DRValue

If they only knew we've monitored every news story of the past 4 years. If they only knew we've lingered on every sentence uttered by every player in this game. If they only knew we've analysed the context of words and the tone expressed. If they only knew we know all the paid for opinions and vested interests. Maybe then they could come up with something that would work. Maybe. But I doubt it.

I'm only joking, but i did find it funny. :D

So now fhfa believe it's constitutional. Trying to push the decision back? Would that even work? Wow. I was busy working yesterday and just saw this. :o This is mind blowing to me. Once again the price behaviors change and TA warnings all over the place before bad news came out. Forecasting is always easier in hindsight This is an absurd comment. I've always commented in real time. Where did you get the impression that I was talking about this in hindsight? LOL. I can't talk about the past. I can't talk about the present. I can't talk about the future. What can I talk about? Well humor me then. What happens next? I don’t have a clear view of that right now. Wow, TA really is like shaking an 8 ball!

So now fhfa believe it's constitutional. Trying to push the decision back? Would that even work?

Thanks Luke. Seems an odd stance on common conversion as i wouldn't expect him to be concerned as long as plaintiff get par. Unless clients are concerned about having to hold and accept the volatility of common shares. I also believe that fnmas are redeemable every 5 years so they might be hoping for dividends and then par. Good article though and I expect it will largely go that way +/- the conversion. Another angle could be leverage against the other preferred holders and treasury that need a 60pct vote to change terms. Seems like a stake in the ground to me and it could be to get a higher than par conversion.

Thanks Luke. Seems an odd stance on common conversion as i wouldn't expect him to be concerned as long as plaintiff get par. Unless clients are concerned about having to hold and accept the volatility of common shares. I also believe that fnmas are redeemable every 5 years so they might be hoping for dividends and then par. Good article though and I expect it will largely go that way +/- the conversion.

Congressional recess starts Saturday August 3rd. Would that make it our month for plans?

Anyone hopeful of a 4th July weekend Treasury Plan release. Someone give me hope....

JP Morgan..... Isn't this the tbtf bank that tries to kill FnF? Keep in mind that this is the exact reverse of what happened two months ago. Back then, Gaspirino was bashing and stock was moving up. Now Gaspirino is pumping and stock is sliding down. With that said, I actually agree with all the analysis you guys did, so I still personally believe the story will work out. All we had to do with this is separate the facts that are reported and exclude the opinions of those with an axe to grind. Charlie doesn't matter, only the circumstance he reports. But net positive I'd say. As to why they met, could be a road show or moelis working with a book runner or scoping investor appetite. Any number of things.

Because of my confirmation bias, I sometimes like what Charlie says. This is one of those times.

NE and ESV

I do want this whole thing over now. Roll-on the release of the plan.

Instead of a share buyback, I see it as a cost of doing business. A reason to get Treasury to agree to the deal, since they have to approve release anyway. Your second statement is correct, that's exactly what I was implying. What you're missing is that the directors won't have any say over it because it will happen during, and likely right at the end of, conservatorship. FHFA and Treasury hold all the cards, and neither has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. FHFA has no reason to care at what price the share offering is conducted, and if the warrants are sold for a fixed price then Treasury doesn't either. At that point the "more dilution equals more money for new investors" principle kicks in. This is one downside scenario for the commons, especially compared to the juniors. Calabria has said a few times that Fannie and Freddie will be left to raise the capital themselves. How much behind the scenes input treasury and fhfa have in reality is something that probably won't ever be known. If it is left up to the co's then i don't see the need for a super low common price, especially if they have multiple years to raise capital, but we'll see. You pay your money, you take your choice. disagree. the entire capital raise will be multistep process and fhfa/treasury will run the show at the beginning. at some point after the initial raise the companies will take over We basically agree. Treasury controls nws and warrants so are largest shareholder at the table. Fnf won't decide any of what happens there and will be steered by what the warrants want. However calabria has said milestones not timeframe, so the exact mechanics over years will likely have some flexibility imo.

Instead of a share buyback, I see it as a cost of doing business. A reason to get Treasury to agree to the deal, since they have to approve release anyway. Your second statement is correct, that's exactly what I was implying. What you're missing is that the directors won't have any say over it because it will happen during, and likely right at the end of, conservatorship. FHFA and Treasury hold all the cards, and neither has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. FHFA has no reason to care at what price the share offering is conducted, and if the warrants are sold for a fixed price then Treasury doesn't either. At that point the "more dilution equals more money for new investors" principle kicks in. This is one downside scenario for the commons, especially compared to the juniors. Calabria has said a few times that Fannie and Freddie will be left to raise the capital themselves. How much behind the scenes input treasury and fhfa have in reality is something that probably won't ever be known. If it is left up to the co's then i don't see the need for a super low common price, especially if they have multiple years to raise capital, but we'll see. You pay your money, you take your choice.

Why would FHFA care? And what do you mean by "the business would never do it"? More dilution equals more money for the new investors, not less. Well, as you point out doing the raise and then buying the warrants may be a possibility, I guess SPO investors would see that as a massive share buyback. I agree the conservtor wouldn't have an issue with that in that order. I thought your original post implied that treasury would no longer push for a high share price which means more dilution than exercising the warrants, something I would assume the directors wouldn't go for.

Watch out for the possibility of Treasury selling the warrants back to FnF for a fixed amount, then. If that happens then their incentive to push for lower capital levels, and thus a higher share price, disappears. Conservator would never allow it and the business would never do it if it leads to more dilution than the treasury retaining the warrants and selling in the market.

I really hope they listen to Tim Howard. Logic and truth in every post.

And.... FHFA recommendations for legalislative action came out this morning. https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-2018-Report-to-Congress-Includes-Legislative-Recommendations.aspx incoherence in the release notes to the fhfa 2018 report to congress: "In the report, FHFA Director Mark Calabria encourages Congress to act on housing finance reform while also requesting chartering authority similar to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. “There is urgent need for Congress to act on housing finance reform. To promote competition in the marketplace, I encourage Congress to authorize additional competitors and provide FHFA the same powers as other federal financial regulators." The legislative recommendations outlined in the letter include: Acting on housing finance reform; Increasing competition; and Strengthening the FHFA's regulatory powers." what letter? doesn't seem to be in report either. There doesn't seem to be much more substance than that, just the comments in his introductory letter of the report.

an equity for equity of the same issuer swap is not taxable Thanks for the question and the answer. I have been wondering this and i like the answer. Now i just hope it applies in the UK...

Careful now.

Any post is a good post when the board has been quiet for so long.

It is already 20% of my portfolio. What other tokens do you like? I don't like other tokens as their use case isn't so clearly necessary to me. If i had to choose a currency I'd say Ethereum. Off-chain computation with chainlink is absolutely the one. What about bitcoin? you don't hold any bitcoin ? I am sure you know that bitcoin halving is supposed to happen in May of 2020. That will make bitcoin harder than gold. First time in the course of human history that we have a synthetic commodity that is harder than gold. I don't really follow Bitcoin but have recently heard of halving. I see the value in these coins as a utility not a store of value mainly. But I don't deny that Bitcoin will probably be the gold of digital currency.

It is already 20% of my portfolio. What other tokens do you like? I don't like other tokens as their use case isn't so clearly necessary to me. If i had to choose a currency I'd say Ethereum. Off-chain computation with chainlink is absolutely the one.

What does TA say now?

Mentioning Chainlink once more as Mainnet version 1.0 goes live May 30th. This project is probably the most important in crypto.