SnarkyPuppy

How did you find out about this?

No chance this is real. If this is real you would be silly not to back up the truck tomorrow. No chance this is came out last week and it wasn't everywhere

Why do you not contemplate a reformed structure without the current two GSEs as part of the 'end of conservatorship'?

NAFCU plan is so vague. Sure it says they should rebuild capital today, but also contemplates significant structural reform

Craig Phillips of @USTreasury endorses @NAFCU's advocacy on #housing reform. #NAFCUCaucus

Unless Mnuchin continues to keep a poker face on this. I personally don't buy the fact that Mnuchin has a secret plan to help shareholders and think anyone who believes so is dealing w bias. I don't think it's intelligent for Mnuchin to not settle w shareholders, but he may see the legal liability as a payment to be made after this administration is gone. Craig Phillips + obvious that MI must believe they have a shot here are both scary indicators. With that said, corker news is directionally pointing the other way. I don't think he is focused on helping out shareholders directly but the question is do we benefit from his plans indirectly? I believe the combined market cap of the public common and preferred shares for the 2 companies is less than $15bn (?) and so the dollar amount requirements which lead to a fair outcome are not high relative to current market cap levels. let's say berkowitz wanted 2/3 of par, for instance, and everyone else did too -- that's only a couple years of earnings, no biggie. Berkowitz will be paid. Not sure if we will

Unless Mnuchin continues to keep a poker face on this. I personally don't buy the fact that Mnuchin has a secret plan to help shareholders and think anyone who believes so is dealing w bias. I don't think it's intelligent for Mnuchin to not settle w shareholders, but he may see the legal liability as a payment to be made after this administration is gone. Craig Phillips + obvious that MI must believe they have a shot here are both scary indicators. With that said, corker news is directionally pointing the other way.

Wow. I didn't even come close to going all-in like that. I'd have to go and figure it out, buy I've probably invested about $10K total in my entire basket of cryptocurrencies in the last 2 years, maybe a little less. That small amount is in the 6-figures now. Had I done what you did, I'd be retiring now. If you guys don't mind- - What are both of your thoughts on cryptos going forward? Which specific cryptos are you most bullish on? - How are you storing your crypto assets? I have been holding btc, eth, and lc but I keep them in coinbase which I understand isn't without substantial risk. Moving outside of coinbase seems somewhat complicated and messy Its nothing more then a ledger, a means to transfer money, the only think I can equate this to is if everyone ran out and purchased checkbooks with the hope the price of them would go up significantly. Bitcoin has shifted from the minority of people who used it for its actually purpose to people buying it with the hope they can sell it to someone else for more. This has happened to bitcoin before and the only thing of value in any of this is the blockchain. Going forward I see this as nothing more than a fad much like fidget spinners and Pokemon Go. Not sure I think the future is knowable here. One thesis is it simply replaces gold as a store of value - probably unlikely but +EV under most scenarios I had an older friend who I have no talked to in a while call me a couple days ago and tell me to put money into cyptocurrencies because it will be worth millions in a year, there are videos on YouTube of people daydreaming about what they will do with all the money they are going to make from bitcoin, ether etc. Yet I have had no one tell me what value the actual bitcoin adds. I'm pretty sure China banned these things this week, so if the thesis is that people will use bitcoins instead on gold there goes your biggest market. Nobody on this board is going to argue against the fact that this is highly speculative. But the fact that this has attributes consistent with other bubbles (internet daytrading) is not evidence that this is a bubble. To the extent it becomes a widely accepted store of value (i.e. gold) the price movements over the past year are very immaterial. What value does gold add that bitcoin doesn't? Bitcoin is decentralized - nobody cares what the China government says.

