Jump to content

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


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

19 hours ago, allnatural said:

Updated w/ more details + some personal commentary

image.thumb.png.e65df609f2aa9dd26428bc796fe26193.png

Thank you it's an excellent resource.

I'm not much on technical analysis, but I think a lot of the selling is over. Volume has dropped and prices are beginning to go sideways and/or inch up. I think the next catalyst could be happenings in Lamberth's court, and prices could move accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, allnatural said:

If anyone managed to pick the bottom this week (I was not), they would already be up ~30% in a few days time for FNMAS/FMCKJ. Not bad for dead money.

 

I would challenge you to find out the 10 single largest up days since 2007.

Hint: They are mostly in 2008.

Usually bear markets are much harder to play with because in hindsights, it is very tempting to think "Had i bought yesterday, I would have been up 15% today".

Bull markets on the other hand, usually have small up and down days but go for a long time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, muscleman said:

 

I would challenge you to find out the 10 single largest up days since 2007.

Hint: They are mostly in 2008.

Usually bear markets are much harder to play with because in hindsights, it is very tempting to think "Had i bought yesterday, I would have been up 15% today".

Bull markets on the other hand, usually have small up and down days but go for a long time.

 

But your analysis is all hindsight as well, including characterizing in retrospect whether we are dealing with a bear or bull market.

 

I think the securities were oversold. Any good news or even neutral news out of Lamberth's court and we'll double from here irrespective of whether the thesis ultimately prevails. My reasoning in the short term is that skittish investors have forgotten there are other trials and/or have just become fatigued but news from Lamberth and/or Schwartz will be a reminder that there are other ongoing trials which have a decent chance. Part of the recent uptick I think was folks saw that some big institutions increased their holdings after SCOTUS. You're on record as saying the bottom is not in.  I say we're there and time to load up. We'll see who's correct soon enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wiggins said:

But your analysis is all hindsight as well, including characterizing in retrospect whether we are dealing with a bear or bull market.

 

I think the securities were oversold. Any good news or even neutral news out of Lamberth's court and we'll double from here irrespective of whether the thesis ultimately prevails. My reasoning in the short term is that skittish investors have forgotten there are other trials and/or have just become fatigued but news from Lamberth and/or Schwartz will be a reminder that there are other ongoing trials which have a decent chance. Part of the recent uptick I think was folks saw that some big institutions increased their holdings after SCOTUS. You're on record as saying the bottom is not in.  I say we're there and time to load up. We'll see who's correct soon enough.

 

 

Sure!

I actually think the overall market is building a top and about to roll over, which will put a lot of pressure on FNMAS and drag it down as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, typicalvalue said:

Anyone listening to this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZMiksQvYmA

 

What a clown show

 

Thanks for posting. Not an expert myself in these legal arguments/analysis, but certainly sounded like the judges were VERY skeptical of the gov'ts framing and POV and less so of Fairholme's lawyers. 

 

Would also add that Fairholmes lawyers just sounded more impressive because they spoke with confidence and didn't stumble all over themselves like the govt's guy was doing. Not that it ultimately matters, but perceptions like that can sway lesser people - maybe it can sway a judge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Thanks for posting. Not an expert myself in these legal arguments/analysis, but certainly sounded like the judges were VERY skeptical of the gov'ts framing and POV and less so of Fairholme's lawyers. 

 

Would also add that Fairholmes lawyers just sounded more impressive because they spoke with confidence and didn't stumble all over themselves like the govt's guy was doing. Not that it ultimately matters, but perceptions like that can sway lesser people - maybe it can sway a judge. 

Keep in mind the only claims we want surviving is Fairholme's derivative claims (where the remedy would flow to the GSEs aka existing shareholders) vs all the other shareholders lawyers were arguing for direct claims (where the remedy would flow to shareholders who owned stock on day of NWS).

 

The judges were very harsh re: direct claims (i think these all get dismissed / affirm Sweeney's ruling), but when it was the governments turn to speak they were tough on the lawyer re: derivative claim as they didn't seem to bite that there wasn't a conflict of interest if only the FHFA could ever sue the FHFA re: derivative claims.

 

Of the 4 derivative claims being argued for, based off oral arguments today, I think the judges will reverse and dismiss all but the first one.

•    Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment for the Taking of Private Property for Public Use
•    Illegal Exaction Under the Fifth Amendment 
•    Breach of Fiduciary Duty
•    Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies 
 

Edited by allnatural
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MrSwankyPants said:

I'm so confused after listening to this. Can someone refresh me what case this is and where it's on appeal from? Too many cases, too many judges...I'm loosing track! 

The appeal is from the court of federal claims. Shareholders are claiming that the NWS was violation of the 5th amendment for the taking of private property for public use without just compensation (the recent Collins decision affirmed the the NWS action by the FHFA is a government action taken for public benefit). Even if the NWS was allowed under HERA (like Collins ruled), you still have to give compensation for the takings. The original ruling by Judge Sweeney allowed the derivative claims to move forward and dismissed the direct claims. This oral argument was related to the appeal of both of those decisions. Should have a decision in the next 6 months. If shareholders survive the derivative claims we will move to trial.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to the oral argument today and agree with the comment posted by Tim Howard on his blog today.

I am not encouraged at all and felt the Judges were trying every stupid argument imaginable to find the exits. Thumbs on the scales of justice. I hope allnatural's analysis is correct, but I could believe anything now. Looking forward to Lamberth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamberth is my favorite case as well (and much closer to ultimate resolution than the takings case).. Although i'm very curious to see how the Collins remand plays out based off the last briefing (especially since its back in the en banc hands with all 16 judges who have shown willingness to rule for shareholders already).

Edited by allnatural
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wiggins said:

I listened to the oral argument today and agree with the comment posted by Tim Howard on his blog today.

I am not encouraged at all and felt the Judges were trying every stupid argument imaginable to find the exits. Thumbs on the scales of justice. I hope allnatural's analysis is correct, but I could believe anything now. Looking forward to Lamberth

I havent finished listening but the flip side to this was the SCOTUS seemed like things were going to go very well based on the arguments and how harsh the justices were there and not one justice sided with us so there is that too. 

 

Whats more disheartening more then anything was that it took over 18 months from the time of sweenys ruling to oral argument on appeal. Its at least 3 years before we get anywhere near a final ruling in that court. Lamberth closer and we know for a fact that the evidence there will finally be presented. 

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...