Jump to content

FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

The Doj's letter to the SC from Thursday isn't a great sign.  One, it grossly misleads by suggesting the Jan letter agreement addresses the dividend sweep prospectively (final sentence of last paragraph).  And secondly, if the SC is even asking this question - did the Jan letter agreement moot the case - then it shows this complicated case is above their ability to fully comprehend, raising the odds for some non-reasoned opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Doj's letter to the SC from Thursday isn't a great sign.  One, it grossly misleads by suggesting the Jan letter agreement addresses the dividend sweep prospectively (final sentence of last paragraph).  And secondly, if the SC is even asking this question - did the Jan letter agreement moot the case - then it shows this complicated case is above their ability to fully comprehend, raising the odds for some non-reasoned opinion.

 

Even in Trump's administration, the DOJ kept fighting against us, so what would you expect in a Biden administration? Of course it is not a good sign but do you even expect the other side not to lie in the court in order to justify their actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Doj's letter to the SC from Thursday isn't a great sign.  One, it grossly misleads by suggesting the Jan letter agreement addresses the dividend sweep prospectively (final sentence of last paragraph).  And secondly, if the SC is even asking this question - did the Jan letter agreement moot the case - then it shows this complicated case is above their ability to fully comprehend, raising the odds for some non-reasoned opinion.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Berkowitz went into these lawsuits hearing that it was going to be a brutal fight but even he underestimated how bad it would be:

One lawyer told me, 'Before this is over, you'll be bleeding from every orifice.' I just had a fundamental believe in a great country. I was sure the courts would come around. I remember having a conversation with a major player in investment banking - the guy used to be an assistant secretary of the Treasury. I told him, 'This isn't right.' He looked at me and said, 'Grow up. This is the big leagues.' It's like, what does right and wrong have to do with anything? I guess I was naive.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4417293-tim-pagliara-stands-tall-gse-shareholder-golden-era

Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Rule of Law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. Volume has been on the low side so maybe just some people who don't want to miss out early in the expected SCOTUS window. The market of course has the uncanny ability of pricing things in so maybe the SCOTUS will be good. The price was so low though that even a mildly positive decision would have bumped the price from where it was. 

The latest in the rumor mill was David Thompson was doing some calls. Not sure about what means specifically but maybe some action from that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, orthopa said:

Good question. Volume has been on the low side so maybe just some people who don't want to miss out early in the expected SCOTUS window. The market of course has the uncanny ability of pricing things in so maybe the SCOTUS will be good. The price was so low though that even a mildly positive decision would have bumped the price from where it was. 

The latest in the rumor mill was David Thompson was doing some calls. Not sure about what means specifically but maybe some action from that. 

 

Hard to say. The whole stock market is set up for a straight line blow up move into August. FNMAS may just be getting lifted by the tide. Or maybe some insiders know something and started buying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/16/2021 at 3:27 PM, COBFInfinity said:

Don't know, but SCOTUS will release opinion(s) on at least one case next Thursday. Watch this calendar: https://www.scotusblog.com/events/

If no Opinions are scheduled for May/June, does that mean this is dead in the water for at least another two months? Or does the calendar get updated with some frequency to suggest we might have a response sooner? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

If no Opinions are scheduled for May/June, does that mean this is dead in the water for at least another two months? Or does the calendar get updated with some frequency to suggest we might have a response sooner? 

The calendar gets updated week of, to announce opinion dates. So expect no opinions this week, but nothing to read into for rest of May. June 30th is latest (57 days remaining and counting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, allnatural said:

The calendar gets updated week of, to announce opinion dates. So expect no opinions this week, but nothing to read into for rest of May. June 30th is latest (57 days remaining and counting).

Opinions will now be released on Mondays now that orals are over. So watch for announcements on Monday and Thursdays as opinions are written and released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some thoughts from today's SCTOUS opinions. Looks like December opinions were issued by Kavanaugh and Kagan this morning (Edwards and CIC). 

That leaves Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito without any opinions from December's conferences. I very much believe Alito is very busy working on Fulton from November, and therefore I don't see him working on a major case like Collins as well (two huge cases back to back). The reason i believe this is that Fulton is a major religious liberties case, which Roberts tends to assign Alito to. 
 
