Jump to content

COBFInfinity

Member
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

COBFInfinity's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Two people have mentioned ads. I don't recall seeing any ads. Is that for a mobile version?
  2. Allnatural, You can't have an NWS 2.0 when NWS 1.0 never ended. The pretend capital account doesn't change the fact that the liability to Treasury is still growing. As for the FHFA's "expect further action" note, that is interesting considering that Mnuchin had tasked the new Treasury with reviewing the agreements by 9/30. But it also seems very unlikely that anything regarding the Treasury stake would be adjusted in any material way before a new director comes in, so I am curious what that might be.
  3. The investment has and still does depend severely on SCOTUS. Plaintiffs could win takings case in front of Lamberth, which gets appealed to SCOTUS, then SCOTUS says no taking has occurred since the shares still have value. Go directly to jail; do not pass Go; do not collect $200.
  4. I didn't make that trade in the first place. I think rates will still low indefinitely. I have doubts the Fed will raise the Fed Funds rate for many years to come.
  5. When do you change the headline to "Fed CAN keep the rates low"?
  6. As for lessons learned, I said a while back that I will never bet on a legal outcome again. Obviously, my conviction on that is even higher. The other lesson is to stick to contrarian investing. Value investors are constantly bombarded with comments from momentum investors that the way to invest is to buy more as the price increases, that's the market telling you you're right, etc. I have routinely disregarded that viewpoint throughout my years investing, preferring to buy low, and then buy more even lower. But after the 5th Circuit win in Sep 2019, after a pop to around 50% of par, the Pfds I track pulled back to about 45% and I told myself it was just profit taking, this was the moment to buy after the price going up. Those shares are down about 80%. I'm sure some momentum investor will come along and said I should have sold on the way down, but that's not something I do just because of price action. I finally let myself get lulled into the idea that buying high was a good move and it has been a disaster.
  7. This 1:15 idea implies that par value is still a realistic target. I think that possibility went to zero yesterday. The best case is plaintiffs win another judgement somewhere along the line and instead of rolling the dice with the same clueless and hostile SCOTUS, a settlement well below par occurs.
  8. Just wanted to mention for those who weren't watching the price action - the earliest trades after the decision was released caused a pop in common and preferred shares, but then soon sunk. Some investors either jumped the gun after seeing something positive but not going through all the details, or algorithms assigned to decipher the decision got it wrong.
  9. Lol, it was already a call option at 20% of par. Sure, it's cheaper now, but dramatically worse odds of payoff. Even if plaintiffs win another trial, it will end up in front of SCOTUS again in 3-4 years and they can smash it down again.
  10. There is no plausible restructuring with meaningful value to common or preferred without a court win, so that argument doesn't make much sense to me.
  11. Yeah, he is. He has spent the last 7-8 years on the beach because he was counting on the payoff the whole time. That's one hell of a vacation, but I guess it's time for him to go back to work. Glen almost played a role in my position here. I had owned a small position in Pfd at the time of the NWS, at which point I dumped them and moved on. But a while later after the price had risen quite a bit, I was curious what was going on and found that Glen was writing articles about the GSEs. I said to myself, "This is the same guy who got scammed by dozens of Chinese frauds just a few years earlier, so I think I will not go back into this trade." Alas, along came Fairholme, Paulson, etc. and I decided to get in along side them. It turns out I should have maintained my skepticism of anything that Glen was doing.
  12. I don't even know if it's worth reading this opinion. I'm only on page 4 and the number of logical errors and dubious reasoning already has me spinning.
  13. Yes, it is an unworkable capital structure. It will have to change at some point, hopefully driven by an upcoming SCOTUS win for plaintiffs.
  14. Don't know, but SCOTUS will release opinion(s) on at least one case next Thursday. Watch this calendar: https://www.scotusblog.com/events/
  15. Do you have a link to this? Never mind, I found it. There are some on this discussion board who have taken the same stance that the NWS has been ended. I did not agree and still don't. But I'm not surprised the DOJ is taking that stance; they want the gov't to keep all stolen funds, past and future.
×
×
  • Create New...