Mephistopheles Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I referenced the 2009 Sears shareholder letter in one of my responses. Anyone read it? http://www.searsholdings.com/invest/archives/feb09.htm Merkhet, I read that. Thanks for sharing. By the way, GSELinks.com will be posting the Lampert shareholder letter to their site tonight. I read it too, thanks Merkhet.
Luke 532 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Looks like this was posted today. Haven't read it yet... PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLIC REDACTED MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITIONS OF EDWARD DEMARCO AND MARIO UGOLETTI
doughishere Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Either they think that theres a good chance at these being un-protected, in which case i wonder if there is anything good in them. OR there's sometime really good in them and they stay protected.
Luke 532 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Either they think that theres a good chance at these being un-protected, in which case i wonder if there is anything good in them. OR there's sometime really good in them and they stay protected. I would imagine there's something really good. Excerpt: "As explained below, this prejudice is particularly acute because Mr. Ugoletti’s testimony calls into question evidence submitted by FHFA in the district court."
merkhet Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Here's a link to the filing. http://bit.ly/1SOaptd Luke has pointed out something interesting in his post above. I'd like to add footnote 3 below: That the Government may be concerned that public disclosure of the Depositions may cause the public to question the way in which Government officials have conducted the public’s business does not suffice to render the deposition a “confidential” document. The debate over how the Government responded to the 2008 financial crisis remains ongoing. The impoverish- ment of the debate that would result from shielding the deposition from disclosure “cannot be ig- nored,” Anderson, 805 F.2d at 7, and counsels strongly in favor of de-designation.
doughishere Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 On other thought on the report that was out tuesday night. This report kinda adds to the fact that the GSEs are different slightly than AIG. Where AIG was cound that the govt acted illegal in taking the company however there was no award. The report shows that it was in a thriving company in the case of the GSEs that was taken. ::End of My John Madden Moment::
Luke 532 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Multiple motions filed today to remove protected designation from Deloitte documents. Plaintiffs smell blood.
doughishere Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Date Filed # Docket Text 06/26/2015 169 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015) 06/26/2015 170 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015) 06/26/2015 171 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Freddie Mac , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015) 06/26/2015 172 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
doughishere Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Bill Ackman Is Confident About Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE-PK) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM-PK) Company8 hours ago During the course of last year, Bill Ackman, an activist who has invested in Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE-PK) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM-PK) has brought quite a reputation to these companies. It was due to these entities that the period of Great Recession sped up. However, the activist seems to have forgotten those times, and believes that the entities will be profitable to invest in. Let’s have a closer look into the matter to understand the situation better. The $16 billion hedge fund of Bill Ackman has a stake of around $475 million in the two housing companies. The fund has invested 1.93 percent of its capital in Fannie Mae and 1.02 percent of the capital in Freddie Mac. When together, these government sponsored companies came 8th in the fund’s investment portfolio. No matter how you try to look and analyze the matter, it is a fact that the investment is huge. Back in the month of September 2008, the government had to intervene and put the companies into a conservatorship. This action on part of the government was enough to put the entities under the control of the government. It is true that this step saves the mortgage system of the company, but it greatly damaged the value of both the companies, especially in the eyes of the stockholders. Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE-PK) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM-PK) had to sign a new bailout, which made the companies bound to pay a dividend of 12 percent and 10 percent to the Treasury Department of government. Since the companies were unable to pay such a high amount during the first three years, the DoT had to change the terms in 2012. According to the new terms, both the companies have to pay all their earnings to the Department of Treasury. DoT owns a stake of 80 percent of the common stocks of the companies. It is important to mention here that there is a great deal of risks attached to the ownership of such entities. The government has a stake of 80 percent in these companies, and yet, these entities are required to pay all their earnings not the stockholders but to the government. Similarly, the government has no interest in giving any payouts to the investors. The argument that Bill Ackman relies upon is that by setting a 100 percent obligation on the companies, the government has overstepped the limits of the conservatorship, and hence, it violates the 5th amendment. Since there are a lot of barriers to the entry of new mortgage companies in the industry, Fannie and Freddie are no doubt an integral and crucial part of the U.S. mortgage industry. Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE-PK) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM-PK) are responsible for 61 percent of the mortgages in the region of United States. Both the companies can collapse if the government introduces mortgage reforms, but until then, the investors should look out for each and every opportunity to benefit from these companies.
