SnarkyPuppy

"Who held" - what about those of us who bought in 2013+?

Your incentives are creating massive bias in outcome prediction

Wouldn't be surprised if it was as simple as Corker trying to mess with shareholders. Say something positive during a public hearing at noon and then leak a very negative document around 3pm same day. You have to understand he has been personally attacked almost viciously by shareholders over the last few years. Very few people forget about coordinated personal attacks.

The store of value thesis is sufficient in its own right to do very well on a crypto investment. Right now, bitcoin is the clear winner, but the facts may change. Advantages of bitcoin as it pertains to store of value: - current winner in terms of network effects - minimal attack surface (minimal and simplistic code as compared to other cryptoassets eg Ethereum) - 8 years of history with 0 downtime - An almost religious-like story behind the creation/founder which is not to be underestimated (humans are attached to stories - and money itself is a story) - higher transaction fees - debatable topic but I actually prefer transaction fees stay where they are (equal to or less than a stock commission). Store of value is generally (not always) decoupled from units of exchange (pls read the PDF posted a few pages back for more on this). Some Risks: - Proof of stake (or another consensus mechanism) proves to be a more effective method of providing a store of value. I can see a small possibility that the staking/"dividends" associated with ethereum after the move to PoS may be viewed as a better form of store of value than bitcoin - better governance model - see "decred" token. Also think this is small probability bc of eteorn effects, but decred seeks to reduce the power held by miners by adding a sort of "2fa" to the validation process by those who stake financial incentive - Scalability is solved and the perception of store of value is eroded (currency arguably less valuable than store of value) - Privacy coins - store of value is arguably even better in a private form (whereas bitcoin is fully transparent) Fortunately the asymmetry at current prices makes hedging out these risks cheap and effective

Is Ackman involved in any of the litigation? I thought not. Ackman publicly praising C&W legislation in his last conference call may help us understand what is happening: - Ackman, too, truly believes that C&W legislation is so far removed from reality and its failure will be the impetus for admin action (moelis) - Ackman knows that shareholders will be compensated as part of an actual C&W implementation if passed - Ackman is party to litigation and will receive a check as part of a private settlement

Yes, that is what it would take. The existence of the lawsuits is proving to be rather important, I think. There are many forms the bribe could take: Shares in the post-receivership FnF (if they even exist) Payouts to all shareholders, common and junior pref Payouts to only junior pref holders Payouts to only series of junior prefs owned by plaintiffs Payouts to only shares owned by plaintiffs I guess the second to last is the only scenario where it matters what series you own. I've highlighted this before and was called crazy. I'm very worried about a private check being written (settlement) to litigating shareholders. I understand the counter argument that such a check would be a material proportion to paying out total shareholders, but that gives me little comfort. Ackman isn't in litigation right? So they can also say that private settlements didn't take care of all hedge funds. Would surprise me that Mnuchin would stab paulson in the back when not doing so would be easy, but we do not have full details into their relationship or mnuchins mindset. Maybe Mnuchin helps make the PR debt whole for paulson instead.

A mutually owned private entity would be largely consistent with everything that's been publicly said and c an wipe out preferreds. Seems unlikely but the most material in probability.

Is there any way of watching a replay of this? Right now?

Entertainment. That's the main way to be assured of getting net positive value out of this show right now. So your opinion is that that the worlds first judgment resistant + trustless asset isn't worth anything? I didn't say anything of the sort. Sorry - the way I phrased that definitely implied that I already knew your opinion. Was moreso genuinely curious about your longer term views w/ respect to the store of value thesis.

Entertainment. That's the main way to be assured of getting net positive value out of this show right now. So your opinion is that that the worlds first judgment resistant + trustless asset isn't worth anything?

Not sure the point of the continued anectodal links^. Yes it's the Wild West right now - don't store your money on an exchange. Day 1 stuff. With that said- to the bulls who have more experience in this than I do: What are your views on the 5 year and 15 year time horizon of bitcoin if the United Stayes completely hammers down on bitcoin - ie closes coinbase, banks required to stop bitcoin payments (ala poker), bitcoin atms shutdown. Obviously the price gets crushed short term, but longer term how does bitcoin truly recover from a complete US ban? And then even more extreme (although less likely) how does bitcoin come back from a coordinated G20 action similar to the above? More curious about the US only scenario as I think it's very low probability various countries can truly coordinate on this

On another note- probabilistically speaking I think we will ultimately see a win-win-win ultimately. MBA gets their explicit guarantee & shareholders get some/all of par back. Consisten w Ackman being on board with whatever plan is being written behind the scenes + Stevens stating f/f aren't going away. Banks love Mnuchin for the explicit guarantee and fund 2020 election, shareholders do well in regulated utility model. All largely consistent w FHFAs proposal. Also- interesting to me that Stevens stated in October that he was worried FHFA would initiate capital buffer AND he mentioned that "fairly soon - perhaps weeks" that principles would be released by Treasury. I bet the fhfa principles that just came out are the ideas of Mnuchin and team - but optically looked better coming from FHFA. Total speculation.

