Mephistopheles

Has anyone successfully bought the preferreds through a Fidelity account? My family and I have some accounts there and just tried purchasing preferreds today, and it didn't work. Called up Fidelity and apparently they have blocked ALL FNMA and FMCC preferreds from puchases from ALL clients, regardless of low or high net worth or type of account.... They told me since they don't pay dividends, they are considered too "high risk" and so they won't allow them. Yet they allow the common, and I settled for those. What a stupid policy.

Gary Cohn on CNBC says Mnuchin will make GSE reform one of his early priorities once he gets the job

I think ultimately the common benefit the most, because in order to combat the inevitable political firestorm of benefiting hedge funds, Trump needs to show the people "well look how much money the taxpayer made". People are worried about capital levels and share dilution but the way I look at it is: this Administration and Congress is different than the last, in that they want to roll back Dodd-Frank, loosen capital requirements. And they'll have a similar attitude with F+F, especially since their own interest is at stake. IPO the warrants, and allow capital to build up over many years is the way I see it. Maybe the most they will do is swap the preferred for common.

Liquidation preference at par value + legal provide the "margin of safety" here. Someone hinted at the fact that it's possible the plaintiffs in the major cases negotiate a settlement privately that could screw public shareholders - some on this board mentioned it's not possible but still not sure I can think of every potential scenario within this space. The citi bailout paid par to private preferred shareholders (I know this is different, Fairholme holds the same shares we do), but it just generally scares me a bit. Other than that, only a recap fully financed by only retained earnings seems to hurt the preferred holders (I own ~20% common as a backstop against this) Honestly this is my only real concern. If it wasn't, then I'd be 100% in. Yes it sounds legally impossible, but when has that stopped Trump from doing anything? Besides, if the government can come in and take 100% of a company, what is stopping them from giving that company to their friends? Yes we have the best corporate law in the world, and Delaware is held in high regard, but again, that hasn't stopped the Govt thus far, 4+ years later. The only reason the shares have jumped is because of the Trump-Paulson connection. If HRC was President, we would still be depressed. What gives me hope is that Trump needs that warrant money for all of the Government spending he wants to do, which of course wouldn't be possible unless all shareholders benefit. Having some faith that the Judicial system - Sweeney, Brown, etc wouldn't allow such a deal, helps.

Lol, I thought of that. But then wouldn't the management company have recourse towards the dead person's estate? Like can't they send the estate to collections or potentially sue for the fees?

So basically take a 100% loss on it? Ouch.

A family member made an awful investment in a timeshare in Las Vegas several years ago, against my advice. Now, they realize it was a mistake and want me to help get rid of it. I did a bit of Googling but it seems like a lot of work to merely figure out the best channel to sell. If anyone has experience in selling these near frauds, please let me know. Would appreciate any help, thanks.

He won't get re-elected because he won't be up for re-election.

Assume you are correct on all points...even though hundreds of thousands of protesters disagree with you, including a number of Republican party members, supporters and well-known Conservatives. You are telling me that this President's conduct so far, his compulsive tweeting, choice of words when characterising those that disagree with him, and the ridiculously inane and incompetent way he has executed this travel ban, doesn't worry you in the slightest? Top brass at the borders, Department of Homeland Security, foreign embassies, travel bureaus, you name it...had no idea what this ban meant and how to enforce it. Citizens, green card holders, children, etc were held at borders or denied entry. This was a major f**k up. Sears executes their retail business with more competency! Cheers! George Bush, Obama and Hillary's State Department bomb and kill thousands of Muslims with unprecedented drone strikes, destroy entire countries, slaughter people in Iraq, create starvation in Yemen, and create this entire refugee crisis to begin with, and yet I don't recall any mass protests about that . . . But now your main worry is about how a travel ban was implemented. Do you not see that perhaps your moral compass is a little askew? There were mass protests against the Iraq war. Secondly, how do you know Parsad wasn't bothered by all those wars and bombs? Correct! I was one of the few people who disagreed with going into Iraq...feel free to go back and look at old posts on the Motley Fool BRK Board. Almost no one wanted to say anything about it then. I had no problem with Afghanistan after 9/11, but I said going to Iraq was going to be a mistake. I've had alot of issues with U.S. policy in the Middle East over the last 15 years, and Trump isn't about to make it better...it's just that he's also finally making it worse at home as well! Cheers! Same here, one of the few people who spoke out against that war, and I was only in high school.

What Cooper letter are you guys referring to? Also, why would he explicitly ask for remand and not reversal?

