnuchin and what he may have/have not telegraphed already.

I find it interesting some people are getting so bearish. The documents should be released soon!

I dont get this either. Why would he stick his neck out on an issue like Fannie and Freddie if he didn't have strong views on the topic. Why didn't the guy just say he would leave it up to congress and he could care less if they went or stayed? What does he gain by going on TV and saying what he said? Why did he not affirm with Warner that he would not act unilaterally in the committee hearing? If you remember correctly the Dems refused to get him out of committee. You think he lied about Fannie and Freddie in Nov and "recap and release" as Warner put it just to make it harder for him to get nominated? Your skepticism about Mnuchin and GS is certainly warranted but starting to border on irrational given the context of what has transpired since Mnuchin went on TV in November. I dont think a non invested outsider looking at this would come up with your conclusions regarding Goldman Sachs etc.

Perhaps it will take some time but there are likely important signs along the way -- for instance the reform principles that Calabria mentioned by this summer and also the inclusion or not of the long term GSE swept profits in the full OMB budget scheduled for May release. The current price levels, to me, represent low expectations of positive resolutions -- even the GSEs' main antagonist, the large bankers' organization, kept FnF alive among other competition in their recent proposal paper. In my view, any change will come abruptly, without notice and with nothing being telegraphed in advance. So it is a moot point to try to figure whatever public information there is. You either believe it is going to happen or you should be out. And I know this sounds more like a gamble than investing. But perhaps this is what it is. I also believe Treasury/WH won't be negotiating that much behind the scences (w/Congress). Most likely, any move regarding GSEs is being cooked between Gary Cohn, Mnuchin and Calabria. Again not to rehash this I think an intelligent observer can agree they are not going to be wound down in the true sense of the word. The capital buffer is right before our eyes but that ultimately maybe the reason a solution is determined sooner then later. The nagging question and what I think is causing this current pricing and uncertainty is two fold. 1. Time, the quick money that has caused the price to gyrate like it has isn't in the mood for waiting a long period of time. 2. What do shareholders get if any and how much? The second point really is complete speculation but can be very educated also. One could argue both ways in or against shareholders depending on their view but a-lot goes "right" if the companies are recapped in a fashion that is viewed as fair to shareholders and allows govt to monetize their ownership in FnF. If shareholders get screwed it maybe years before an ultimate outcome is ever decided legally with appeals, motions, etc and I think that is the antithesis of moving forward with comprehensive mortgage reform. Does Mnuchin want housing policy to have lawsuits hanging over its head with the possibility of a bad outcome? Get it done and over with. The prickly issue is that people /congress/gov does not want the taxpayer to be held responsible again. That can be decided without liquidating the companies and completely starting over. Low income groups want to make sure housing is still affordable. Again same possible solution. Small banks want to be represented and protected. Same solution Sometimes I sit and think this is so obvious. What has been said by mnuchin, the 0 capital threat being reason why he has to act, the fact that congress cant get their act together, Paulson, Berkowitz, Icahn. It also could be the reason Im a big dummy falling for promises and lies. Either way the way it sits I lose ~10% of my portfolio, or at these prices on the preferred make up to 5 times my money.

I suggest you read or watch the transcript of mnuchin's confirmation hearing ---- facing a panel of people who would have made it easier on him if he was negative regarding FnF, he instead defended them and also his option to act outside of congress. he could have been lying but many here are not betting on that. Exactly

That is true as any decision is most likely going to be final and all encompassing in regards to the warrants, senior preferred etc. I one time move is more palatable then doing it piecemeal and dealing with on going politics, private interests etc.

After reading some of Joshua Rosners tweets he seems to think that Corker wants the GSEs business to go to the big banks. I thought the whole purpose of the GSEs was to unload the mortgages to allow the banks to do more lending. How would the TBTF banks take on trillions of dollars like that? Sounds like another crisis in the making and makes them even more of a TBTF risk. Secondly can anyone elaborate on a possible scenario of how shareholders would get screwed if FnF are taken out of govt control/ownership? How does someone else other then current shareholders and the gov own FnF? Anyone have any granular scenarios/thoughts/fears on how that would go down? I think the FnF is trading still heavily on the assumptions shareholders get screwed. How does a preferred shareholder get nothing in my question above? Thanks