Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OK, sure- I can accept that in general it's tough to beat Uncle Sugar in court, but it must also be admitted that in general the gubmint doesn't act quite so egregiously.
From a rational perspective it would seem we can't lose, but from a pragmatic perspective it's obvious there's more in play than shareholders rights.
So we wait.
That's pretty interesting, but any analysis that doesn't take the lawsuits into account is fatally flawed IMO. From a political perspective, I think the author is correct that there won't be real will for change until the election(s), but as a shareholder I don't mind saying that I hope a resolution is far closer than 2017. Allowing the government to continue to plunder the honeypot is criminal; that's my money, I bought a share of it fair and square on the open market.
No worries; I watched it once I was home. Thank you though! :)
Great find.
Expand, please! Can't watch, but am (always) very interested in Corker having his mouth shut for him :)
Solid. If you're sitting on big gains there's no shame in taking money off the table, especially if it helps you take emotion out of your decision making.
Please clarify on whose part you're alleging confirmation bias; seems like we're collectively guilty on some levels :)
Well, that's a change from Wallison and Pinto.
very good video, thank you for posting!
I'm sending it to my friends..
In, but... we have to wait until victory is assured. What that means exactly is uncertain at this point; you could set it as CKJ hitting RV or a resumption of the divs or a release of conservatorship or ????, but given that these things are still unknown, unknowable, and in the future actually trying to set a date is damned difficult.
At the same time I laud your foresight and look forward to buying you a drink in whichever venue is finally selected :)
Sure, but they also say "Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered."
I think you should submit it to us for review/comment ;)
(though mebbe better on the googleboard)
Pinky-swear I'm not either :)
Wish I could, but pretty much I've sworn off as it makes my joints ache :( so I'll live vicariously thru you.
Yes, do!
Nice find! Ackman... kind of a double-edged sword, eh? I hold HHC and plan to for some time; otoh he took it in the soft parts with JCP and Borders.
1. Like!
2. Their greed has been the foundation of my investment thesis from the start. Once they realize (have they already? :) ) what a killing there is to be made they'll go (quietly!) all in and THEN we'll see a change in rhetoric...
IIRC georgenips pointed out improper references/citations in the 3rd amendment; something about references to sections that didn't exist, as though the document was prepared hastily and poorly reviewed/edited/vetted before release.
That's beneath you, SA.
Chris sed: "Mkt says 50s are better vs. 25s as they ALL may be called in, as interest rates are higher; the difference is liquidity, but if resolution is swift, 50s are better"
For whatever reason I never really reviewed the 50's prospectii; they're not callable?
I hold 'CKJ only (in the pref realm), chosen because a) I could buy them, b) best interest rate, c) since they never paid a single div they have slightly better legal standing with respect to damages wrought by conservatorship, d) call window open only every 5 years starting in 2012.
Why anxious?
Have a look at IGK; it's a hybrid ING pref that pays over 8% on a $25 RV. I put money here instead of in a savings acct. They never once interrupted thier div, even thru '08-09. Share price did take a beating, I think the least I paid was ~$11 and the lowest I saw was near $4 (regrettably, I did not have the stones to buy there!).
If you have a long horizon 8% is a nice return...
Yes, but not so attractive now as they were a month or so ago perhaps.
In my mind The Enterprises cannot be replaced, and they cannot be shuttered, so eventually these stubs will have real value.
I think the answer to your question to some degree depends on your timeline; IMO the prefs will hit RV before the commons really show their strength, so if you're on a shorter horizon prefs may be better. On the other hand, it's conceivable that the commons could be worth $20-$40/stub eventually, but they may need 10 (?) years or so to fully ripen.
I hold both, and I'm patient. My hope is that eventually I'll recoup more than my original investment annually from 'CKJ divs (till 2017, anyway ;) )
I did. I'm sitting on a 9x portfolio increase and the story isn't over yet.
By pure unadulterated laziness I was 100% cash in Q2 of 2008.
