Desert_Rat

"If you bought $100 of bitcoin 7 years ago, you'd be sitting on $72.9 million now after new record high" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bought-100-bitcoin-7-years-081422112.html I found this particularly depressing because I sought to do that but had such a hard time acquiring them I passed. But if I had bought my target amount ($1000) I may still be holding them as I do krugerrands bought 20~ years ago. $729,000,000!

Clarify with a scenario. Thanks

No, I was genuinely curious. I can't imagine such a thing and was pleased it didn't exist.

Would someone give an example of certain equity of the same shareholder class being treated differently post-bankruptcy? But not the foreign entity referred to with Citi, that could be a myriad of things. You boys obviously play these distressed situations more than I do as I think it's all crazy talk. What judge would sign off on that? Edit (24 hours later): Ok, than, don't concoct something that is so highly unlikely it hasn't occurred before. Thank you and have a wonderful day :)

Had to think for a bit... Yes I can. It doesn't wipe us out, more like we continue like today for a very long time. Nothing changes, including us. That's our biggest risk, imo. That's why I asked this question the other day: Would someone familiar with law answer this question? if the context of 3rd's language is changed by the existence of a capital reserve amount does that affect the contract in any way? Like, would it mandate an amendment or will the language work as is? For each Dividend Period from January 1, 2013, through and including December 31, 2017, the "Dividend Amount" for a Dividend Period means the amount, if any, by which the Net Worth Amount at the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter, less the Applicable Capital Reserve Amount, exceeds zero. For each Dividend Period from January 1, 2018, the "Dividend Amount" for a Dividend Period means the amount, if any, by which the Net Worth Amount at the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter exceeds zero.

I can imagine scenarios where shareholders are wiped out but they're not logical. My point though was that I can't imagine a housing bill passing that drastically alters the GSE/govt backstop model.

Thanks for sharing

I'll disagree with both those points. One, I'm reading and listening to a growing number of supporters of our cause, whereas 5 years ago we deserved it. So much so that I think a nice base has settled under the preferreds and I'd be highly surprised if we dropped into the $2's again. Two, Judge Brown's statement about banana republic indicates there was nothing at all strong about the appeal court's decision. I bought originally at like 50 cents not knowing much about FnF except that other bailouts were paying off. I sold around 6x and sat out until it crashed again. I did continue reading about the opportunity though. The reasons I own today is because this does constitute the greatest 'taking' in US history. There is no valid argument against that although many have tried. Even the two judges who struck us down did so because, not only did they fail to acknowledge the political element, HUD, which primarily caused the mess, but also because they aren't accountants - they had no idea how forced the conservatorship was. I'd bet most of DC does though. Even Corky. I was also sold after reading papers like this : http://www.housingwire.com/ext/resources/images/A-Forensic-Look-at-the-Fannie-Mae-Bailout-Parts-I-II-III-FINAL-20150616.pdf (I'm not aware of Citibank deal. Are you referring to Wachovia shareholders?) I really don't understand how anyone could even imagine a bill that substantially changes the way housing finance has been done in this country for 70 years; that supports the 30 year; that Congress is able to tweak on occasion, would pass. I can't. The Dem's can't. Where are the votes coming from that would side with tossing out a highly successful housing finance platform? Christ, Congress can barely tie its own shoes. Watt is doing fine. CRT is actively protecting taxpayers. Nothing needs to be changed.

Mnuchin's tone flipped once the court rejected the appeal, so I think it's safe to say that he isn't exactly in our corner anymore. If he can accomplish what he prefers while screwing us is another matter. Mnuchin isn't pro-FnF shareholders, he's pro-Treasury. That's his job. I haven't seen anything from him to indicate that he wants to specifically help or screw FnF shareholders. Given that some people included Mnuchin's relationships with shareholders as a positive in the investment thesis, I would give Mnuchin some credit for showing integrity in his job and not overtly favoring them. I still don't think Mnuchin will go out of his way to screw shareholders. To me, he has been consistent that FnF need to continue to exist because they provide necessary liquidity and would, as private shareholder-owned companies, also provide private capital as a buffer to taxpayer support in the event of crisis. But neither is he going to cut a deal that hands shareholders a huge windfall profit for no reason. Yeah, no. I get the gist of what you're saying, and with that I agree, but stealing because you can, because Lew did, is still wrong no matter how you slice it. Anyone in Mnuchin's position should be standing up and saying no, I won't be part of this. That's not to say he isn't doing exactly that behind closed doors.

