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

[Mephistopheles]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!

 

+1. Absurd speculation going on trying to mind read government officials.

 

This is a 10,000 ft. bet. Does it sound illegal? Yes. Is the risk reward good? Yes.

 

Then bet a small amount and forget about it.

[Williams406]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!

 

Agreed. We're better than that--let's raise our game. Did anyone else notice Mnuchin's left nostril flare slightly when Corker said...

[Flynnstone5]

Alright. Fair enough on speculating regarding positions that require no disclosure. That said, this boards been reading between the lines or trying to for how long? I don't think it's that crazy of a notion to try and read into Corkers frustration with Watt or Mnuchins responses to questions asked.

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

Fun article, zany.

 

https://rockytoppolitics.com/2017/05/17/meet-the-new-never-trumper/ :-\

[Mephistopheles]

Alright. Fair enough on speculating regarding positions that require no disclosure. That said, this boards been reading between the lines or trying to for how long? I don't think it's that crazy of a notion to try and read into Corkers frustration with Watt or Mnuchins responses to questions asked.

 

It's one thing to recognize the power of incentives - billionaires fund candidate, candidate becomes President, it's not exactly a leap of faith to assume it helps the thesis.

 

On the other hand, trying to decipher body language and vocal tone to figure out what people are thinking is really not helpful at all.

[Desert_Rat]

Jeez, calm down. I'd bet my shares are as tightly held as anyone's on this board, and I may be more aware of the wait that's required for resolution. Doesn't mean we can't shit talk about it. And BTW, any talk is useless because our fate is held by others. Not by how well FnF do, not if Mnuchin comes out tomorrow saying he'll quit if we're not made whole by Monday. Others. We can't intelligently speculate spit, or did each court rejection not teach us that.

 

[rros]

you guys are fools trying to estimate what paulson holds in an unlisted security (which he need not report in sec filings) like fmcc...which he has stated his funds are the largest holder of.  this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness.  which i have been accused of from time to time...

Agree. Even Gator guy doesn't include the preferreds on his funds. Optics aren't nice betting on politicians being incompetent idiots. That's a bet you don't want anyone to know.

[rros]

Fun article, zany.

 

https://rockytoppolitics.com/2017/05/17/meet-the-new-never-trumper/ :-\

anti-trump inner-self lol.

[DocSnowball]

Understood - it's a speculative bet. +1 on that.

 

EDIT: just trying to disconfirm my thesis

Legal thesis: disconfirmed after Perry (bought in 2016)

Privileged documents thesis: disconfirmed, nothing crazy released so far

Mnuchin will not accept NWS: disconfirmed

There is no alternative to FnF: disconfirmed, easy to spin off

Stalemate cannot go on: no reason why not if Watt's buffer set up

-

So for those of us who still have a valid thesis:

Trump acknowledges supporters and has not yet screwed any of them , and here they are legally in good standing to own shares, as are we  - this is one part that is not yet disconfirmed.

 

[Desert_Rat]

Easy reading:  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-05-19/opportunity-knocks-for-reforming-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

[Sunrider]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!

 

+1 Chris

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

Gator has the preferreds is his "hedge" fund (longs and shorts). Not in any of his more successful funds.

 

He does disclose them though (at least he did last time I looked).

[Flynnstone5]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!

 

+1 Chris

 

Certainly some madness going on and I'll admit that I have contributed, but then again the thousands of legal posts supporting our position were all completely wrong so value add seems about the same.

[rros]

Gator has the preferreds is his "hedge" fund (longs and shorts). Not in any of his more successful funds.

 

He does disclose them though (at least he did last time I looked).

He talks about them but doesn't specify size or what he is holding. Take a look at 3/31/17 (1Q17) disclaimer of largest positions:

"From this list, we exclude ETFs and fixed income instruments such as preferred stock."

 

We know he still has them, but that's it.

[Desert_Rat]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!

 

+1 Chris

 

Certainly some madness going on and I'll admit that I have contributed, but then again the thousands of legal posts supporting our position were all completely wrong so value add seems about the same.

 

+5781

 

It's almost as fruitless,  but trying to read the politics inherent to FnF is a better approach than banking on a legal bailout.

[orthopa]

If Mnuchin is the reason you post. Good luck!!!

 

Well seeing if you still hold even only 1 share of preferred the our interests/luck are mutual.  If you don't think mnuchin will be a big reason why shareholders are not totally screwed. You have a couple other options....

 

1. Legal outcome, its my understanding you were a plantiff or something close in a certain case? To use your choice of words "I hope thats not the reason you post!"

 

2. Corker/Warner et al.

 

3. Trump who hasn't mentioned a word on FnF ever.

 

4. Watt who at least appears to be ready to act favorably on the div.

 

[orthopa]

FWIW, a little late in responding.

 

All preferred, ~10% of portfolio at these prices.

 

Anyone have any thoughts as to why to date NO ONE has mentioned the word shareholders? Last person in reference to FNF was Corker when he called it a lotto ticket/ and or to short it what ~2 years ago now?

 

If they were going to wipe out shareholders in a worse case scenario, and everyone in power currently and going back to the Obama administration knows it why the wait? Why ont just do it?

 

Why not just wipe out shareholders and get it over with? What is the monetary/political/visual benefit to the gov in waiting?

[orthopa]

...and to continue my parade of posts....For whatever reason it seems like on TV Mnuchin comes across as much more shareholder friendly in that he says the right things. Once he talks to congress or on the record its easy to start to question his stance. Which is a better impression of the real thing? When he speaks off the cuff on TV or in front of a congressional panel on the record?