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/A%20More%20Promising%20Road%20to%20GSE%20Reform%3A%20Why%20It%20Leads%20to%20a%20Government%20Corporation.pdf

I would take anything David Stevens has to say with a giant grain of salt. He has been on a crusade against hedge funds being able to profit on GSE shares. Yes, agreed. Everybody that has been following the situation should know to take what he says with a huge grain of salt. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know that. I should have elaborated more: Stevens's anti-hedge fund rhetoric in the past means that he could say that while Fannie and Freddie wouldn't be harmed, the same may not be true for shareholders. On second thought I don't see how that is possible, unless we see massive dilution to commons and dividends stay turned off for a long time. Rechartering to a private mutualized model comes to mind. Does nobody else see this as the only realistic downside scenario at this point?

I would take anything David Stevens has to say with a giant grain of salt. He has been on a crusade against hedge funds being able to profit on GSE shares. Yes, agreed. Everybody that has been following the situation should know to take what he says with a huge grain of salt. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know that. I should have elaborated more: Stevens's anti-hedge fund rhetoric in the past means that he could say that while Fannie and Freddie wouldn't be harmed, the same may not be true for shareholders. On second thought I don't see how that is possible, unless we see massive dilution to commons and dividends stay turned off for a long time. Rechartering to a private mutualized model comes to mind.

Some server? ::) This is what I meant with talking about something you don't comprehend in the slightest. This is rich coming from the poster who spews completely uninformed and error-ridden comments about the stability of the pre-Federal Reserve economy and believes there have been 20+ year recessions in the US in the last hundred years. Even if true, it doesn't negate the validity of the criticism that thinking bitcoin is hosted on a server is willful ignorance

If I made a post in any other thread that was this factually wrong about a company or business I would be called out. No reason those minimum standards shouldn't apply here. It is very obvious you have not even the slightest basic understand of how this works. Either do the work and spend the time to actually be able to have an informed opinion or stop posting meme's in these threads. To be clear - this is totally independent on whether or not it actually has value. But you can't make the statement it doesn't have value while making demonstrably ignorant statements like this.

The receivership bill is nonsense - and the people drafting it are aware. Likely a negotiation starting point with the objective of meeting in the middle at a bank mutualization model. Investors should focus on the likelihood that congress ultimately passes reform which swaps shareholders with a private mutualization structure, which is consistent with Parrots proposal which also calls for a MIF and explicit guarantee (iirc). Then the probabilities of Mnuchin and/or watt supporting this should be assessed (SMEs in watts plan could be mutually owned instead of public shareholder owned). The government can swap their senior preferred for equity in the mutual structure (as compared to executing $120bn of warrants in a public shareholder structure) and collect on perpetual earnings. Inconsistent with some Mnuchin and Phillips statements- but I wouldn't take what the Trump administration says without legal writing as fact. Separate question- what is the role of congress in any administrative reform? Can congress block administrator action (such as PSPA amendment or cancellation)? Or are they without any recourse if the admin/FHFA coordinate to implement some form of Watt's plan or Moelis?

It could be a negotiating tool ("extreme" view) with the real objective of meeting dems in the middle with some form of mutualization requiring a national footprint/utility roe. Having trouble reconciling some of Ackman's statements about Corker

