SnarkyPuppy

Right. It's really always been an expected value calculation. BTC = Gold = ~$350k per coin. At $3k this implied < 1% chance of success. Apply your own odds

The Bitcoin store of value theory is just a theory at this point. Relatively speaking, very few people own it and almost no institutions do yet. There is a huge risk that the theory is wrong. Also BTC is very concentrated in a relatively few accounts (so called "whales"). If the BTC store of value theory plays out the way I think it will, it will be a bumpy ride. Institutions trying to get in driving the price up, the occasional whale cashing out driving the price down. Quite times like most of 2020 where it drifts. Eventually this will all settle down and be more stable, but not anytime soon. It is the largest asymmetric opportunity that I know of. Maybe a once in a century type thing. Exactly. And its clear as day and has been for a while. Which is why its baffling to me how absurd some people behave with respect to what is obviously a speculation but also quite clearly defined...as you touch on above. You really cant risk 1% of your NW for something like that? You have to wonder wtf people are thinking. You play conservative with big bets/investments...sure. Absolutely makes sense. But 1-2% or so?!?! Yea, go nurture that 1% and compound it safely at 5% a year(probably too aggressive a figure TBH). Enjoy having 2% in 15 years lol.... The reality is most people heard Buffett dismiss it and others call it tulips - and that is enough to stop thinking.

The hedge against devaluation is interesting to me as well. These dollar price increases are not increasing purchasing power in real terms I suppose. I recently bet a substantial sum of money with a friend (who is an ardent BTC bull) that BRK will outperform BTC over the next fifteen years. The most ironic part of the bet...it was made in USD. His entire thesis rests on the dollar becoming worthless, yet he wants to be paid out in USD... You're making counter-arguments against arguments that nobody is making lol

Invert. What causes the JR pref stock to realistically go to $0? What is a more reasonable permanent downside base case over 5-10 years? What is the upside over 5-10 years? While the next month is one of the most significant for this investment and so it makes sense to focus on - it's also helpful to take a step back and assess what is implied by current prices.

Dont have an account- would someone be willing to put on a dropbox or something similar?

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that. I just assumed you were letting the board know that crypto was on sale. Bitcoin +600% since this post. Doesn't produce cashflow though so cite some Munger quote and avoid independent thinking. Correction: It doesn't produce anything I used to think gold was valuable too until I heard that when you fondle the cube it will not respond. Gold has been a bit of a stinker of an investment in real terms over the long haul, hasn't it? If Bitcoin is the next gold, wouldn't it be fair to assume it would be a bit of a stinker over the long haul as well? If you could provide some numbers on how you calculate your intrinsic value I think that would help me a bit with understanding your position. Maybe I really am missing something, I dunno, but no one seems to be able to provide me any hard numbers. If this is the depth of analysis you're willing to do - yet continue to be stunned that the scammy worthless bitcoin "dies" yet continues to rebound to higher levels - you probably do not understand the thesis at the most basic level and will continue to be stunned. Stunned I shall be...I'll be patiently waiting for your intrinsic value calculation in the meantime. Clutch's gold alternative theory is at least plausible to me. I guess the next question would be why aren't gold prices going down while bitcoin prices are going up? Wouldn't an investor simply shift their 10% gold allocation to a 10% bitcoin allocation? I don't think the "market cap" of bitcoin can equal gold's current market cap unless investors become willing to allocate 20% of their portfolio to stores of value. I guess an investors 10% store of value allocation could be 100% bitcoin and golds market price goes to zero? My thesis is BTC is a superior version of Gold. Obviously the market isn't perfectly efficient to take $1 from gold and give $1 to BTC; BTC actually expands TAM to an extent as younger generation is buying BTC - not selling gold. You're clearly looking for anecdotal ways to support your preconceived opinion - not worth spending more time on. If you're actually intellectually curious listen to Ari Paul discuss bitcoin as a starting point.