So I'm guessing either Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas, or Breyer will be the author of our case. Breyer hasn't written since October, so his schedule is open... 
 
Of course, there's no rule that a justice can't write two opinions each month, but looking at the trend for the term, it looks like Roberts has been handing things out fairly evenly (outside of October where Barrett didn't get any assignments). 

Would love to see Gorsuch or Thomas write Collins.... 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This message board has been unusually quiet lately. Am I the only one trembling with greed with the prospect of SCOTUS agreeing with the 9 of the 16 5th Circuit judges that the NWS was an ultra vires action?

 

I noticed that the 5th Circuit has 10 judges appointed by Reagan, Bush, or Trump and 6 judges appointed by Clinton or Obama.

 

9 of the 10 consecutive judges agreed that the NWS was an ultra vires action. 

All 6 six of the liberal judges disagreed.

 

Doesn’t this mean that we can expect SCOTUS to rule 6-3 or 5-4 along party lines that the NWS was ultra vires?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2021 at 11:18 PM, sholland said:

This message board has been unusually quiet lately. Am I the only one trembling with greed with the prospect of SCOTUS agreeing with the 9 of the 16 5th Circuit judges that the NWS was an ultra vires action?

 

I noticed that the 5th Circuit has 10 judges appointed by Reagan, Bush, or Trump and 6 judges appointed by Clinton or Obama.

 

9 of the 10 consecutive judges agreed that the NWS was an ultra vires action. 

All 6 six of the liberal judges disagreed.

 

Doesn’t this mean that we can expect SCOTUS to rule 6-3 or 5-4 along party lines that the NWS was ultra vires?

Added a bit on post Jan dip, this one represent 90% of my portfolio, so have few room to add more. Agree on your arguments, thats my base case right now. This month we will se how this ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, typicalvalue said:

Added a bit on post Jan dip, this one represent 90% of my portfolio, so have few room to add more. Agree on your arguments, thats my base case right now. This month we will se how this ends.

90% of your portfolio? That's insane! You seem to have high confidence on law and order, which hasn't happened for such a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, muscleman said:

90% of your portfolio? That's insane! You seem to have high confidence on law and order, which hasn't happened for such a long time.

While I would never encourage anyone to make this a 90% position, I wouldn’t call it insane if someone has a high risk tolerance.  If SCOTUS agrees with 9 of the 16 5th circuit judges that the NWS is an ultra vires action then the stock goes up bigly this month.  If SCOTUS rules that the NWS is within FHFA’s statutory authority, then the plantiffs will be asking for liquidation preferences + interest @ around 9% per annum in the other court cases.  Only Receivership can take away the preferred shareholders’ liquidation preferences.  Receivership is extremely unlikely because Receivership will cause nearly $6T to be added to the national debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gfp said:

I haven't followed this closely as you folks have, but it appears no opinion out of SCOTUS today.  correct?

Seems like it - only one opinion published.

@cherzeca - has it happened before that opinion only arrives in next term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 11:54 AM, sholland said:

While I would never encourage anyone to make this a 90% position, I wouldn’t call it insane if someone has a high risk tolerance.  If SCOTUS agrees with 9 of the 16 5th circuit judges that the NWS is an ultra vires action then the stock goes up bigly this month.  If SCOTUS rules that the NWS is within FHFA’s statutory authority, then the plantiffs will be asking for liquidation preferences + interest @ around 9% per annum in the other court cases.  Only Receivership can take away the preferred shareholders’ liquidation preferences.  Receivership is extremely unlikely because Receivership will cause nearly $6T to be added to the national debt.

Thats my rationale. There is only a low possibility that kills me (recievership).  This a perpetual option with strike at par when restructuring kicks in and many ways to win through judicial action if admin is not keen to recap the GSES. Willing to handle vol. Know many investors involved that are betting big, not just me (other than Glen Bradford ofc). Having said that huge concentration is risky.

Also think that the amount of brain damage and work that this trade requires is not worthy if you don't make this at least 20% of your portfolio. 

Edited by typicalvalue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...