Wow. I didn't even come close to going all-in like that. I'd have to go and figure it out, buy I've probably invested about $10K total in my entire basket of cryptocurrencies in the last 2 years, maybe a little less. That small amount is in the 6-figures now. Had I done what you did, I'd be retiring now. If you guys don't mind- - What are both of your thoughts on cryptos going forward? Which specific cryptos are you most bullish on? - How are you storing your crypto assets? I have been holding btc, eth, and lc but I keep them in coinbase which I understand isn't without substantial risk. Moving outside of coinbase seems somewhat complicated and messy The risk is of course tremendous, I think this is about the riskiest space you can invest in right now. Like internet stocks in the 90s. Of course when all is said and done I think there will be a great shakeup and crash, and tremendous value will come out the otherside equal or greater than the internet itself. There will be many pets.com's and a few amazon.com's which change the way the world does certain things. Because of this my strategy has been and is a shotgun approach. I will buy and hold what I see as the best candidates to survive then sit back and see what happens. I currently own Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BTH), Ethereum (ETH), DASH, Monero (XMR), NEO, GAS, Polybius (PLBT), and Tezos. I don't hold any of them at exchanges like Coinbase. I have used Coinbase to buy Bitcoin, but I then transfer it out to wallets where I own the keys. For Bitcoin I have a small amount in the Bread Wallet IOS app, a small amount in the Jaxx IOS app, and most in a paper wallet. To create a paper wallet go here: https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com/ Make sure that you disconnect your computer from the internet before creating the wallet at that site or any other. After printing multiple copies, power down your printer to remove it from memory. Then delete your browser's cache. To create a paper wallet for Ethereum go here: https://www.myetherwallet.com/ Take the same precautions. For Monero I use: https://mymonero.com/ For NEO/GAS: https://neowallet.cn/ I only hold a small amount of DASH and I keep it in Jaxx. Polybius is just a ETH token, so you hold it in an etherium wallet. And Tezos you can't buy yet, because the ICO is over and it hasn't started trading on the exchanges yet. One of the reasons cryptocurrencies are still a fringe type thing is the difficulty in figuring all this stuff out. That is pain, but it is also an opportunity. Coinbase is probably fine for the time being, but if you don't control your private keys, you don't really control your assets in the case of something happening to Coinbase. They could go out of business. They could be hacked. I don't think they will go out of business in the near future, but as far as being hacked, you can't discount that as a real possibility. Thank you very much for this. I guess one concern w/ holding on paper is any impact that future forks would have and whether a paper private key would factor those in?

Wow. I didn't even come close to going all-in like that. I'd have to go and figure it out, buy I've probably invested about $10K total in my entire basket of cryptocurrencies in the last 2 years, maybe a little less. That small amount is in the 6-figures now. Had I done what you did, I'd be retiring now. If you guys don't mind- - What are both of your thoughts on cryptos going forward? Which specific cryptos are you most bullish on? - How are you storing your crypto assets? I have been holding btc, eth, and lc but I keep them in coinbase which I understand isn't without substantial risk. Moving outside of coinbase seems somewhat complicated and messy Its nothing more then a ledger, a means to transfer money, the only think I can equate this to is if everyone ran out and purchased checkbooks with the hope the price of them would go up significantly. Bitcoin has shifted from the minority of people who used it for its actually purpose to people buying it with the hope they can sell it to someone else for more. This has happened to bitcoin before and the only thing of value in any of this is the blockchain. Going forward I see this as nothing more than a fad much like fidget spinners and Pokemon Go. Not sure I think the future is knowable here. One thesis is it simply replaces gold as a store of value - probably unlikely but +EV under most scenarios

Wow. I didn't even come close to going all-in like that. I'd have to go and figure it out, buy I've probably invested about $10K total in my entire basket of cryptocurrencies in the last 2 years, maybe a little less. That small amount is in the 6-figures now. Had I done what you did, I'd be retiring now. If you guys don't mind- - What are both of your thoughts on cryptos going forward? Which specific cryptos are you most bullish on? - How are you storing your crypto assets? I have been holding btc, eth, and lc but I keep them in coinbase which I understand isn't without substantial risk. Moving outside of coinbase seems somewhat complicated and messy

CNN specifically. Nobody else. lol.

Actually spent some time parsing through search results prior to making this thread and that led me to believing Fidelity was the only remaining option. Possible I missed something...?

