DRValue

How can the issuance of 80% of common stock warrants not breach implied covenant of good faith? The companies didn't issue shares for capital, which would be fair enough. I've read the common shares would be used by the Treasury to get the money back if the preferred shares are unpaid. If they weren't going to get the money back on the preferred, the common would be worth 0. As far as I can see the common warrants are a gift to a single shareholder.

Page 33 denies the rate ably claim...

3/4 the way through the opinion. I can't see how shareholders who bought their shares after the NWS don't have the contractual rights to any damages or relief granted by the court. If I have bought someones shares after the NWS then the previous owner has surrendered their right to any claim and I own the contractual right to the claim. If I didn't buy the shares from someone and they gave me them free of charge, what have they given me? The contractual rights of the shares. If a company buys another company, they take on the contractual liabilities of the other company. I've also looked in to bankruptcy claims courts proceedings and you can literally buy a claim from an claimant. You buy their rights. The question of timing doesn't matter. I welcome any other opinion but I cant see any view to the contrary at the moment. I'm not sure what we will be awarded, but I'm thinking only forgone dividends at the moment. And I only reach that conclusion as I have heard you cannot favour one shareholder alone in dividend payments. If you pay one, you pay all rate-ably. I can't see a liquidation preference payout, because ultimately these companies won't be liquidated. Welcome any thoughts, ideally from the lawyers.

I'll check out put prices over the weekend.

I heard the other day that used car prices are the highest they've ever been. Which made me think of this thread. It could almost be time for puts.

Agree. They're telling us the way the wind is blowing. I've been buying weekly for a month and I'm not stopping.

Good post.

I don't know why the Collins court seems to have shifted from other courts opinion of fannie and Freddie. This court is very positive from what I've seen I.e. they remained solvent, they supported the mortgage market when other banks failed. Normally it's a contest of who can hate the gse's more. Gov got to the judges and the tide is turning?

Thanks bud

Anyone have a link to the latest mnuchin hearing? Or just the gse bits? I have no idea what the hearing was titled.

I feel like the commitment fee would pay for a guarantee but not make the government increase its liabilities. Doubt it would be an explicit guarantee but it would be paid for.

Sunday morning gse conspiracy theory time. The CSP is not in shareholders interest as it does not benefit the companies but instead opens them up to competition. Directors of the gses would not be fulfilling their fiduciary duty to shareholders by implementing the csp. So they have implemented the csp under the cover of conservatorship. Once it's implemented and in use it won't be able to be removed. The gses will be released after the csp goes live in June 2019.

Any idea why the pref shares are down today?

For America's sake I really hope the legislators listen to Tim Howard and not the lobbyists as usual, but I'm not expecting it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JY00W?__twitter_impression=true Admin action path clear?

Still long as I was never really counting on lawsuits because they can drag on for decades with appeals etc. although I do think we have a case. Think I've said this before, but I'm not convinced we'll win any outstanding lawsuits (outside of maybe the Lamberth remand), purely on the basis that there's what's right and theirs what's legal. We've also been confident before and lost many. Outside of a report on a lawsuit win, i'm disregarding all lawsuits from now on and waiting on Mnuchin. Hurry up if you're reading this.

Yikes! No es bueno. Thanks for posting. Curious of the thoughts on this ruling from the lawyers on this message board...thanks in advance for any input you provide. I have no idea how taking all of the shareholders private property without consideration can stand. Or Delaware law and favouring one shareholder over another. Maybe the framers had a secret amendment saying government can take all your stuff cos hera. Really starting to get angry about this now. Feeling like we're going to have to go after this ourselves. What's that government petition site you can use to, well, petition government?

Bhatti is a loss. https://www.scribd.com/document/383362380/Bhatti

We slipped off the first page and on to the second, so I bought some more commons so I could tell you about it and get us back on the front page. Tgif. That is all.

Long vid, do you have a time stamp?

I'm about 80/20 preferred to common. I'm expecting the recap to take some time and the dilution issue to put downward pressure on the common. If we know for sure commons are ok then I'll go all in common if the price is weak enough for a multi bagger return on a sure thing.

Have you seen Charlie Gasparino on #Fanniegate twitter? Now there's a guy I wanna see eat crow.

Having said all that, if Fannie needs 115b equity / 12.5 billion shares that gets me to $9.2 per share for book value alone. 500% profit from here so better than prefs.

Agreed. Where were you when you realised you should've been short all along?

as a policy matter, ending the duopoly makes sense. as an investor in FnF you would love for the duopoly to continue. but as a PRACTICAL matter I think the risk is way overblown. first if fhfa is going to require >3% capital for FnF, it will require same for new entrants. which company is going to have a comparative advantage in raising new capital? FnF will remain full fledged business operations in all 50 states (no reference to breakup or transitioning FnF themselves into multiple guarantors) that has shown it is executing on all cylinders lately. bypass investing in FnF for some new startup?...even a startup that is backed by TBTF banks? and a startup which is not owned 80% by treasury which presumably wants to make as much money as possible on this privatization process? if as an investor I am going to invest in one guarantor (and why would I invest in more than one), which would look better to me? We don't know the full details yet in terms of new guarantors, but I think it was Watt (could be bob) that advocated for hindering Fannie and Freddie with higher fees so new guarantors can enter the space with lower fees. It was Watt that advocated for all guarantors to have a national footprint to avoid concentration risk. That means many smaller Fannie and Freddies to me which is duplication that will increase overall costs to Fannie and Freddie as their market share goes down. Don't get me started with the explicit guarantee.... Feels like this has been captured by wall street and won't be best for America. Hopefully small lenders insistence on 2 guarantors max so they don't have to integrate with more companies will swing things back the other way. That and also the argument that they should be merged and fully nationalised could swing the pendulum back to only 2 gses. For now I'm focusing on the preferred again.