 

[Desert_Rat]

If Mnuchin is the reason you post. Good luck!!!

 

Well seeing if you still hold even only 1 share of preferred the our interests/luck are mutual.  If you don't think mnuchin will be a big reason why shareholders are not totally screwed. You have a couple other options....

 

1. Legal outcome, its my understanding you were a plantiff or something close in a certain case? To use your choice of words "I hope thats not the reason you post!"

 

2. Corker/Warner et al.

 

3. Trump who hasn't mentioned a word on FnF ever.

 

4. Watt who at least appears to be ready to act favorably on the div.

 

Junior did, which I'd say is the same thing. Problem is his retweet centered on Ocare. It had nothing to with us.

[Luke 532]

Junior did, which I'd say is the same thing. Problem is his retweet centered on Ocare. It had nothing to with us.

 

Here's what was retweeted with a link to the Rosner/Carlson interview: "Obama took billions from Fannie and Freddie to fund Obamacare... and he's still trying to cover his tracks."

[Desert_Rat]

...and to continue my parade of posts....For whatever reason it seems like on TV Mnuchin comes across as much more shareholder friendly in that he says the right things. Once he talks to congress or on the record its easy to start to question his stance. Which is a better impression of the real thing? When he speaks off the cuff on TV or in front of a congressional panel on the record?

 

Mnuchin's tone flipped once the court rejected the appeal, so I think it's safe to say that he isn't exactly in our corner anymore. If he can accomplish what he prefers while screwing us is another matter.

 

[Desert_Rat]

Junior did, which I'd say is the same thing. Problem is his retweet centered on Ocare. It had nothing to with us.

 

Here's what was retweeted with a link to the Rosner/Carlson interview: "Obama took billions from Fannie and Freddie to fund Obamacare... and he's still trying to cover his tracks."

Exactly

[Midas79]

...and to continue my parade of posts....For whatever reason it seems like on TV Mnuchin comes across as much more shareholder friendly in that he says the right things. Once he talks to congress or on the record its easy to start to question his stance. Which is a better impression of the real thing? When he speaks off the cuff on TV or in front of a congressional panel on the record?

 

Mnuchin's tone flipped once the court rejected the appeal, so I think it's safe to say that he isn't exactly in our corner anymore. If he can accomplish what he prefers while screwing us is another matter.

 

Mnuchin isn't pro-FnF shareholders, he's pro-Treasury. That's his job. I haven't seen anything from him to indicate that he wants to  specifically help or screw FnF shareholders. Given that some people included Mnuchin's relationships with shareholders as a positive in the investment thesis, I would give Mnuchin some credit for showing integrity in his job and not overtly favoring them.

 

I still don't think Mnuchin will go out of his way to screw shareholders. To me, he has been consistent that FnF need to continue to exist because they provide necessary liquidity and would, as private shareholder-owned companies, also provide private capital as a buffer to taxpayer support in the event of crisis. But neither is he going to cut a deal that hands shareholders a huge windfall profit for no reason.

[Desert_Rat]

...and to continue my parade of posts....For whatever reason it seems like on TV Mnuchin comes across as much more shareholder friendly in that he says the right things. Once he talks to congress or on the record its easy to start to question his stance. Which is a better impression of the real thing? When he speaks off the cuff on TV or in front of a congressional panel on the record?

 

Mnuchin's tone flipped once the court rejected the appeal, so I think it's safe to say that he isn't exactly in our corner anymore. If he can accomplish what he prefers while screwing us is another matter.

 

Mnuchin isn't pro-FnF shareholders, he's pro-Treasury. That's his job. I haven't seen anything from him to indicate that he wants to  specifically help or screw FnF shareholders. Given that some people included Mnuchin's relationships with shareholders as a positive in the investment thesis, I would give Mnuchin some credit for showing integrity in his job and not overtly favoring them.

 

I still don't think Mnuchin will go out of his way to screw shareholders. To me, he has been consistent that FnF need to continue to exist because they provide necessary liquidity and would, as private shareholder-owned companies, also provide private capital as a buffer to taxpayer support in the event of crisis. But neither is he going to cut a deal that hands shareholders a huge windfall profit for no reason.

 

Yeah, no. I get the gist of what you're saying, and with that I agree, but stealing because you can, because Lew did, is still wrong no matter how you slice it. Anyone in Mnuchin's position should be standing up and saying no, I won't be part of this. That's not to say he isn't doing exactly that behind closed doors.

 

[Fat Pitch]

If they were going to wipe out shareholders in a worse case scenario, and everyone in power currently and going back to the Obama administration knows it why the wait? Why ont just do it?

 

Why not just wipe out shareholders and get it over with? What is the monetary/political/visual benefit to the gov in waiting?

 

Could be wrong, but that would legitimately trigger the takings claim. The stock/jr prefs still trade to show to the courts no "takings"/"deprivation" of property has taken place. The courts have pointed out the claims are not ripe since the stock still trades. The gov't messed up the original bailout, it should have been a clean wipe out and this thread wouldn't exist.

 

We could still be wiped out, but tsy would have to show courts taxpayers were at risk... what judge would buy that when taxpayers were paid back per the original terms? Heck gov't took a small loss on AIG, but jr prefs came out nicely. Rationally this should be a slam dunk for the jr prefs, but we are truly Alice in Wonderland. The post mortem once this is concluded will be something.