Looking for any US citizens that have experience buying Korean listed stocks. Fidelity used to allow purchasing Korean listed securities if you called on the phone and spoke to a broker. I just got off of the phone with a Fidelity rep and he told me Fidelity stopped this practice (SEC shut it down) roughly 6-7 months ago. According to the rep I talked to, you need a Korean ID number which doesn't seem easily attainable as a US citizen. Does anyone have any insight into alternatives? Another US broker would be ideal but I think Fidelity was the last to do this.

// and then nothing since. // reversal Not all. If anything, that triggered the feverish response going on behind the scenes with Senators working on a bill (as per Ackman) and Craig Philips' nightclubs meetings with the Blackrocks of W.St. I have a feeling there is something somewhere already in progress. That is, far advanced, late stage development. Craig Phillips / Blackrock is another top-5 risk here IMO. But I suppose there's probably some middle ground utility-like explicit backing reform that keeps current GSEs and makes Blackrock happy.

Still seems odd to me that Mnuchin was directly asked and agreed that Obama was using Fannie profits to fund other parts of the government, and then nothing since. Have to think the questions that get asked get vetted and agreed upon before hand. Why was that publicly discussed and why has it been completely ignored since? Why has fox stopped mentioning it at all? Seems odd to me and almost indicates some form of reversal.

Atlantic Power

Also,... is this rationale of shares going to zero with a settlement based on some kind of logic or is born out of irrational fear? Lately, Zandi affirmed companies are almost completely reformed. Pollock being in a somewhat similar camp, admitting w/o a doubt Treasury has been paid or about to be. How about Watt, who more than once stated the companies today do not resemble the ones from the past. Freddie ceo singing the same tune. Most antagonistic forces belonged to the Obama administration (Stegman et.al) and are now gone. Others feel legacy shareholders must not be hurt for private capital to come in and fund a restructuring. Within this context, how much money would the government offer Fairlhome to drop the takings case, a case the government has been winning and a case where the plaintiff decided to sue after the fact? It makes no sense that the government will pay Fairholme to go away just so that they can then shut down all the remaining shares. More likely, administrative reform is advanced and Treasury feels the lawsuits are future time bombs that need to be defused today. I'm just constantly reassessing the downside from different angles here as I do with any investment. I actually think overall we are in a good spot, I just threw the risk out there as I was reminded that it has always been one of the potential downside options that I've thought about and this quote reminded me: "It’s anticipated that Treasury – at the very least – will contemplate settling with some of the GSE plaintiffs in the “takings” cases and solve the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac “problem” administratively. As for the details…" Re-reading it, it's probably moreso contemplating settling with preferred plaintiffs vs common plaintiffs rather than what I've highlighted. Understand there are still class actions but is there a risk the government sees that as much lower chance of loss than the Fairholme case? Fairholme and Paulson drop this in a second if they are offered something that screws everyone else. Seems to me (I've been wrong before...) that there is a non-zero chance that the government settles w/ the major players funding the lawsuits, leaves the low risk of a class action loss, simultaneously announces reform which explicitly states government role in mortgage finance and re-charters new GSEs etc. IMO, the argument that the government will have trouble raising private capital only holds true if the current structure is maintained (i.e. governments role is implicit, shareholders role ambiguous). It wouldn't necessarily be a rational decision in terms of maximizing housing finance efficiency, but there could be other incentives at play and I'm not sure any of us can say with a straight face that this administration has been consistently rational. Think we're fine, just talking through some of this since you guys provide great feedback. Paulson is not involved in lawsuits. And has said his bet is based on another outcome independent of lawsuits. So just like us, Paulson -the closest Trump ally involved in FF shares- will get screwed. Berkowitz and Perry have been the big ones. Although the ones mentioned by Chris seem to also be meaningful. A question... What would be the point of completing an administrative reform that includes leaving the door open for Congress to re-charter the companies in a narrow way, establishing explicit guarantees, cancelling the sweep, establishing a permanent line of credit paid for with a commitment fee, issuing secondaries to recapitalize both entities, etc. All so that in a few years there is a ruling by the Supreme court that puts a sizable dent in Treasury ordering them to pay billions to shareholders? You're right re- Paulson, good point and forgot he isn't a current party in the suits. I suppose that's a solid data point. And with regards to your second questions, it likely would be a different administration, different problem. With that said, seems the incentives are aligned for the current admin to take $100bn in warrants for immediate use rather than quarterly sweeps going forward. I'm very bullish and own a sizable position. Just playing devils advocate where I can.

