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.
thank you and same for your comments as well!
more buyers than sellers
meant to say unfortunately re matt
he is bright and miss his insight
been gone 3 mos at least
only analyst????? isaac boltansky at compass point is imo the best and his info is public. jaret seiberg at cowen also publishes publicly. plus several private investors who are/were analysts/hedge fund investors now post regularly on twitter
and fyi, there are those who vehemently disagree with your praise of bove.
acg does not provide fundamental investment analysis, period. their expertise, and it is incredibly in-depth, is strictly political and legal. fwiw, i’m a paying customer of acg with firsthand knowledge, unlike several others here with their wildly incorrect observations
the timing is all politically driven. nothing until AFTER nov 3
rolg reply re political cover
As for political cover, I suppose that FSOC putting its imprimatur behind the GSE recap goes a long way, and the political pushback represented by the letter from Sens Warner/Rounds seemed pretty weak to me. The letter’s political pushback was whether a GSE recap was a good financial deal for taxpayers (not whether it was good housing policy), and the answer will be that this is the best financial deal for taxpayers since the Louisiana Purchase. I never quite understood the disconnect over the past 18 months between Treasury’s litigating position (inherited from the Obama administration) and Treasury’s recap the GSEs policy position (a break from the Obama administration). I just think it will be time soon for Treasury’s policy position to win out over its litigating position, most likely more with a whimper than fanfare, as incoherencies usually do. given the tumult over the next few months, no one
is this english
in further support of your so accurate description of the warrants below is from tim howard’s amicus brief that was published today
“In these PSPAs, Treasury committed to purchase senior preferred stock from Fannie and Freddie when requested (or “drawn”) by them to maintain a positive net worth. The stock entitled Treasury to dividends of 10 percent per annum if paid in cash or 12 percent if paid in kind (i.e., by taking more senior preferred stock, thus increasing Treasury’s liquidation preference). In exchange for this commitment, Treasury received as a fee $1.0 billion in senior preferred stock from each company, along with warrants to purchase 79.9 percent of Fannie and Freddie common stock at a nominal price and the right to charge a further “periodic commitment fee” in the future.”
kt, thank you again for all that you do
mods - STICKY PLS
why - you must know it’s not accurate
would be form 4 if award
big diff between form 3 and form 4
NO BUENO
mods, pls sticky
Google it
Jamie dimon et al say differently. think I'll go with them
90% dilution means your existing 20.1% is diluted 90% by the new shares issued .... leaves you with 2% ownership of the Enterprise, not 20.1%.
NO BUENO!
this is typically what happens in reorgs and what kt has so patiently been pointing out.
source macaulay.cuny.com
guido:
traditional definition ... lower class urban italian
lmao
i thought thompson was representing jps
mods - sticky pls
did you actually listen to bove’s call?
lmao
ask him if he knows what bove says about the common?
from the article
"Bove believes the end result for holders of Fannie Mae junior preferred shares is at least a 100% increase in the value of the stock."
that's your definition of futility???
lmao
besides being factually incorrect, something weird about your ranting - why do you ignore their comments on common?
let me use simple words for you .... both agree pref up 100% and common not worth investing in, yet all you do is question pref? i guess you agree with them common bad investment
first, ain’t fan of bove, not about to interpret his stance
secondly, you didn’t even care to challenge what was said re common. either you didn’t hear call or you agree?
third, you’re flat out wrong re thompson call on lamberth.
edit:
re the jps leverage in settlement talks, i will go with david thompson v. bove (or the anonymous you) on this one. go to investor unite web site and listen (it’s free because tim pagliara pays 100% of cost as a true public service) to recording of call thompson made with tim right after lamberth decision
paraphrasing, “at minimum we (jps) now have a seat at negotiating table” was his summation as i vividly recall
pigskin, i don’t think YOU heard what they were saying
Bove made that statement in response to rosner saying he (rosner) thought common essentially worthless
i agree with you and don’t think bove has right call here, but i want to hold common post dilution, not pre
but do you know why he doesn't think conversion happens??? Shame you didnt hear the call ...he doesn't think any pref will want to convert into common! rosner concurred.
and pigskin. dont flatter yourself, this board has 0 influence on any significant holders of either common or pref.
I only follow it because I find kthomps and holdens explanations very useful.
louie ... be careful, you’re getting in deeper. conversion of senior paper into common equity is often seen in re-orgs and calabria has already said this will be treated like a bankruptcy reorganization.
oh, by the way, you misspelled caviar. does not have an “e” and champagne is correct spelling. does this indicate your lack of knowledge of reorganization too..
lmao
thank you for your admission of error. that’s where i started -they can be converted
hasn’t happened yet, and yes, it may not happen
but you said it can’t happen and that is 100% incorrect
my earlier post re your ability to understand the 2/3 language approval was deleted, but the excerpt i posted is not ambiguous - they can be converted. period
no
you said there could not be conversion
you are wrong
QED
true dat ... way too much fun aggravating you
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac junior preferred shares could increase by at least 100% if one analyst is correct. Dick Bove of Odeon Capital said Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co., who has testified multiple times in front of Congress about the government-sponsored enterprises, discussed them with the Odeon team.“
btw, you shd have heard what he said about commons. now that would really upset you
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac junior preferred shares could increase by at least 100% if one analyst is correct. Dick Bove of Odeon Capital said Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co., who has testified multiple times in front of Congress about the government-sponsored enterprises, discussed them with the Odeon team.
you should have listened to call,
QED
jps conversion for louie
(c) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this Section 7, the terms of this Certificate or the Series T Preferred Stock may be amended, altered, supplemented, or repealed only with the consent of the Holders of at least two- thirds of the shares of Series T Preferred Stock then outstanding, given in person or by proxy, either in writing or at a meeting of stockholders at which the Holders of Series T Preferred Stock shall vote separately as a class. On matters requiring their consent, Holders of Series T Preferred Stock will be entitled to one vote per share.