DocSnowball

Staying the course as well. Not sure what else to say. Either this moves dramatically in the next couple of weeks, or the hemorrhage continues. Eventually, either there is restructuring or a taking due to nationalization. It is a volatile investment, but the discrete events in 2020 have moved us forward rather than take us back. Thesis creep and sunk costs are also into play for sure, need to acknowledge that and not invest any more $ at this point. If you are Calabria, what are you asking Mnuchin to do at this point before the balance of power shifts?

2020: ~11% pre-tax Happy with the overall result given the tumultuous year we have had, although being in the field of healthcare could have done much better handling Coronavirus related market movements. Gradually moved from low six figures to low seven figures from 2016 to 2020. Big positive for me this year has been crystallizing my investment philosophy - moving to asset allocation based for 80% of portfolio (mostly Vanguard and iShares index funds VOO, VEA, VWO, INDA, FXI), and security selection (special situations, healthcare, biotech, educational tech, emerging tech) for 20% of portfolio. IRR returns were reasonably good, but still ended up with 40% cash. High risk aversion and thus inability to remain fully invested, along with Fannie preferreds position, were major drags for 2020 returns. ---------------- Historical: 2019: 21% 2018: -19% 2017: 7% 2016: 192%

@John Hjorth so sorry for your and your family's loss. May your brother's soul RIP.

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-fed-interest-rates-and-stock-prices.html From 2015, but the Myth or Truth discussion in the post remains evergreen: 1. The Fed sets interest rates 2. Low interest rates are the Fed's doing 3. The reason stock prices are so high is because rates are low

LOL...yes have suffered a lot of it ;D

It is probably correct that nothing has changed about Mnuchin/Calabria plan. But our guess of what that plan is keeps changing. Since we don't know, the price goes low. I disagree. Until this article, Mnuchin has been on record stating they are deliberating on the issue. Then these statements appear from a late in the day interview in the article - he would have known it will end up on the front page of the WSJ. Puzzling but definitely a negative coming from him (alternative being silence). WHY? Did talks breakdown? Was a decision to punt reached with concern for impact on the financial system? What changed for him to give these statements? Mr Market letting prices freefall along with volume indicate some are getting the message.

I hate this investment >:(

Some theoretical possibilities: - Plaintiffs were asking too much pre-SCOTUS hearing (i.e. the full boat, sr pref write down Plus overage) due to over-confidence - He doesn't intend to settle. Rather enter into a PSPA amendment with Calabria outside of legal world - Good public policy for SCOTUS to decide on FHFA head constitutionality even if PSPA amendment meets Collins' demands re: NWS and sr pref - He thinks trump might still win Or, more pessimistically, he plans to do nothing on Sr pref between now and jan20. Has anyone tracked the SCOTUS ruling on the Texas vs Pennsylvania case? If black and white cases like that one can be thrown out, I can't see how they will rule in favor of shareholders for FnF..... Trump's entire re-election hope seems to be on SCOTUS and it is a loss. Just like FnF shareholder's entire hope seems to be on SCOTUS at this moment. But there is a powerful magic hand that pulls the dolls on the front stage, and those dolls start to dance however the powerful hand orders them to dance. I don't know what else to say... My charts finally get a buy setup right now after the 2019 May top. But I have completely lost faith in the fundamentals. I think we're left at the whims of Treasury-FHFA agreement here in the next few weeks. Otherwise things can exist as they are for eternity...

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.

This describes me for sure! It's a bit like being a casino, every time you are ready to walk away a few more coins come your way ;D

Just listened to the SCOTUS arguments. Pointed questions on both sides. From the forest view, the whole situation is absurd to me. If you were the FHFA director working for years to recap the companies, why would you not settle the lawsuits and move this forward? Only reason I can think of is Treasury not playing ball. Why? IDK!!! If this is not in the too hard pile, I'm not sure what is. Yet, why is this trade so hard to walk away from? It always seems like resolution is just around the corner, and then years go by :'(

FDA meeting and presentation link for Thursday (Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine review) https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-december-10-2020-meeting-announcement#event-information Edit: full documents are at the bottom of the page

