SnarkyPuppy

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical. So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies. After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad". How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? Because your vote will not decide the election. It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency. It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change. How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics? Why would you? But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%). People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere. Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with. Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does. I agree with everything you wrote and have articulated similar thoughts to people - but what's the solution? The current voting system gives everyone an equal vote irrespective of their prejudice or ignorance. As long as voting remains as easy and mindless as picking your nose, the ignorant and selfish public (George Carlin was right) will continue to vote nonsensically. It's quite apparent that a large percentage of the voting population cannot name one senator or one house representative up for election prior to entering the voting booth - arguably this is more important than the president himself. How do we solve this? Unfortunately I agree, there's very little an individual can do simply due to population size and immateriality. But it seems to me that something to the effect of a reading comprehension test designed to ensure that voters understand the system and politicians they are voting for should be a bare minimum. An exam of sorts whereby a reading prompt provides an elementary level explanation of the US government branches, explains each of the candidates views (documented and audited by multiple third parties) without naming the candidates names/genders/race/religion, and then a quiz asking very simple and basic questions about the reading prompts to verify the reader has a simple understanding of the structure of the system / candidates views irrespective of high level ideologies that excuse people from reading/thinking (republican/democrat choices). Voting should then occur based on anonymous labels consistent with the reading prompts - e.g. candidate x, candidate y, candidate z. You'd obviously get into complexities surrounding fairness - but there's no question that something IQ-independent could be developed to partially mitigate the mindlessness and ignorance surrounding the majority of the public. It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable. The test would take time, two hours? Make the day a national holiday. Don't want to spend two hours to take the test? You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you. Don't vote. Then again, this could be an arrogant and elitist view and I'm not detached from that. Happy for a reality check here if someone thinks I'm totally off base. But the fact of the matter is, it's evident that the majority of voters do not have a clue (whether it's rational/irrational to "have a clue" is a separate debate). Ultimately, I (and likely most people on this board) stand by the mantra of accepting personal responsibility and working hard on activities within the realm of individual control. I don't think doing so is mutually exclusive with watching/caring about the countries politics though.

the way i look at hensarling and corker is that they were emboldened by an obama administration that shared their view on GSEs...different political party, but still same TBTF private capital preference. they shared this position in opposition to the low-income housing crowd in the dem party. now, the trump administration "seems" to be more favorable for the GSEs to be resuscitated. i think (hope) hensarling and corker will be more chastened re GSEs. they will get their way with dodd frank reform, which corker says is coming up first, and less likely to be pounding the table on GSEs. all of this of course is wild speculation I think I'm ultimately worried he gets the Treasury position. I'm less bullish on the overall "trump administration catalyst" than others seem to be given the variety of unknowns involved, but it seems Hensarling would be a big dent in that element of the "trump administration catalyst"

How big of a problem is Hensarling? http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/compliance-regulation/hensarling-targets-gse-reform-dodd-frank-rollback-in-ambitious-agenda-1091018-1.html?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=natmortgagenews-tw&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Agree seems like speculation, but the volume has been very strong.

Also very curious about this. This can obviously be very profitable but seems legal risk is very high in a city adamant about cracking down on airbnb?

I have multiple brokerage accounts which make it more difficult. Etrade has the option but I don't see it for Fidelity. I would use IB except I'm restricted in which brokerages I can use (job restriction)

There's a few threads on this previously, but there's never been a comprehensive agreement on the most practical approach to go about this. I'm trying to guage if a simple XIRR calculation is sufficient for determining what my track record is. An example as follows: - Beginning Period Date and Balance - Deposits and Date of Each Deposit + Withdrawals and Date of Each Withdraw + Ending Period Date and Balance =xirr(values, dates) How do each of you track performance? I think it's also important to translate these values into a normalized unit for purposes of comparing to a passive portfolio, but I haven't tackled that yet.

Attorney fees..?

Thanks for pointing that out merkhet, I was reading the earlier alphabetic offerings.

Is there a risk that certain Preferreds will be made whole through liquidation preference rights and that others lower in the capital structure will be insufficiently funded? In my brief read of a few of the offerings (http://www.fanniemae.com/portal/about-us/investor-relations/stock-information.html), the language reads to me that at least in a liquidation scenario, funding occurs in an alphabetical sequence (i.e. full payment is Series D -> then use remaining to fully pay Series E -> etc).

