Jump to content

Wiggins

Member
  • Posts

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Wiggins's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Been adding since the SCOTUS decision. It's a steal here.. crazy.
  2. Survival of claims is good. I haven't seen any indication that Biden would do anything and DOJ continues to stupidly fight in court. But the fact the administration had the cojones to get out of a losing war has given me a sliver of hope. The conservatorships are similarly the product of multiple administrations and the way forward really couldn't be clearer particularly with the just published stress tests. They also got an infrastructure bill passed. So maybe they can focus on this.
  3. I listened to the oral argument today and agree with the comment posted by Tim Howard on his blog today. I am not encouraged at all and felt the Judges were trying every stupid argument imaginable to find the exits. Thumbs on the scales of justice. I hope allnatural's analysis is correct, but I could believe anything now. Looking forward to Lamberth
  4. But your analysis is all hindsight as well, including characterizing in retrospect whether we are dealing with a bear or bull market. I think the securities were oversold. Any good news or even neutral news out of Lamberth's court and we'll double from here irrespective of whether the thesis ultimately prevails. My reasoning in the short term is that skittish investors have forgotten there are other trials and/or have just become fatigued but news from Lamberth and/or Schwartz will be a reminder that there are other ongoing trials which have a decent chance. Part of the recent uptick I think was folks saw that some big institutions increased their holdings after SCOTUS. You're on record as saying the bottom is not in. I say we're there and time to load up. We'll see who's correct soon enough.
  5. Thank you it's an excellent resource. I'm not much on technical analysis, but I think a lot of the selling is over. Volume has dropped and prices are beginning to go sideways and/or inch up. I think the next catalyst could be happenings in Lamberth's court, and prices could move accordingly.
  6. Thank you! If I didn't have bad luck I wouldn't have any at all. ha
  7. I agree with your last two posts. You may be right and I might lose, but I like my odds at 6% of par. If we recovered 75% of par and it took a few years that's still a massive return. This feels like distressed debt investing to me, which is not for everyone. It sucks, it's uncomfortable, it's unnerving... and then you win. And in those situations the time to buy is when people are panicking. Yes, it doesn't always work out but I believe this one will... I would like to see more analysis on Lamberth and on Schwartz. That's where the action is IMO.
  8. It's exactly like eminent domain. Under certain situations the government may take your house (e.g. to build a highway that must go through your property), but they cannot do so without compensating you fairly for property taken. The first part is perfectly legal; the second part is a completely separate issue. SCOTUS said FHFA can enact the NWS (it's legal), but they said nothing whatsoever about the second part. The above is also why you can't say things like "what we've learned over the past 9 years".. The past is irrelevant since court cases have all been procedural and none have looked at the facts. I think Gary Hindes has it right. Now, it's only a matter of how much recovery there is. I think when the facts come out it will be very bad for the government given the officials involved in this case who have lied, as well as the accounting which will come to light. They GSEs are not AIG. They were profitable the whole time.
  9. The answer to this question is best stated by Baron Rothschild: "the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."
  10. Because that's not what SCOTUS said. SCOTUS said they could take (what you call steal), but they didn't say it wasn't a taking and they made no mention of "impunity". In fact, David Thompson was asked "why not bring this up in the court of claims?" Lamberth also said as much, but went further in proposing that even if HERA does allow the NWS it still may violate covenants. Your post perfectly encapsulates the mismatch between market participants understanding of the situation and the reality in courts, and hence why there is such a great opportunity at present.
  11. Most people are selling and very pessimistic, but I am buying. What part of "contrarian" about that scenario is unclear?
  12. Disagree; I am buying. Throwing out someone's name as justification for any type of investment decision is weak. If you're following the herd this looks like a bad investment. This is a contrarian investment and that couldn't be clearer now.
  13. Sunrider, when Lamberth writes "the court will look to Hera to determine what investors' reasonable expectations should have been", I believe he is merely introducing the topic before discussing it immediately below in the same document. I don't think he is referring to some future trial or something else, because he goes on to answer the question. allnatural references part of it in his post subsequent to yours. In sum, he concludes that if the facts plaintiffs allege are true, then FHFA/GSEs DID violate the implied covenant. The only purpose of the trial is to assess facts and damages. At the stage Lamberth wrote this document, he was dealing with the law (not facts or damages), and his conclusion is firm that the law supports plaintiffs here.
  14. I don't see how the GSEs could be released in any form similar to before conservatorship after that ruling. SCOTUS has defined HERA to be highly averse to investors. Who would invest? There are two huge problems: 1) your capital is not safe and 2) the director is now a politician. I see the only way to save anything like the old system, utility or otherwise, is new legislation that changes HERA. That's obviously a hard lift. Fortunately there are still lawsuits, so some hope.
×
×
  • Create New...