orthopa

FWIW some of the preferred is trading near the common. If the market "knows" more then we do then maybe "they" could explain why the common is getting close to the same risk benefit? I added some more preferred on weakness today.

In that case why not just release them regardless of the courts? Actually I agree that 80% up front is better for multiple reasons and wouldn't be surprised if does just that right before the election. It makes for a great headline number, and if I were a politician I'd rather spend 80% all by myself than share 100% in perpetuity with others. But again, why fight it to death in the courts? Re: the capital, in the Government's hands they have an infinite line of credit to cover any losses so it's not like they need all that capital at all times or any given moment. I didn't read Watt's statements yet but I don't understand why do all these people think that recap and release is essential? From their perspective (non financial) what are they worried about if they have essentially unlimited govt backstop in the situation we have today? I think his acutal concern is basically that in the future, a draw on the Treasury's facility would create a political excuse for Republicans in Congress to break down the GSE system. While Watt and others have also made comments on the future financial stability of the GSEs, I think the status quo is satisfactory from that perspective and that a release/recap would probably be damanging to investor confidence in the enterprises, not supportive. 100% of the creditworthiness of the GSEs is driven by the effective substitution of their credit with that of the US, and the demand for the securities they issue is all created by this fact. To the extent that a release/recap involves reducing any aspect of that support, it would seem destabilizing. Then if that is the case the 4-5 trillion in liabilities goes on the gov's balance sheet too. They cant have it both ways. Those liabilities cant just "be separate". What happens to the US credit rating in that scenario?

I havent been able to read the politico piece but it seems to me the treasury/DOJ has "shown their cards" to a certain degree. Maybe I don't have enough law exposure (nil honestly) to know if asking for terms is a common thing to just feel out the other side per say? If this is at all true is this common in the legal arena? I would think it would be the last thing the gov would do but maybe they are covering thier ass with an out in case things go bad. I would have bet my kids life that any settlement talks/proposals/terms etc would never happen but this looks like a big crack in the governments guise.

so orthopa, this scenario would be upsetting. NWS stays intact, but treasury allows fhfa to defer making dividend transfers. dividends cumulate, shareholders still wiped out, and treasury calls itself a hero. now would this be an acknowledgement that NWS is bad conservatorship policy, which the plaintiffs will point out to courts? yes. will it adversely affect the litigation for govt? not likely That would be a nightmare. Im by no means a legal expert but I would have to image the Delaware case would have to deal with this scenario right? A majority shareholder confiscating all of the profits at the detriment of others.

Thanks, just wanted to see how Ackman got his common price projections.

Does anyone have a link saved to Ackmans valuation for the common? I cant find anything readily available other then just videos on him commenting on fannie. Thanks

It sounds like more people including those in the govt are beginning to realize FnF need to build more capital. Is there a scenario where they are allow to build more capital but shareholders are still shut out? I would think not correct as its the 3rd amendment that prevented shareholders from any part of profits? I'm just leery that there is going to be a catch if FnF are allowed to start building capital again

Does anyone have the text to the FT fannie article? I dont have a subscription. Thanks.

Watt's comments make me want to get a little more exposure to this idea. He seems to be the first of "other side" to publicly agree that the current situation is unsustainable. There isn't a scenario where FnF are released from conservator ship but shareholders are not rewarded correct? I guess that would be the ultimate screw over, but the release of FnF and realization of value for shareholders goes hand in hand correct? If FnF are released does the 10% dividend to the gov go back into place?

Cheniere is not a play on commodity prices, that might sound ridiculous considering it sells liquid natural gas, but the core theme behind the investment is not a rebound in commodities prices. Actually you could make a very good argument that low natural gas prices, and even low oil, will help Cheniere bc it is a low cost provider. The company gets paid a fixed fee from customers. Any rebound in international LNG prices is just additional upside. what is the core idea behind the investment?

Any reason for the common vs the preferred? Just wondering your thoughts. I hold both as hedge vs each other.

So, I decided to look up the word "moot"....I dont think Judges are careless with the words they use....i also think judges tend to know the gravity of their position and are aware of the stakes the parties have moot mo͞ot adjective 1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. "whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point" And as such. I think she just wants more information... and has yet to make a final decision. So there is no need for an opinion yet. At least she recognizes that there is more information out there and wants to view the administrative record as part of decision making process..... I dont know this is my "explain it like i'm 5" conclusion. And if FHFA cant produce a record then that opens a can of worms for them. If they do it may contain info that invalidates what the gov did.

And for us non lawyers what is a summary judgement motion? It determines whether or not a case should be tried with judge or jury? Thanks

I guess a positive to another lawsuit is another crack at a favorable verdict no? +1 to complaining about the drawn out judicial process. I guess this protects the innocent from a wrongful verdict but this process seems very tedious for no good reason. Now I know why you guess charge by the minute. ;)

Merkhet Any consequence to this other then Parrot coming out to get to say he didnt invoke the 5th? Why has the Tim Howard site gone dark? Govt intervention or someother? Will anyone seek to find out who leaked the info? Does it even matter to the case or Judge Sweeny?

let's remember that conversations between lawyer and client are privileged, so whatever conversation cooper & kirk may have had with berkowitz would not be discoverable, unless berkowitz were to waive privlege...which he wouldn't i fully expect that berkowitz has a fair idea what is in the discovery. not details of course, but color, body language. we are talking about real life and big bucks here. Seems like only obstacle to Berkowitz to a fantastic IRR is time for this to run though the court system and judge decision. Do you think Ackman has similar knowledge based on sharing of information?

Dumb question, what exactly do you mean by CoCo's?

Great point

True and there is a difference between being a stubbornly right value investor and stupid. I know I commented a while back that there seems to really not be much of a voice on the other side defending these claims other then that clown Carney. I'm sure the gov wants to keep their arguments in the court and stay out of the media but how can they honestly refute all of these cases successfully? Granted I'm biased holding common and preferred but outside of outright lying how can you defend all of these cases successfully with what has been argued on the plaintiff side? Unless we have a judge throws a huge curve ball the plaintiffs chances seem much better. The market seems to think otherwise though with prices where they are.

"Indeed, newly discovered evidence – which shows the government’s defense to be outright false – was subsequently presented..." I thought this stuff was under seal and not even the clients could see it.

Rarely does it right. We could be looking at this taking 18 months to occur.

From an outsider(american citizen) to the lawyers in this thread...what the hell takes so long? Is it the volume of information/documents that necessitates almost year for this process to occur?

I thought merkhet posted it was pushed to the 28th today? It was previously today and got pushed to tomorrow. This was during the filings earlier this week when the gov't filed a motion, Plaintiffs responded within 90 minutes, and Sweeney granted the order the next day. All under seal, of course. Shoot, ok thanks.

I thought merkhet posted it was pushed to the 28th today?

MO PM BRK