Mephistopheles

I think by far the highest risk is a Trump impeachment. Democrats hate him, Republicans love Pence, and Trump is a maniac. If Pence gets in, it's probable that he'll do Hensarling's and Corker's bidding rather than Paulson's. Perry affirmance is also a risk though a smaller one imo.

Just to go back to this. If we are all buying more based on Trump winning - then those who are in the loop must be doing so as well, unless it counts as inside info, which I don't think it does. What are the odds that Paulson/Berkowitz knew Mnuchkin's thoughts before we all found out this morning? Very high imo. Paulson was obviously in on it before even Mnuchkin was appointed, as an economic advisor. In fact I can't imagine them not buying hand over fist since the election.

I think if Trump gave two shits about optics, his cabinet wouldn't look anything like it does now. I would have bet a hell of a lot of money that we wouldn't see another GS guy in Treasury for a generation.

Same reason we assume Paulson still owns it? lol

Are you referring to the position he sold to Icahn? I know he bought back in after that.. but maybe he sold out again ?

Not that I've checked, but it's not likely they appear in any of his filings as they are not 13-F securities. It is for this reason they also do not show on Fairholme's 13F. That's what I thought, but someone mentioned how he's the largest owner of Freddie so I figured it's public. Maybe it's from previous filings? I know Fairholme did away with it but then started showing them again in filings... Paulson is in the preferreds. I was fortunate enough to get a meeting with him back in February 2014. He said that it was the firm's largest position (though I'm unclear whether that's largest within a single fund or across all funds). And I have no idea where you guys are getting the idea that Paulson or Berkowitz have added (common or preferreds) since the election. Is this out there somewhere or is it conjecture? It was just an example. But I mean in general, if you're managing billions of dollars, the common is easier to build/increase a significant position in. I can understand why they preferred the preferreds when their only hope was the Courts, as you've explained in regards to Takings or Contract law. But now they have muscle in the Executive branch, so why not use it to their advantage? Berkowitz definitely owns the common, so I just don't see him screwing that position over. There are 3 classes: senior, junior, common...and I think it's the senior that'll be left holding the bag. Under Obama/Hillary, it might have been the common.

Not that I've checked, but it's not likely they appear in any of his filings as they are not 13-F securities. It is for this reason they also do not show on Fairholme's 13F. That's what I thought, but someone mentioned how he's the largest owner of Freddie so I figured it's public. Maybe it's from previous filings? I know Fairholme did away with it but then started showing them again in filings...

As far as common vs. preferred. The common, being the most liquid, is easiest to build a large position in. While Berk and Paulson own the preferred - assuming they dramatically bumped their position since the election, it must have had to involve the common. Icahn owns the common as well. I highly doubt the solution, whatever it may be, will be terribly dilutive for the common. They will use the excess dividends as a repayment of capital, but may go further by reversing the 10% dividend for all the repayment after it happened, retroactively. So if they repaid $100 billion in 2013; then the dividend thereafter should only be on the remaining $88 billion, and I bet they adjust for that too. The really remote but very lucrative possibility for the common is they do away with the warrants altogether. Point being, rather than benefit the junior preferred at the expense of the common, why not benefit the jr pref AND common at the expense of the senior preferred? That's exactly what I'd want if I were Paulson/Berkowitz/Icahn.

Which set of filings for Paulson shows his position? He has like 20 different reporting companies and the only 13Fs I found don't show the holdings.

He's also used GM in other examples/scenarios, well before T&T even joined/BRK owned GM. I remember an old speech in which he was talking about having a clear one liner understanding of why you own a stock, and he used GM as an example. I recall him talking to students telling them to say to themselves "I bought 100 shares of GM because...". The point was to come up with a back of an envelope reason, not to pitch GM. Buffett is not one to drop hints like that, so I wouldn't read into it. The more likely reason he used GM is because it's a well known American brand. He's made it clear, like when asked about airlines in the very same meeting, that he doesn't talk about current investments. So I really don't think he was trying to send some hidden messages with this GM joke.

It's just a link to the general stock index page on Bloomberg

Decades old joke

He's not taking the offer: http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/jamie-dimon-donald-trump-treasury/

The only way I am aware of PA activity is through 13G filings of individual companies. So SRG for example: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315090/000119312515399523/d103925dsc13g.htm

Every single one of the positions is listed "4", so it can't be it...

I'm confused. what should be tax exempt? Capital? I'm referring to income taxes which REITs don't have to pay as long as they pay out something like 90% of taxable income as dividends. This applies to GAAP taxable income. Obviously if depreciation > maintenace capex, they generate more free cash than net income; but this wouldn't make a difference as far as whether the REIT is tax exempt or not, correct?

How can you tell it's in his PA?

Here's my question. If they didn't return that excess capital > net income, would that still be tax exempt at the company level? As long as they pay out all of their net income?

I remember Buffett specifically being asked about airlines on CNBC in the last several years given all of the consolidation. He said he still wouldn't invest unless it turns into a duopoly business.

So here's something I've been wondering. What are the odds that Trump does away with the warrants? I know Paulson owns the preferred, but if he really believes in Trump and wants to have major stake, he can only do so via common due to liquidity. Same with Icahn who owns the common only as far as we know. My question is, does the Executive Branch have control over the fate of the warrants, or does Congress have a say? If it's up to Trump, I can't imagine that the Hedge Funds will ignore an extra 5x return on top of what we may already get via NWS reversal. So, if it's up to the White House/Treasury to deal with the warrants, I can't help but think it's a >0% chance we get a reversal of the '08 bailout as well. Of course, a lot depends on what the Appeals Court says, but this assumes we get at least a remand.

I think he will convert all 700 million shares. They have tons of cash needing to be used and BAC is becoming more and more like WFC which he may not be able to increase above the 10% threshold.

thanks for this. any idea why fnmat has been outperforming fnmas? I was wondering the same thing. My guess is that the fixed 8.25% dividend is drawing people in (in case it starts paying out again). FNMAT would trade quite a bit above par in that situation.

Here is my updated spreadsheet with the tickers. I had posted a while ago but I realized there were some mistakes with the linkings. GSE_Tickers.xlsx

The Republicans want to kill the GSEs, they don't like Govt housing involvement - for example, Corker. A Democrat Congress with Trump White House would have been the best for us.

Given a new administration, what's the incentive to settle regardless? It's not like Trump and co give 2 shits about what goes to the public in those documents. As cherzeca mentioned, the lawyers work on autopilot and will keep doing so. They will do everything they can to obstruct and delay the trial to increase their billing hours, unless someone stops them.