I don't think anybody knows. But referring to your chart, when I saw the words "new paradigm" my brain instantly connected with the idea thats been floating around regarding high multiples/low interest rates/low growth being the "new normal".

Why am I continuously seeing FNMA hit 0.01 per share? Are these real trades?

This is why PE alone is not an indicator of over- or under- valued. in this case, buying @ 20x would've been a great investment. i am sick of hearing, it trades at 20x earnings therefore its overvalued. Depends on how you measure value. PE alone is not a great indicator because you need to both quantitatively and qualitatively assess growth runway -> impacts the terminal discounted cash flows of the business. KC- I respectfully disagree, your description of holding an overvalued stock to ride the wave of momentum is directly consistent with trying to "time the market" in my opinion. You're leaving the land of fundamentals and entering the world of speculation. I don't dismiss the fact that there are many examples where overvalued stocks rise and remain overvalued, but I am not smart enough to distinguish between when it will/when it won't happen. I'm relatively skeptical of anyone who claims they are. I think it's more sensical to be simple and consistent. Buy when cheap. Sell when expensive.

Sounds like you're suggesting timing the market - I don't think many on this board will claim any skill in that field.

I actually think it would consistent with Trump's theme of pointing out "corruption" and timely given Obama's recent endorsement to highlight some high-level facts about the GSE fiasco and draw parallels to Obama->Clinton. Simply could point out hiding 12,000 documents, can point to @joshrosner work "implying" (as trump does so well) that the government took FNMA to fund Obamacare, etc. I think summarized in a very succinct way, he could use this to his advantage as further direct evidence of his "corruption" theme. Question is - how aware is he / what is the best way to increase visibility? Of course, I'm thinking about this for selfish reason and may be having some bias on its true weight.

You should tag the SA article with @FNMA for visibility.

Wish I understood the legal aspects of this case better. Common sense and a basic understanding of capitalism indicate wrongdoing resulting in reversal, but the practical world consists of a government with its own self interests and a law which can be counter-intuitive to the layman. The majority of what is being written/vocalized is from the perspective of the the bull side of the thesis. Maybe this is warranted - but it regardless creates bias from anyone trying to follow the details of the case. I'd be very curious to read a 360 page thread with individuals on the other side (maybe they would have nothing of substance to say). I know the WSJ has acted in this capacity and I have been following. From my lay perspective, the section of the FNMA 10Q around the time of the NWS referencing 'volatility in earnings' but risk that they likely would not be able to meet the 10% dividend seems inconsistent with some of the other information that has recently come to light (CFO stating future profitability and reversal of DTA allowance, 'golden years of GSEs ahead'). I know this was brought up in the appeals hearing and it seems like a potential road block (I could be totally off base and bringing this conversation down to an elementary level) - is there a strong retort to this element of the case?

http://dealbreaker.com/2016/04/fannie-freddie-shareholder-lawsuit-looks-less-good-when-you-read-the-law/ What are everyone's thoughts on the issues raised in this article?

One last legal to layman question - are there any nuances to the various different preferreds from a legal perspective? Or do they all stand to binary do well or not do well together? Digging through myself right now but obviously the legalise is over my head (too hard bucket - going to keep a small position)

I have no allocation to common. 100% of my allocation is in the Fannie Mae preferreds. Definitely appreciate your perspective - the legal aspect of this is very much over my head and therefore I only hold a small position. Assuming your rationale for preferreds is to limit downside exposure - i.e., it seems in most scenarios (excluding the status quo) the preferreds would likely be liquidated?

What is everyone's common/preferred allocation? I own 3x as much common as I own preferred but thinking about re-allocating more towards the preferreds as a sort of hedge

9:30am according to this website. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/fullcalendar?OpenView&count=1000 Thanks, btw, is the streaming working for anyone? I have it on but so far don't hear anything Not working for me - anyone else?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-rally-on-wishful-thinking-1460657539 Carney article in WSJ.

I'll have to revist but I shied away at cheaper prices due to supplier concentration. Can't imagine this has materially gone away but I haven't looked at how the competitors customers have influenced the concentration

Norbert Lou from Punch Card Capital would be great