Here's what was retweeted with a link to the Rosner/Carlson interview: "Obama took billions from Fannie and Freddie to fund Obamacare... and he's still trying to cover his tracks." Exactly

Mnuchin's tone flipped once the court rejected the appeal, so I think it's safe to say that he isn't exactly in our corner anymore. If he can accomplish what he prefers while screwing us is another matter.

Well seeing if you still hold even only 1 share of preferred the our interests/luck are mutual. If you don't think mnuchin will be a big reason why shareholders are not totally screwed. You have a couple other options.... 1. Legal outcome, its my understanding you were a plantiff or something close in a certain case? To use your choice of words "I hope thats not the reason you post!" 2. Corker/Warner et al. 3. Trump who hasn't mentioned a word on FnF ever. 4. Watt who at least appears to be ready to act favorably on the div. Junior did, which I'd say is the same thing. Problem is his retweet centered on Ocare. It had nothing to with us.

+1. as trump would say, sad! +1 Chris Certainly some madness going on and I'll admit that I have contributed, but then again the thousands of legal posts supporting our position were all completely wrong so value add seems about the same. +5781 It's almost as fruitless, but trying to read the politics inherent to FnF is a better approach than banking on a legal bailout.

Easy reading: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-05-19/opportunity-knocks-for-reforming-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

Jeez, calm down. I'd bet my shares are as tightly held as anyone's on this board, and I may be more aware of the wait that's required for resolution. Doesn't mean we can't shit talk about it. And BTW, any talk is useless because our fate is held by others. Not by how well FnF do, not if Mnuchin comes out tomorrow saying he'll quit if we're not made whole by Monday. Others. We can't intelligently speculate spit, or did each court rejection not teach us that.

So Watt/Corker communicate a number of times before hearing and Watt is insistent that dividends will be withheld as capital buffer; Corker is assured by Mnuchin that he expects dividends; At hearing, Corker is surprised Watt has stuck to his guns. Pretty good. I buy that. Yesterday Corker is all buddy-buddy with Mnuchin, regardless of Watt's decision. What does that mean if Watt doesn't back down, which I doubt he does? It may mean that Mnuchin is more in Corker's corner than we'd want, and Corker wants us to burn in hell. But, two things: 1) Corker is not shorting FnF, and doesn't care about our fortunes, or lack thereof. As stated, he's afraid that building capital cushion kicks the can down the road. Mnuchin has assured him it won't. Corker is happy. 2) At worst, any substantial change to FnF structures will be shot down by Congress so it doesn't even matter if Mnuchin has something more devious in mind.

http://www.schroders.com/getfunddocument?oid=1.9.2228909 Thank you. It didn't say the position size though. But as long as he still has this position, it is a good thing. Kinda does. No financial in his top 10 so we're talking $10~m. Pretty insignificant. He's not a fan of FnF so i wouldn't be surprised if he is exiting post-ruling.

more SPY puts

Trump would ;D Refreshing after 2 decades of lying and deceit.

Corky seemed too satisfied with his conversation with Mnuchin last night. Then again, I really don't believe he fantasizes about a zero here. He's just a dick supporting his gravy train.

+1

Just curious, why do you think bank preferreds should be doing shitty? Because a year ago inflation was going to kill them. Hmmm, same with gold and oil, only in opposite. I found the problem with my portfolio! Me!

FWIW, although it's entirely possible that Warner was referring to FnF, he was in the middle of questioning what changes to Dodd Frank Wall Streeter Mnuchin had in mind, of which bailouts is included in. If not that Warner raised the question would anyone here think anything of it? Besides, F what Corkey and Warner think. What's more important is that Mnuchin stick up for FnF in the future as he did the banks today. Here: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/334125-mnuchin-mum-as-dems-press-for-answers-on-tax-reform-dodd-frank

As previously stated, I think Watt went rogue. Mnuchin does not approve.

Is it a good thing that Mnuchin gets nailed today by Demo Warren and Owens? http://dealbreaker.com/2017/05/twenty-first-century-glass-steagall-means-nothing-still/ Well, it's not a bad thing.