COBFInfinity

Yeah, there are potentially 2 ways to buy it: You are authorized to trade in the Expert Market because you are a market maker or something like that, or a brokerage firm is allowing you to buy it through them. I used to inquire if there was some way for an individual to get access to the expert market on their own, but no one seemed to know the answer, so I let it go.

Where are you buying it? Are you allowed to buy on the Expert Market?

How big is the jury? How many of them need to agree for a decision?

Just more self-serving B.S. He acts like his absurd capital levels have nothing to do with the GSEs staying in conservatorship. And now he's talking again about how the GSEs were looted, a view which he choose not to mention or use to forward his agenda during his leadership at FHFA.

Any logic for why RSX is trading at a 40% premium to NAV?

Thompson was asked about timeline for end of conservatorships. She said she'd defer to Congress on that, but that many other parties would be involved. I don't know if she's just appeasing the audience, but that's a pretty lame answer for someone who has worked at FHFA for 8 years.

I know some are excited about the actual legal relevance of this, but I'm not sure it's worth much. Is a court really going to just accept this after-the-fact declaration without depositions of many of the relevant players? Ultimately, we know that Treasury punted, not FHFA. So is Mnuchin going to provide testimony that he really would have agreed to end the conservatorships if he had more time, even though he did actually have the chance to set them on that path at the end of his term and he chose not to? Seems pretty weak. Separately, is there going to be an inquiry as to how many shares of GSE securities Trump & friends accumulated before this letter was written?

Believe it or not, I have a net profit on GSEs right now. Not a good IRR, but life goes on. And yes, I'm a complete nobody. But you're on a value investing forum promoting chasing the past performance of someone who legitimately believes every conspiracy theory that your uncle shares on Facebook. Do you know how many crypto bros have gotten way richer than Kuppy that I "obviously" should have listened to based on a few good trades? As others have pointed out, Kuppy has blown up a few times already in the past and I don't know if he was deranged back then or if it is a more recent issue. Anyway, I've made my point. Good luck.

Gregmal, I am going to upgrade your hero from politically motivated idiot to mentally unstable. I guess your logic is he had some good trades, so just assume he'll have some more. My logic says don't trust the stock picks of someone who lives in a fantasy world.

FHFA Acting Director says they will continue to build capital. I guess that's better than the opposite, but the current capital plan is still a dead end. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Prepared-Remarks-of-Sandra-L-Thompson-Acting-Director-FHFA-at-the-2021-Mortgage-Ban---36710840/

I'm not disputing that it sure seems like GSEs can be treated however the hell any POTUS wants, but securities laws would require any open market purchase program or tender to be announced in advance. Which means the prices wouldn't stay anywhere near 6% of par after such an announcement. All that said, I don't think financial engineering to maximize equity value is part of the plan here.

You were asking if they might be currently doing it. I said no. Now you're saying they could do it in the future. Those are completely different things. Treasury has not given approval.

They aren't even allowed to pay dividends, so of course they can't buy the securities. And especially without public notice.

Of course they're not buying back preferred shares in the open market because: A) Conservatorship rules don't allow it B) Such a program would need to be made public before it begins.

I have no doubt he has better returns than me lately. I don't do his style of swing trading anyway, so I am not following any of his trades closely and I used to follow his blog but not anymore. But set aside investments for a moment. The point about COVID is that he is still, to this day, on the side of the lunatic fringe saying that it is completely nothing AS A MEDICAL ISSUE. If he is so utterly wrong about something so basic, I find it hard to have much confidence in his judgement on anything else. It seems like he could be a parallel to Larry Jeddeloh, who was the Director of Equity Research at Leuthold for quite a few years. Now, I haven't seen any of his work in the past decade, but he has run TIS Group for many years and it turns out he is a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and in the years that I saw performance on his separate accounts, they were quite poor. I have to believe that Jeddeloh had some talent to have been a partner at Leuthold, but it seems the craziness overruled any genius he might have had. So Kuppy may well have a very good knack for some things, but at the same time he is inexplicably divorced from reality on some things. Could be a recipe for crash and burn.

Hmmm...I know him most for his obsession with shipping stocks that have performed quite poorly. He was also still saying just a few months ago that COVID is just like a typical cold. He has also shared some political views that are completely out of touch with reality (but we won't get into that here.) So I find it hard to accept the "always nails it" narrative.

Two people have mentioned ads. I don't recall seeing any ads. Is that for a mobile version?

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.

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.

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.

When do you change the headline to "Fed CAN keep the rates low"?

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.

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.

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.

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.