Castanza

Is it just me or does the search function for tickers not work?

I can't tell if Charlie is embracing communism or simply wants the SEC to finally do its job. MUNGER: A wise regulator-- BUFFETT: We could just start-- MUNGER: But a wise regulator stops this stuff before it starts. BUFFETT: It’s very hard to stop though-- MUNGER: What, yeah, what interests me in this is that the communist Chinese behave the way I am talking in favor of. And our own wonderful free enterprise economy is letting all these crazy people go to this gross excess. People who are avoiding it are the communist Chinese. They step in preemptively to stop speculation.

VZ

If you’re approaching this bet from the angle of a favorable court ruling then I think the time to exit is here. You could t have had a more favorable SCOTUS to rule in a constitutional manner. They basically said they recognize the unconstitutional structure yet they can’t do anything about it. The SCOTUS and expected ruling were the main reason I entered this trade a few weeks ago. It’s a small position so I’ll probably let it ride, but if I had any significant portion of my portfolio in this I would most definitely cut ties and chase yields elsewhere. 5-10 more years of flatlining sounds terrible. I’d rather put it in BTI or MO and chase dividend yields hoping to get it back over the long term. There are a multitude of bets with optionality out there that are far less risky imo. As Parsad said….shit changes. A lesson has been learned and I’ll apply it moving forward.

LOL wow what a hack of a job hit piece. Not worth reading past the first sentence. Mark Joseph Stern….you sir are a pos “journalist” “dislodge from the treasury” ”scheme backfired” “claw back billions” “previous arrangements”

added some VZ

Sandra Thompson "Thompson has served as deputy director of the Division of Housing Mission and Goals since 2013. As the deputy director, Thompson oversaw FHFA’s housing and regulatory policy, capital policy, financial analysis, fair lending and all mission activities for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks."

How is Schwab’s mobile app?

Some interesting commentary

One ahs a barrier to entry and a moat while the other doesn't

How much in damages do shareholders think they would get vs just exiting c-ship and seeing where the stock ends up? To me (late entry) I'd rather just see an exit strategy.

Yeah, but Lamberth said he was waiting for the Collins case decision.

Read the post wrong....just speculation

Agreed! Had good risk vs reward for such a short timeframe.

I recognized the decision at hand and was hoping to hold this a few weeks and get out with a fist full of cash....Looks like I'm holding for the grandkids

That was fast https://www.housingwire.com/articles/biden-to-replace-fhfa-director-mark-calabria-today/

Thanks I'll take a look

Emily - all their content is gone

I've noticed there are some members who frequent this thread that no longer have accounts.

Isn't this directly in opposition to what you're saying? "Finally, the shareholders argue that because the third amendment left the companies unable to build capital reserves and exit conservatorship, it is best viewed as a step toward liquidation, which the FHFA lacked the authority to take without first placing the companies in receivership. This characterization is inaccurate. Nothing about the third amendment precluded the companies from operating at full steam in the marketplace, and all available evidence suggests that they did. The companies were not in the process of winding down their affairs." "It is not necessary for us to decide—and we do not decide—whether the FHFA made the best, or even a particularly good, business decision when it adopted the third amendment. Instead, we conclude only that under the terms of the Recovery Act, the FHFA did not exceed its authority as a conservator, and therefore the anti-injunction clause bars the shareholders’ statutory claim."

Anyone who talks that much about a single stock has to be leveraged to the tits

Someone better check on Glen Bradford....dude is probably on suicide watch

Yeah I am no lawyer or legal scholar, but doesn't this give the government the precedent to nationalize any private company through means of c-ship?

The nail is in the coffin. SCOTUS pretty much nixed any path forward for shareholders while giving all control to the government. What investor would touch this moving forward? I had a really small stake that I took a few weeks ago, so not much I can complain about. But I feel bad for anyone who held this 10+ years....Thing is, you couldn't have had a "better" SCOTUS to rule on the case. As Greg said.....thanks for the tax losses! A small reminder of why I avoid special situations involving courts like the plague...

Seems that way "The shareholders argue that the third amendment did not actually serve the best interests of the FHFA or the public because it did Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus not further the asserted objective of protecting Treasury’s capital commitment. First, they claim that the FHFA agreed to the amendment at a time when the companies were on the precipice of a financial uptick which would have allowed them to pay their cash dividends and build up capital buffers to absorb future losses. Thus, the shareholders assert, sweeping all the companies’ earnings to Treasury increased rather than decreased the risk that the companies would make further draws and eventually deplete Treasury’s commitment. But the success of the strategy that the shareholders tout was dependent on speculative projections about future earnings, and recent experience had given the FHFA reasons for caution. The nature of the conservatorship authorized by the Recovery Act permitted the Agency to reject the shareholders’ suggested strategy in favor of one that the Agency reasonably viewed as more certain to ensure market stability. Second, the shareholders claim that the FHFA could have protected Treasury’s capital commitment by ordering the companies to pay the dividends in kind rather than in cash. This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the agreement between the companies and Treasury. Paying Treasury in kind would not have satisfied the cash dividend obligation; it would only have delayed that obligation, as well as the risk that the companies’ cash dividend obligations would consume Treasury’s capital commitment. Choosing to forgo this option in favor of one that eliminated the risk entirely was not in excess of the FHFA’s authority as a conservator. Finally, the shareholders argue that because the third amendment left the companies unable to build capital reserves and exit conservatorship, it is best viewed as a step toward liquidation, which the FHFA lacked the authority to take without first placing the companies in receivership. This characterization is inaccurate. Nothing about the third amendment precluded the companies from operating at full steam in the marketplace, and all available evidence suggests that they did. The companies were not in the process of winding down their affairs"