Assume you are correct on all points...even though hundreds of thousands of protesters disagree with you, including a number of Republican party members, supporters and well-known Conservatives. You are telling me that this President's conduct so far, his compulsive tweeting, choice of words when characterising those that disagree with him, and the ridiculously inane and incompetent way he has executed this travel ban, doesn't worry you in the slightest? Top brass at the borders, Department of Homeland Security, foreign embassies, travel bureaus, you name it...had no idea what this ban meant and how to enforce it. Citizens, green card holders, children, etc were held at borders or denied entry. This was a major f**k up. Sears executes their retail business with more competency! Cheers! George Bush, Obama and Hillary's State Department bomb and kill thousands of Muslims with unprecedented drone strikes, destroy entire countries, slaughter people in Iraq, create starvation in Yemen, and create this entire refugee crisis to begin with, and yet I don't recall any mass protests about that . . . But now your main worry is about how a travel ban was implemented. Do you not see that perhaps your moral compass is a little askew? There were mass protests against the Iraq war. Secondly, how do you know Parsad wasn't bothered by all those wars and bombs?

Nonetheless you cannot possibly call it a landside, REGARDLESS whether the popular vote counts or not

Those are just facts. Please limit the discussion to bone headed opinions only.

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be... Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality. I was talking about specifically fruntrunning a legal ruling. I don't think that occurred in this particular situation...who would know ahead of time of the writ ruling today aside from the judges involved and perhaps the clerks, let alone its content?

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be... Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality.

Well, my theory that there may be a settlement in works is out the window. A nice parting FU to property/business owners from the "most transparent administration in history".

Assuming our thesis regarding Paulson and Icahn's influence over Trump/Mnuchin (and the reason why the shares are up 140% since election day) is correct, then that nearly guarantees that they increased their position substantially since. Why would they not? Assuming this, there is only class of security that provides the liquidity for them to do this, and that is the common shares. I would bet heavily that Paulson now owns a good chunk of the common as well, unless of course our whole theory is wrong in which case the shares are overvalued.

This "masterstroke" idea reminds me of the SHLD investor cult following of Eddie Lampert. His decisions only appear of poor quality, he's clearly a master investor/negotiator so there is much more to it than meets the eye!

+++++! Buffett / Munger for the next cycle Assuming there's another cycle, +100

This thread as all other political threads, is a shit show! Tell me, has anyone here ever changed their opinion on any political issue as the result of these threads? And I think the average IQ and rationality here is superior to the rest of the population; so theoretically one would assume that if people can learn and change their minds anywhere, it would be here...but it doesn't seem like it lol.

(2) Treatment of enterprise draws on treasury.--That any amounts received, before or after such modification, during a single year by the enterprise as a draw on the commitment made by the Department of the Treasury under such an Agreement, shall be treated as a loan made by the Treasury to the enterprise that-- (A) was originated on the date of the last such draw during such year; (B) has an original principal obligation in an amount equal to the aggregate amount of such draws; © has a term to maturity of 30 years; (D) has an annual interest rate of 5 percent for the entire term of the loan; (E) has terms that provide for full amortization of the loan over such term to maturity; and (F) shall be repaid by the enterprise in accordance with the amortization schedule established for the loan pursuant to subparagraph (E) of this paragraph, subject to paragraph (3). (3) Treatment of dividends paid.--That any dividends paid by the enterprise to the Department of the Treasury under the Senior Preferred Stock Agreement before such modification of such Agreement shall be treated as payments of principal and interest due under the loan referred to in paragraph (2), and shall be credited against payments due under the terms of such loan (in accordance with the amortization schedule established for such loan pursuant to paragraph (2)(E)), first to such loan having the earliest origination date that has not yet been fully repaid until such loan is repaid, and then to the next such loan having the next earliest origination date until such loan is repaid. So what I gather from this: Dividends count towards principle payments, and at a rate of 5% instead of 10%, retroactively? Am I reading this correctly? Looks like Capuano introduced the same bill in 2013 and 2015.

When the hell is Mnuchin getting confirmed?!!

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals? Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns? Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall! Cheers! Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms. How is that working out? When you can freely transport firearms between states/cities where it is legal to where it is illegal, having certain cities with gun control helps very little.

Well idk...I can't put anything past that maniac. The way he enriched himself through the related party transactions at his casinos, and Trump University...it doesn't appear he cares about the rule of law so much as greed. However I agree that this is not likely, just not impossible given the people involved. Most likely I think he keeps the warrants to help pay for his budget. There's clearly friction among the Republicans; he refuses to cut entitlements but wants to lower taxes. The warrants will help fill that hole. And I bet despite Mnuchin's comments, he'll release them with less capital than we think. They're going to maximize the value of those shares as much as possible. Maybe convert the preferred to common and that's all.

thank you. on a separate note, whatever odds a person gave for the warrants remaining intact a week ago, i would guess those odds should be lower now after watching the first week of the new administration. the decisiveness and respect for law. Yea, if they wipe out the warrants that would be fantastic for the common. On the other hand, an issue I've raised a few times: they wipe out the warrants, and wipe out all non-Paulson,Pershing,Perry,Fairholme shareholders, and give the winnings to them 4. Because as you said, no respect for the rule of law and Trump has no shame.