Getting more simplified in 2020 (ballparks): VOO 20% VEA 18-20% INDA 10% FXI 10% BRK-B 5% Fannie preferreds 5% DIS 4% 2U 2% Cash/Short term treasuries waiting to be deployed 25%

MBA features as one of the campaign contributors to Mike Rounds, the Senator who asked the question. "Commercial banks" as well. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00035187&cycle=2020&type=C

This kind of journalism is so pathetic imho...if they wanted to do it for hedge funds wouldn't it be years ago. Instead of looking at the merit of the proposal, they come out with all sorts of garbage. Security prices go up all the time with event based investments; it seems this is just an excuse for journalists pushing an agenda. Edit: also to invert the argument, if/when a PSPA and consent order is done, one could argue any rollback to that path can seriously set back the mortgage market as well, and with more lawsuits to boot.

@Eric - sorry to hear about all that you went through. Glad to hear you're getting better. Wishing you and your family well for a speedy recovery!

Dear CoBF community members, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your lovely families! Today and always, grateful for your friendship, generosity and support as this journey of investing and life unfolds. Stay safe and take good care. With warm wishes to you and your loved ones!

This is getting really interesting! Hoping and speculating we will see something concrete after all.

I believe the only acknowledgement previously was Calabria's verbal statements. I am not advising you on your position size lol Let me say it in a different way. The goal of analyzing this piece of information is to make money right. What are your views on the market reacting to this info? Mine are that there isn't much materially different than what we knew earlier. It's not that the security is undervalued; it is fairly valued given the risk of loss, and the capital rule release didn't change that much. Do you believe differently, or that the market is underreacting and there is money to be made out of trading this piece of news?

Where do you see the explicit reference in the rule to a consent decree? Thanks in advance for your response! I think I see it searching for consent order - page 22 and pages 140-145: "The final rule provides a transition period to permit each Enterprise to develop the internal models required by the final rule. Specifically, the advanced approaches requirements generally will apply to an Enterprise on the later of January 1, 2025 and any later compliance date specific to those requirements provided in a consent order or other transition order applicable to the Enterprise. During the transition period, each Enterprise’s market risk capital requirement will be equal to its measure for spread risk, determined as contemplated by the proposed rule’s standardized approach." Sounds positive but not enough for me to increase position size from 5%. Didn't we know this already?

Where do you see the explicit reference in the rule to a consent decree? Thanks in advance for your response!

So meaning that the case will continue forward? Not sure how this means anything if at all. Preferred trading up today on OK volume. My read was speculation on capital rule timing then the mediation cancellation. Isn't the short term price movement just related to news flow about next steps, esp looking back over all these many years? Nothing has materially happened all this time for it to be considered true "insider trading" based on material information. The times there has been major price movement up or down has been either public statements about release from conservatorship or court verdicts.

Another letter from Bronte. I put this here because he talks a lot about behavioral aspects of the Coronavirus as well as investing implications. I understand many here don’t like him, but I find his reasoning very sound: http://files.brontecapital.com/amalthea/Amalthea_Letter_202009.pdf Thanks for sharing. This is such a delight to read, coming up with one's version of a behavioral model building on the pure viral dynamics model. Love the benefit versus risk framework that decides what individuals end up doing, to be able to understand and empathize with their decisions. On reflection, I can recognize that in this current phase people are making decisions based on perceived social and economic benefits much more than pure virus driven thinking that was dominant in the beginning. Overall bodes well for economic recovery in the medium and long term.

Like many others here, I was in this trade before Trump even started his campaign in 2015, so clearly my naive assumption all along was that the courts would be on our side. But while there is a possibility that the courts could finally come through for us, as a preferred holder I would gladly accept a deal between Mnuchin and Calabria to write off the senior preferred and settle the lawsuits. If you hold the common stock, perhaps some would prefer the gamble that the lawsuits yield a bigger payday, but that's a risky play, if you ask me. We have no inkling on the stance of the plaintiffs - Berkowitz et al, but one would think they have some incentive to cut a deal with this admin rather than take their chances with SCOTUS or Biden admin. If I was in their shoes, I'd be making some efforts...

Agree so far the interim news brief looks better than expected at 90% efficacy. Good news is so welcome in 2020!