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that. I just assumed you were letting the board know that crypto was on sale. Bitcoin +600% since this post. Doesn't produce cashflow though so cite some Munger quote and avoid independent thinking. Correction: It doesn't produce anything I used to think gold was valuable too until I heard that when you fondle the cube it will not respond. Gold has been a bit of a stinker of an investment in real terms over the long haul, hasn't it? If Bitcoin is the next gold, wouldn't it be fair to assume it would be a bit of a stinker over the long haul as well? If you could provide some numbers on how you calculate your intrinsic value I think that would help me a bit with understanding your position. Maybe I really am missing something, I dunno, but no one seems to be able to provide me any hard numbers. If this is the depth of analysis you're willing to do - yet continue to be stunned that the scammy worthless bitcoin "dies" yet continues to rebound to higher levels - you probably do not understand the thesis at the most basic level and will continue to be stunned.

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that. I just assumed you were letting the board know that crypto was on sale. Bitcoin +600% since this post. Doesn't produce cashflow though so cite some Munger quote and avoid independent thinking. Correction: It doesn't produce anything Very insightful- thanks. I was a huge Bitcoin bull until I learned that it doesn't produce anything.

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that. I just assumed you were letting the board know that crypto was on sale. Bitcoin +600% since this post. Doesn't produce cashflow though so cite some Munger quote and avoid independent thinking.

The extremely high volume and price action has me wondering if there were other events which occurred behind the scenes which we are all attributing to this WSJ quote. If it's simply the @amacker joke article the price action doesn't make sense to me. Could be fast money who bought subsequent to the capital rule with the clear short term catalyst in mind bailing out due to the WSJ article - but I'm always curious if there's false attribution. Orthopa's made a few strong arguments that strongly counteract any WSJ inferences. Haven't sold a share, but given my obnoxious position sizing I'm not adding either.

Sure. This is all contingent on Calabria staying in office otherwise a new UST/FHFA can presumably unwind the contract bilateraly.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 if nothing else

Would this be legally irreversible though even with a new Treasury/FHFA? Section 5.3 of the PSPA is the concerning language that needs to be specifically amended. Ultimately, my view of the news today is that it DID NOT say the PSPA would not be written off/NWS would not be amended. Once the PSPA is gone, it's simply a function of time with the jr pref at the top of the capital stack. Fannie/Freddie aren't going anywhere.

My weak buy setup got nullified by the end of yesterday. Surprised to see the big gap down today. Trump has far more urgent things to worry about than releasing FnF, and if the Supreme Court can rule the Texas vs PA case like that, it can cover its eyes on FnF scandal as well. Lol, you show up after a long absence with a buy signal and support for a fascist coup. The next day after a big drop, you're look, "Just kidding - there was no buy signal. Still dig that fascist coup, though." Please go back and read my prior post. I said I showed up again because after May 2019, I finally got another buy setup, but it is really weak and I am not taking it. You seem to be a Biden supporter. Is that true? I am surprised to see any Democrats believing in law and order for FnF while covering their eyes for all the lawless things that Obama has done over the years. ;) "You seem to be a Biden supporter". People who think in these terms (sadly, a growing % of the population) have actual brain damage. Get out of this thread and argue about your political team elsewhere- nobody cares. wow.... That's rude and arrogant. ;D Irrelevant, if correct.

My weak buy setup got nullified by the end of yesterday. Surprised to see the big gap down today. Trump has far more urgent things to worry about than releasing FnF, and if the Supreme Court can rule the Texas vs PA case like that, it can cover its eyes on FnF scandal as well. Lol, you show up after a long absence with a buy signal and support for a fascist coup. The next day after a big drop, you're look, "Just kidding - there was no buy signal. Still dig that fascist coup, though." Please go back and read my prior post. I said I showed up again because after May 2019, I finally got another buy setup, but it is really weak and I am not taking it. You seem to be a Biden supporter. Is that true? I am surprised to see any Democrats believing in law and order for FnF while covering their eyes for all the lawless things that Obama has done over the years. ;) "You seem to be a Biden supporter". People who think in these terms (sadly, a growing % of the population) have actual brain damage. Get out of this thread and argue about your political team elsewhere- nobody cares.

My weak buy setup got nullified by the end of yesterday. Surprised to see the big gap down today. Trump has far more urgent things to worry about than releasing FnF, and if the Supreme Court can rule the Texas vs PA case like that, it can cover its eyes on FnF scandal as well. Very strong analysis. Thanks for your contribution.

Can you explain what "game over" entails if the NWS is ended and SPSA is written down? FNMAS trade at $8.75 ask right now (most liquid so least attractive). Let's say this is funded entirely by retained earnings over 10 years. An 11% CAGR to Par value after 10 years. Again I think the correct way of looking at this trade is and has always been- what is the long-term permanent capital loss that you can reasonably expect? And what is the upside?