Their writedowns are going to be much bigger than $3B, roughly $12.4B and $5.9B. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/41727-republican-tax-plan-will-trigger-another-fannie-freddie-bailout Precisely what doesn't make any sense to me. They entered into an agreement to hold $3bn. It was very obvious at the time that $3bn would not be enough to prevent a draw. What gives? The retained capital agreement wasn't intended to prevent a Treasury draw, it was really just political theater. Here's what they said: "While it is apparent that a draw will be necessary for each enterprise if tax legislation results in a reduction to the corporate tax rate, FHFA considers the $3 billion capital reserve sufficient to cover other fluctuations in income in the normal course of each Enterprise’s business.” Correct. And why do you think they are playing political theater? Just for fun? I'm growing increasingly confident that there is a coordinated PR attempt to incrementally transition to an inevitable and agreed upon win-win-win legislative outcome. The optics and resulting psychological difference between incrementally releasing independent tidbits of the end result vs. having one massive release with shares soaring 300% in a day is important. Imagine 1 year ago we learned all of the following on the same day (in addition to Mnuchin's initial comments after nomination): a) RNC proposed a resolution to respect shareholders rights b) Ben Carson hinted on TV that he has been talking to Blackstone and is not opposed to shareholders "getting their money back" c) the FHFA director coming out w/ a Berkowitz/Millstein proposal & the treasury responding the next day by not in any way, shape, or form criticizing it d) $3bn capital buffer buildup e) ackman supportive of a plan about to be released by corker f) mnuchin stating that he will not consider getting rid of fannie/freddie g) mnuchin saying that it is "absolutely true" that obama used profits from fannie/freddie to fund other parts of the government Berkowitz has been silent. Ackman has been bullish. Paulson continues to write about the high-probability of a favorable outcome after being personally invited to Mnuchin's wedding. Oh and by the way- it is the rational and simplest end to conservatorship along with $120bn of financial incentives tagged along. I've tried to play devils advocate in this thread for the sake of questioning the thesis. But COME ON. This is day 1 corporate politics/PR and anyone who has seen it before can recognize this. your scenario is why we're all here. and I wish it good fortune. but it's a delicate dance -- trump doesn't need any new republican enemies, especially in the senate where he potentially faces an impeachment trial at some point. it's strange that the warrants have been off limits in congressional hearings and administrative q&a. for instance, today, it seems reasonable that phillips would have been asked this question. The only downside scenario which I think is legitimate and is concerning is the Bright/DeMarco mutualization model - http://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Viewpoint/PDF/Toward-a-New-Secondary-Mortgage-Market.pdf for those not familiar. This model is largely consistent with the actions/statements made by treasury/fhfa etc. The list of arguments against this model is a much shorter list. Primarily: warrants, jr liquidation preference, and contingent litigation risk

Their writedowns are going to be much bigger than $3B, roughly $12.4B and $5.9B. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/41727-republican-tax-plan-will-trigger-another-fannie-freddie-bailout Precisely what doesn't make any sense to me. They entered into an agreement to hold $3bn. It was very obvious at the time that $3bn would not be enough to prevent a draw. What gives? The retained capital agreement wasn't intended to prevent a Treasury draw, it was really just political theater. Here's what they said: "While it is apparent that a draw will be necessary for each enterprise if tax legislation results in a reduction to the corporate tax rate, FHFA considers the $3 billion capital reserve sufficient to cover other fluctuations in income in the normal course of each Enterprise’s business.” Correct. And why do you think they are playing political theater? Just for fun? I'm growing increasingly confident that there is a coordinated PR attempt to incrementally transition to an inevitable and agreed upon win-win-win legislative outcome. The optics and resulting psychological difference between incrementally releasing independent tidbits of the end result vs. having one massive release with shares soaring 300% in a day is important. Imagine 1 year ago we learned all of the following on the same day (in addition to Mnuchin's initial comments after nomination): a) RNC proposed a resolution to respect shareholders rights b) Ben Carson hinted on TV that he has been talking to Blackstone and is not opposed to shareholders "getting their money back" c) the FHFA director coming out w/ a Berkowitz/Millstein proposal & the treasury responding the next day by not in any way, shape, or form criticizing it d) $3bn capital buffer buildup e) ackman supportive of a plan about to be released by corker f) mnuchin stating that he will not consider getting rid of fannie/freddie g) mnuchin saying that it is "absolutely true" that obama used profits from fannie/freddie to fund other parts of the government Berkowitz has been silent. Ackman has been bullish. Paulson continues to write about the high-probability of a favorable outcome after being personally invited to Mnuchin's wedding. Oh and by the way- it is the rational and simplest end to conservatorship along with $120bn of financial incentives tagged along. I've tried to play devils advocate in this thread for the sake of questioning the thesis. But COME ON. This is day 1 corporate politics/PR and anyone who has seen it before can recognize this.

Their writedowns are going to be much bigger than $3B, roughly $12.4B and $5.9B. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/41727-republican-tax-plan-will-trigger-another-fannie-freddie-bailout Precisely what doesn't make any sense to me. They entered into an agreement to hold $3bn. It was very obvious at the time that $3bn would not be enough to prevent a draw. What gives?

"Treasury's Craig Phillips also told a group today that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will require a draw from Treasury as a result of tax reform which reduced the value of deferred tax assets. This is despite a deal with FHFA to allow each to retain $3 billion in capital" Doesn't make any sense. Only conclusive is they are saying one thing and doing another.

FHFA: Capital buffer is necessary Treasury: We expect our dividend Action: Coordinated and agreed upon capital buffer FHFA: Millstein plan Treasury: Nothing we are allergic to Action: ? I think the odds are EXTREMELY low that FHFA acted in a silo here, despite clear coordination on other related actions. They are politicians and they are very carefully doing what politicians do - crafting the optics of what is happening behind closed doors

Any leaks from the Phillips meeting?