Also,... is this rationale of shares going to zero with a settlement based on some kind of logic or is born out of irrational fear? Lately, Zandi affirmed companies are almost completely reformed. Pollock being in a somewhat similar camp, admitting w/o a doubt Treasury has been paid or about to be. How about Watt, who more than once stated the companies today do not resemble the ones from the past. Freddie ceo singing the same tune. Most antagonistic forces belonged to the Obama administration (Stegman et.al) and are now gone. Others feel legacy shareholders must not be hurt for private capital to come in and fund a restructuring. Within this context, how much money would the government offer Fairlhome to drop the takings case, a case the government has been winning and a case where the plaintiff decided to sue after the fact? It makes no sense that the government will pay Fairholme to go away just so that they can then shut down all the remaining shares. More likely, administrative reform is advanced and Treasury feels the lawsuits are future time bombs that need to be defused today. I'm just constantly reassessing the downside from different angles here as I do with any investment. I actually think overall we are in a good spot, I just threw the risk out there as I was reminded that it has always been one of the potential downside options that I've thought about and this quote reminded me: "It’s anticipated that Treasury – at the very least – will contemplate settling with some of the GSE plaintiffs in the “takings” cases and solve the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac “problem” administratively. As for the details…" Re-reading it, it's probably moreso contemplating settling with preferred plaintiffs vs common plaintiffs rather than what I've highlighted. Understand there are still class actions but is there a risk the government sees that as much lower chance of loss than the Fairholme case? Fairholme and Paulson drop this in a second if they are offered something that screws everyone else. Seems to me (I've been wrong before...) that there is a non-zero chance that the government settles w/ the major players funding the lawsuits, leaves the low risk of a class action loss, simultaneously announces reform which explicitly states government role in mortgage finance and re-charters new GSEs etc. IMO, the argument that the government will have trouble raising private capital only holds true if the current structure is maintained (i.e. governments role is implicit, shareholders role ambiguous). It wouldn't necessarily be a rational decision in terms of maximizing housing finance efficiency, but there could be other incentives at play and I'm not sure any of us can say with a straight face that this administration has been consistently rational. Think we're fine, just talking through some of this since you guys provide great feedback.

What if they announced settlement and immediate wind down of current companies after trading hours?

Right - no margin of safety in optics w the current players involved. A settlement w the large shareholders gets rid of the lawsuits, which preferred bulls have been pointing out as an impediment to any negative reform

This hints at what I believe to be a substiantial risk- settlement with only certain shareholders (plaintiffs) while concurrently stopping the shares from trading. Would wipe out retail shareholders and wouldn't allow other funds to buy up the shares and sue. Berkowitz have said before that the preferred shares are a contract. How does the contract hold for one person and not the other? When the entire premise of the takings is just that? I can see "some" being preferred vs common. Wouldn't matter in a settlement. The argument regarding contract rights goes away when the plaintiffs funding the litigation get paid

This hints at what I believe to be a substiantial risk- settlement with only certain shareholders (plaintiffs) while concurrently stopping the shares from trading. Would wipe out retail shareholders and wouldn't allow other funds to buy up the shares and sue.

Any thoughts on Icahn's departure? IMO irrelevant for F/F and probably zero chance it had any relevance to why he left. We still don't know if he even holds shares anymore iirc

So this was 47 days ago. Where is my "short term"? Still waiting for the "significant positive developments at both companies". Update to my comment above. Looks like this was released today ("Pershing Square presented its ADP investment thesis on a webcast on August 17, 2017.). So the FF statement must be valid or they would have knocked it down had their change their position. Perhaps they are just being coy to try to persuade the awful #fanniegate crowd to tone down rhetoric headed into the next few critical months. What is the advantage of publicly hinting at something favorable about to occur, especially if it's likely to happen in the "short term" as described. If he was privy to some positive news, most sensical thing to do (imho) is keep your lips sealed and let it play out. I think this is just a small push to reduce the idiots in this trade to stop antagonizing corker