Mephistopheles

+1 Terrifying. Someone on this thread said well this is not as bad as Chinese censorship when I compared the two. Well, no, it's not. But is that the standard we have to live up to? And then you have Trump's attacks on the media. Personally, I am moderate to maybe even slightly right on the issue of the environment. I'm glad to see Keystone go through. Economically/Fiscally I'm conservative/libertarian. I own a whole bunch of Fannie and Freddie and have made a ton of money thanks to Trump. I hate CNN and MSNBC, and I get my news from newspapers. Nonetheless, I am disgusted by this sort of behavior. It is just madness and dangerous. Shame on anyone, left or right, who's willing to defend this or approve of it. Imagine if Obama attacked Fox News the way Trump attacks CNN? Or if he censored any government agency? Probably would have been impeached.

Which liquid preferred? sorry man it was a confusing message, i have edited it above. No prob, thanks

Which liquid preferred?

Yes, the US would never threaten a state with force if it wanted to become independent. That would never happen/has never happened. +1 awesome!

I think the strength of your example perfectly illustrates how *different* censorship is in the US compared to China. True, and I was being semi facetious. Nonetheless this clearly demonstrates the elements fascism present in this administration, along with the other examples in just the first few days of office. No, we're not quite China or Russia, but nothing changes that drastically overnight.

Censorship: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/badlands-national-park-twitter-goes-rogue-starts-tweeting-facts-about-the-environment/ I agree, we are more similar to China than most people think

They could have set the wheels in motion immediately after the election, stopping all of the cases from progressing and ordering the doj lawyers to carve out a settlement. Obviously it's a lot of money and complicated so they can still be working on it. After all, the default assumption is that the cases are still moving even though Obama left, right?

Then I think there's a real possibility settlement is in the works. The Obama administration had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping these cases going after the election. And not even Obama himself, but more so those "fellow travelers" who wouldn't want to risk unsealing those emails. Why risk that knowing Trump/Mnuchin are going to settle regardless? Time will tell..the longer there is complete radio silence, the more likely this is imo.

One possibility could be that they are negotiating a settlement. Maybe after the election, Obama saw the writing on the wall, didn't want Trump to release any documents that would harm is legacy. Same thing for the DC Court of appeals. Of course, they could just be taking their sweet ass time. Edit: Has there been any progress in any of the cases since the election?

And this is particularly concerning on a message board of "value investors" and supposed Buffett and Munger disciples; you know, people who are supposed to look past the circus and at the raw facts. It's only headline news because Trump chose to make it so. Then he doubled down by sending out his press secretary to lie to the public. It seems ridiculous but I have to wonder if something more sinister is going on. See https://twitter.com/rascouet/status/823035518313267202 I saw that, it's frightening. Well as has been stated here, hopefully he's just a silly loudmouth and lets his cabinet do all the work for him.

Not voting Democrat because of wiki leaks is like if you had two companies to invest in, one of them (Company A) had full disclosure (all 10-K's, 10-Qs, proxies, etc etc) and the other (Company B) had no public filings. You see some things in A's filings that are a bit shady, so you then opt to put it all in Company B which you have no info on. That was the 2016 election. We had full info on one candidate (tax returns, a decade of e-mails, decades in the public spotlight) and almost no info on Candidate B. And many like you went with B because of bias against info released against A (without similar info about B to judge fairly). Wikileaks had info on Candidates A and B, and the intelligence agencies suggest that, with influence from Russia, only info on "A" was released to affect outcome of the election. We did have some info on B, such as that one year of tax returns with the half billion dollar loss, the Trump University lawsuit, and public filings from Trump Hotels and Casino in which he enriched himself through related party transactions.

This I think is the most likely scenario. There was a story out during the campaign that he asked John Kasich to be his VP and if he accepts, he (Kasich) would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. Kasich asked, well what will Trump be in charge of? And the answer was "Making America Great Again". lol It's obvious that Trump only cares about his self image and wealth. He doesn't have the patience, discipline, or desire to do the work required as President. He rewards his loyal backers by delegating his powers. This is a good thing in some instances. Like, Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Gary Cohn in charge of economic policy - great. Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry heading the EPA and Energy depts - not so great. NRA in charge of gun policy - frightening.

My bold guess is that he gets impeached by his own Republican Congress. At some point the economy will turn again, and that's when his populist appeal will start eroding. He's already has a low approval rating, and the longer he stays in office, the more damage his and his staff's idiotic comments will do. At the same time, when the blue collar workers realize they are actually worse off with trade wars, and all that manufacturing is not returning, he will lose even more support. All of this will be problematic for the Republicans in the mid-term elections. On the other hand, Mike Pence is exactly the type of Republican they want, and not an idiotic loose cannon like Trump. I think Democrats may actually fear Pence more than Trump for that reason and may not support an impeachment, and would rather have the GOP collapse under its own weight. Just all fun speculation, but semi serious. Hopefully we still have a country by 2018 or 2020. To answer Parsad's questions, yes the lies with crowd sizing and war with the press is deeply concerning to me. Fascism is alive and well. I am optimistic though with some of his cabinet picks like Mnuchin and Tillerson. That gives me some hope that perhaps it won't be a total shit show.