orthopa Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Looks like the price of FNMAJ with its div is pretty attractive vs other issues. Im going to get some monday if there is a decent ask. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EppcoQ2bZtoEb25XmXSdpZiQGnnB27mP_gCORsoP6F8/edit?pli=1#gid=0
Luke 532 Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Looks like the price of FNMAJ with its div is pretty attractive vs other issues. Im going to get some monday if there is a decent ask. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EppcoQ2bZtoEb25XmXSdpZiQGnnB27mP_gCORsoP6F8/edit?pli=1#gid=0 Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between FNMAS and FNMAT? FNMAS at $4.00 and FNMAT at $6.70. As far as I know both have a fixed coupon, 8.25%, non-cumulative, $25 par. I believe FNMAT was the last one issued before conservatorship, if that matters. Anybody have thoughts on long FNMAS/short FNMAT for an arbitrage trade?
Jurgis Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Anybody have thoughts on long FNMAS/short FNMAT for an arbitrage trade? Try it. Good luck. ;) These things are not liquid. I'm not sure they are shortable at all.
Luke 532 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Anybody have thoughts on long FNMAS/short FNMAT for an arbitrage trade? Try it. Good luck. ;) These things are not liquid. I'm not sure they are shortable at all. I'm not sure if they're shortable but there was no notice saying they weren't when I ran a pseudo trade order with Interactive Brokers. That leads me to believe they are shortable. They're certainly not liquid, but the spread is nowhere near $2 on FNMAT so there would be a nice arbitrage opportunity available... unless I'm missing something. I imagine I am which is why I mentioned this in the first place. Anybody else have thoughts?
Jurgis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Since it's not liquid, you also risk being called in at a bad time. Others might know other issues though.
Luke 532 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Since it's not liquid, you also risk being called in at a bad time. Others might know other issues though. Of course, that's the risk. I believe that risk would be more than tolerable given the wide spread ($2.70) between the two issues. In theory, could FNMAT be redeemed at par while FNMAS still trades?
Jurgis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I think I used the wrong term, sorry. I meant that your short of FNMAT could be subject to forced buy in. Not sure if you understood it that way.
Luke 532 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I think I used the wrong term, sorry. I meant that your short of FNMAT could be subject to forced buy in. Not sure if you understood it that way. Yes, that's the way I understood it. But if I'm forced to buy it in will it really be at that much more than $2.70 above wherever FNMAS trades at that given point in time. I would just sell FNMAS the same day.
merkhet Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Finally, a status conference... and it's closed to the public. 06/29/2015 STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER: A status conference shall be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1 p.m. before Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. Because protected information will be discussed, the status conference shall be closed to the public. Only those counsel admitted to the protective order may participate. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties.
merkhet Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Government filed a motion for an extension of time until July 13, 2015 to respond to Fairholme's motion to remove the "Protected Information" designation from the FHFA depositions. Sweeney has granted to motion. Also, Perry filed its initial opening brief today for the appeal. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/perryappealbrief0629.pdf
merkhet Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Nope. That's just the link Joe Light posted on Twitter.
merkhet Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The New York Times has asked for access to the documents. http://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NYT-Motion-to-Intervene.pdf
orthopa Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Its interesting that the NYT now wants access to the depositions. Public pressure is at least palpable now. For those with a legal background is this meaningful or just a lot of noise?
merkhet Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Meaningful in what way? Like, does the Times filing have a shot?
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now