Jeeze... they're getting hammered. Will you outline your thesis?
"junior pref. has no meaning. they are equal to common stocks.."
Again with this. It is highly unlikely that a preferred share ($25/$50 redemption value) is "equal" to a common share.
While a conversion event is possible, it is not likely to be at 1:1.
Unless of course you have actual evidence to which you can direct us?
"*I would be curious to know how many people on this board hold common shares of Fannie Mae. "
Guilty. More prefs, but I do hold a few thousand commons.
Rosen, are you sure your characterization of what Dr. Epstein is advocating is correct? My interpretation was that the change would be made retroactively, as the third amendment, being illegal, should be nullified.
Since his position hinges on a Taking it seems unlikely that he'd be in favor allowing a previous Taking to stand just 'cause it was over and done with.
I may be wrong; it's easy for logic to get a little rose colored sometimes.
Very glad to be on the same side as her on this particular issue.
"In theory, gov't could forego its warrants. But I wouldn't count on that as part of any investment strategy."
Indeed! Congress' eventual realization that they're sitting on a gold mine is a compelling part of the investment thesis.
Agree on all counts- the comments are often very good and Maloni deserves whatever support we can give him.
Geeze, no- don't add it. Tampering with the indices only roils the markets! ;)
No bad publicity? We sure do hear his name a lot...
One of the issues I have with the outcome you're describing is that the evidence you cite as support was all written before the lawsuits started coming out. You have to factor this in- the suits are structured in such a way so as to make the third amendment to the PSPA illegal and consequently force re-evaluation of all the payments made since then. You've not mentioned the potential impact of the lawsuits and they stand to be quite significant.
I also think that blurring the line between fact and opinion should be avoided; it's more appropriate to say "Here is what I think is going to happen_______" vs. "This is what will happen____"
Due Diligence
Be sure to check the facts when considering an investment in FMCC, FNMA, or any related preferred securities. Certain posts here are written in a tone which implies they are facts, when in fact they are opinion. At other times, real facts are taken out of context or the use of outdated data are used to support conclusions which are potentially erroneous.
The take home message is that not everyone here is in agreement, and not all opinions have the same degree of intellectual rigor; as a reader one must carefully choose which messages should be accorded value and which should be consigned to the bottom of the stack.
Luck to all!
I disagree with you. I don't think there is a 'plan'; I think there are several and that the decision makers have yet to come to an agreement.
I think that what will happen is basically status quo- additional regulation and release.
Release from conservatorship: yes.
Uplist: Probably, yes.
Combine: Very doubtful.
Of course, this has been written as an opinion, as that's what it is. Sometimes posters choose to make their statements as though they're objective facts and this needs to be taken into consideration.
AWESOME IMAGINATION!
You have several articles over 6 months old describing how the Enterprises are working on commonizing their securitization platform and transmogrify that into them CREATING A JOINT FIRM.
That's quite a leap on thin evidence.
Whatever- you're entitled to your opinion and free to voice it here. Don't act surprised when someone chooses to dispute your conclusions with facts.
It is, and consequently is utterly irrelevant.
OLD ARTICLES SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH SALT
The only thing current that was posted recently was the editorial from Huffington Post; we're not exactly talking about a major think-tank or policy-making body here.
IMO: Ignore the video and articles from before the lawsuits; things are Very Different now.
"BREAKING" NEWS OVER 6 MONTHS OLD
Don't believe the hype; the cited video is from March, before the lawsuits were filed.
Meaningless IMO.
MONSTER NEWS OVER 6 MONTHS OLD
Sorry- can't get worked up over something talking heads were discussing before the lawsuits were fully publicized.
6 months is an age in this context; the lawsuits and Net Zero change everything.
This news ain't news, AT ALL.
Agree with your comments.
Regarding the video, I couldn't really tell if it was based on new info or simply a rehash of old bits.
Either way, still seems like it would be a Taking in the event that the shareholders got shafted.