SnarkyPuppy

Ah, I didn't maximize the screen I was looking at. You can choose from Szubin, Kravis, Icahn, Lew (Szubin favorite amongst these) https://www.predictit.org/Market/2468/Who-will-be-Secretary-of-the-Treasury-on-Feb-28%2c-2017

On the topic of hedging political risk, the website "PredictIt" is apparently legitimate (i.e. legal) betting on political outcomes. You effectively buy one side of the bet for a given price, and if you win the price is made whole at $1.00. Mnuchin is priced at $0.95 cents, but what is interesting is you can buy Szubin at $0.04 cents. $100 bet on Szubin would pay out $2,500. I have no idea if Szubin would be the #2...? But surely if something happened with Mnuchin the market would spike strongly for Szubin and you'd get some payout. The fees are high but might still be worth it: - 10% fee on any gains - 5% withdraw fee on total withdrawal amount Any thoughts on Szubin? Obviously Mnuchin will be the Tsy, but with large $ at stake I wouldn't mind hedging a bit.

Mnuchin would likely remain Treasury Scty in the event of an impeachment, no?

I have FNMAS, FNMAH, and FMCCL, in that order of current dollar amounts. Of those 3, liquidity is best on FNMAS and discount to par is best on FMCCL. FNMAH is in the middle on both metrics. I haven't bought any shares in the past 10 months, own too much already. I have FMCKJ. This is similar to FNMAS but currently trading less than FNMAS. Did you buy that only because of liquidity or is there another reason as well? Trying to figure out why some are so much more popular than the others (aside from liquidity). Dividend yields.

Fine with me

Trump's calendar shows he plans on signing executive orders today at noon. Buckle up. (my emphasis added on "executive order" in quote above) The text in that article has changed from what you posted above to this: Anyone have the earlier version of the article? Interesting. I simply copied and pasted at the time I posted.

Does anybody know where the language of the executive order will be posted once signed?

Again, maybe I over read things but look at his body language and eye contact. Something is up. something is up. if you recall during mnuchin's hearing, he said at one point "i havent looked into it" in answer to a detailed question on GSEs. now, cohn says mnuchin has done alot of work on it. this is an administration that is all about action Wish they would hold their cards a little closer until he's fully confirmed and it's a done deal.

My read is that an executive order can simply "enforce" the Tsy Dpt to find a solution to the current situation. An EO by itself won't do anything to the GSE's - but it will basically provide the tailwind for Mnuchin to implement a 4th amendment. Just my 2c.

I wonder what the order will direct Treasury to change? Could it possibly be to end the NWS? As an aside, has anyone done any analysis on what a possible conversion of prfd to common might look like and how likely a scenario this is? I am currently at 10% of NW with 50/50 common/prfd. Citigroup bailout was done at like a 15% discount to par if I remember correctly

http://pulse.com.gh/bi/finance/trump-is-reportedly-going-to-sign-executive-orders-on-friday-to-repeal-two-huge-wall-street-regulations-id6162623.html "Cohn also told the Journal that the executive order will direct the Treasury department to change Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lenders. Additionally, Cohn said that the executive action would not impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as a part of Dodd-Frank."

Have no problem disclosing. 17.5% of NW at today's prices split between pref/common at 75/25. Keep in mind the majority of my position is profits from this investment - when I initially invested a while back it was with the intention of having an overnight/binary decision and either fully working out or a goose egg. This slow climb has been a bit more difficult to weigh expected value.

Liquidation preference at par value + legal provide the "margin of safety" here. Someone hinted at the fact that it's possible the plaintiffs in the major cases negotiate a settlement privately that could screw public shareholders - some on this board mentioned it's not possible but still not sure I can think of every potential scenario within this space. The citi bailout paid par to private preferred shareholders (I know this is different, Fairholme holds the same shares we do), but it just generally scares me a bit. Other than that, only a recap fully financed by only retained earnings seems to hurt the preferred holders (I own ~20% common as a backstop against this)

Dean Moriarty.

Amazing.

So when is this going to happen...?

You're not wrong - the thesis largely relies on a rational administration (ex- legal cases)

Twitter saying the vote delayed to tomorrow morning.

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be... Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality. I was talking about specifically fruntrunning a legal ruling.

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be...

Why are the shares reacting positively to this...?

Unless the recap comes purely from the companies retained earnings, seems explicitly very positive for preferred holders

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/491/text/ih?overview=closed&format=txt

Does anyone have any insight into this volume aside from Pershings slides?