Cool thanks I just saw that. I figured it out another way also. I looked at one of the circulars for one of the original publicly traded preferreds and it named all of the preferreds that it is pari passu with, and that list includes all of these private placement ones. I would still feel more comfortable with a circular/prospectus though. Is there any history of when/how these things started trading?

So he just said he didn't imply "recap and release" based on his previous comments. Also said didn't explicitly commit to bypass or not bypass Congress, but said he wants bipartisan support. Murky comments..

Anyone have information regarding the Freddie Pfds: FREGP, FREJP, FREJN, and FREJO? They aren't listed in the 10-k nor can I find any offering circulars. Are they pari passu with the other preferreds?

His question is very reasonable. +1 I really don't understand the hostility. Any lawyers want to comment or is your guess as good as mine? In my limited knowledge of law, from time to time I get notices of settlements involving stocks I owned or own, and I get to decide whether I want to be in the class or not. Is this similar?

No, because the Fairholme shareholders can benefit, along with Paulson investors, etc. The issue is with private individual shareholders such as us. Makes me want to sell and invest through fairholme.

Would prfd shareholders like Fairholme and Perry really sell shares at these prices with the end finally in sight? Doesn't make sense to me at all. They are in a great position (being in prfd) with close ties to a friendly admin. I don't see Mnuchin having any problems getting through. I think what's weighing on share prices is the definite uncertainty over court decisions; and there is a great deal of talk lately about litigants possibly settling with no benefit to shareholders not directly involved in the suits like PwC. I don't have the legal expertise to know for example, can Ackman, Berkowitz, Perry, etc. structure a deal that benefits only them? Will other hedge funds come in and offer a recap strategy that screws current shareholders and allows them to walk away with the newly restructured entities? I continue to find that every time that I gain optimism on this investment, it always reverts to so many negative concerns. The documents being made available is essential imo and I can't help but wonder if they ever make their way to P's attorneys. Mnuchin will certainly be questioned on FnF and how his plans could benefit hedge funds friends, etc. The perfect answer to these accusations would be to raise the document issues, the extraordinary use of privilege, the NWS and profitability. Will he bring any of this up or does he say the wrong thing and devastate recent pps gains? Nobody is selling. All shares are consolidating in a high level pennant, a continuation pattern. Typical after a huge run. Some back and filling, profit taking... waiting for the next leg up. We go higher from here. Any opinion on above and non-class action shareholders getting left out in the cold? My personal view is that all these big name shareholders took positions to become the new owners in a privatization. Why would they settle privately after all the effort, resources and time spent? What they want is a huge piece of the largest market there ever is and in that game be the most meaningful player. Well if they leave out the rest of us, that's even more money to them, well worth the resources... I too have been concerned about this ever since the beginning. A deal that benefits only those with connections or lawsuits. Essentially Fairholme, Perry, Paulson, Pershing, and perhaps the U.S. Government owning 100% of the two entities. I'm not a lawyer so unsure whether this is even possible, but it worries me. After all, the hedge funds are truly out for themselves, right? Mnuchin may be too good to be true for us.

Anthony Scaramucci is taking a job as a Trump advisor. Anyone know his opinion on the NWS? Couldn't find anything on Google.

Who is helping Jeff Sessions prepare for senate confirmation hearings? Yep, that Chuck Cooper. cherzeca mentioned that the legal cases are on autopilot thanks to career attorneys at the DOJ. So now we know that we have connections with the potential head of the DOJ as well. Assuming Treasury doesn't take any notice, hopefully the DOJ does!

The most important point we are missing about Trump is how he'll react to the potential value of the warrants if the NWS is reversed. When he finds out it'll be several hundred billion dollars for him to take credit for and spend, it's game over Corker and friends.

I will say a couple of things. First, it's not up to Congress what happens. Yes I know, politics; but Trump especially doesn't give a shit about politics. He'll do what he thinks is right. So, what does he think is right? The answer is usually what is in his personal best interest and the best interest of his loyalists. That tweet doesn't concern me one bit, as its purpose was most definitely for political benefit for himself, at the time. The only principle I've seen Trump consistently display is support for those who support him. He's loyal to his loyalists, that's why people like Steve Bannon can make it into his administration, despite the ugly optics. That's why a Goldman guy gets nominated for Treasury Secretary. And given Paulson support, financially and vocally; he set up a fundraiser, I think it's highly likely that Trump favors Paulson over the anti-GSE senators.

Let's say Mel Watt does whatever he wants, doesn't listen to Treasury. When does his term expire? At that point, doesn't the President get to pick the next head of the FHFA? Also, can't Treasury just refuse the dividends? Is there some backdoor way where they can drive the money back to shareholders? Just seems awkward to me if the receiving end of the party we are suing is in agreement with us, and yet the middleman can still screw us over.

If Corker/Crapo and the anti-GSE Senators vote YES to confirm Mnuchin, then I may go 100% long (assuming the shares don't jump too much), because that would be a clear indicator that they're giving this one up, not that it's their choice to begin with. But at that point, the only entities that can stop us are the Courts - assuming they throw the cases out before Mnuchin can inform the judges that he wants to settle, and Mel Watt (lol).