I don't know. There is a lot of uncertainty left here. Who remembers the General Growth bankruptcy? I bought some stock fairly late in the bankruptcy process, but by then the fog had cleared and it seemed pretty obvious that the equity was worth way more the market price. I think I made 300% in less than six months. I would argue the GSEs still have a lot more fog clouding their futures than GGP did when I bought it, so is it unreasonable for junior preferred to still have 200% upside? I bought into the GSEs because of the legal angle - it seemed so obvious that the NWS would be overturned. But I've been waiting for 6 years already and, as discussed here already, if we "win" in SCOTUS it will likely still mean a few more years in court. So without a PSPA amendment, I can't really say today's prices are wrong. And Mr. Market is obviously demanding action, not talk, out of Mnuchin. He's been talking now for 4 years and we've got little to show for it. He put out a lengthy Treasury plan and signed an interim agreement w/ FHFA to suspend the net worth sweep. He's going to sign the PSPA amendment and the market knows it. Ok, but's what's in the amendment? What if the NWS is ended, but the Senior Preferred isn't written down? If you are 100% sure what's going to happen, you have me beat by about 70%. Prices go down in this case.

I don't know. There is a lot of uncertainty left here. Who remembers the General Growth bankruptcy? I bought some stock fairly late in the bankruptcy process, but by then the fog had cleared and it seemed pretty obvious that the equity was worth way more the market price. I think I made 300% in less than six months. I would argue the GSEs still have a lot more fog clouding their futures than GGP did when I bought it, so is it unreasonable for junior preferred to still have 200% upside? I bought into the GSEs because of the legal angle - it seemed so obvious that the NWS would be overturned. But I've been waiting for 6 years already and, as discussed here already, if we "win" in SCOTUS it will likely still mean a few more years in court. So without a PSPA amendment, I can't really say today's prices are wrong. And Mr. Market is obviously demanding action, not talk, out of Mnuchin. He's been talking now for 4 years and we've got little to show for it. He put out a lengthy Treasury plan and signed an interim agreement w/ FHFA to suspend the net worth sweep. He's going to sign the PSPA amendment and the market knows it.

To paraphrase the old joke: If he says "no" he means "maybe". If he says "maybe" he means "yes". If he says "yes", he's no poker player. Between Mnuchin, Calabria and Crapo's statements and the WSJ editorial opinion, something seems to be brewing. Have to be honest here- something seems off. The market, while sometimes inefficient when structural/technical reasons exist (applicable here) and therefore can be slow to react to emerging phenomenon, cannot be this stupid to allow for a 50-100% increase in prices at PSPA 4th amendment signing. I think the market is applying some small discount to account for the risk that Mnuchin doesn't sign the amendment, but have to imagine a large portion of the PSPA amendment is already baked into the price at this point. I could be totally wrong here, given that the details of the amendment are key variables and unknown (simply end NWS? partial write-down of senior pref? details of commitment fee?) but I'm not sure I'd expect a 50-100% increase in prices even in a better-case scenario. I think the market wants closure on the implications of a SCOTUS decision + more specific views on Biden's likelihood of playing nice nice with any consent decree (for example- could Biden not assign a new FHFA director quickly and dramatically increase the capital requirements to make it near impossible to raise private capital and therefore keep the GSE's as cashflowing entities for the govt? The SCOTUS decision won't be final until June so a capital raise won't happen until June - and by then a new FHFA director can come into play and quickly raise the capital standards) Just typing out some random thoughts. Obviously moving in a positive direction but I'm skeptical that the market is just so obviously dumb that it's missing the upcoming PSPA amendment. Thoughts?

Is there going to be a video on cspan? Or should I just expect audio?

Umm... is it supposed to be going this well...

Does anyone have info on listening/watching the hearing today? I saw somewhere that the video is being shown at 9:45pm EST on CSPAN

LOL

right. Ackerman is too much of a tool not to be used as a tool by C/Mn. the collins reply brief was due 11/23, filed 11/19. you almost never see an early filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/161278/20201119155421721_11-19-20%20Collins%20Merits%20Reply.pdf Anything to glean from an early filing?