investorG Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 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.
muscleman Posted March 23, 2021 Posted March 23, 2021 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?
COBFInfinity Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 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.
typicalvalue Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 Last Tim Pagliara interview https://tennesseestar.com/2021/03/24/cap-wealth-managements-tim-pagliara-talks-the-supreme-court-case-of-collins-v-mnunchin/
james22 Posted April 3, 2021 Posted April 3, 2021 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...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted April 8, 2021 Posted April 8, 2021 Common is up 40% from its lows in February. Preferreds have been making small moves in the past few days. What does the market know about upcoming information?
orthopa Posted April 8, 2021 Posted April 8, 2021 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.
muscleman Posted April 9, 2021 Posted April 9, 2021 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.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted April 14, 2021 Posted April 14, 2021 So anyone have any update or thoughts on timing for SCOTUS now that early April has come and gone?
COBFInfinity Posted April 16, 2021 Posted April 16, 2021 On 4/13/2021 at 10:45 PM, TwoCitiesCapital said: So anyone have any update or thoughts on timing for SCOTUS now that early April has come and gone? Don't know, but SCOTUS will release opinion(s) on at least one case next Thursday. Watch this calendar: https://www.scotusblog.com/events/
TwoCitiesCapital Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 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?
allnatural Posted May 4, 2021 Posted May 4, 2021 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).
MrSwankyPants Posted May 5, 2021 Posted May 5, 2021 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.
MrSwankyPants Posted May 17, 2021 Posted May 17, 2021 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....
sholland Posted May 29, 2021 Posted May 29, 2021 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?
typicalvalue Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 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.
muscleman Posted June 2, 2021 Posted June 2, 2021 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.
james22 Posted June 2, 2021 Posted June 2, 2021 Looks like we might get a SCOTUS ruling 10am ET tomorrow. *fingers crossed*
sholland Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 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.
gfp Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 I haven't followed this closely as you folks have, but it appears no opinion out of SCOTUS today. correct?
Sunrider Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 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?
TwoCitiesCapital Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 4 hours ago, james22 said: Elusive. The wait that never ends
typicalvalue Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 (edited) 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 June 4, 2021 by typicalvalue
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