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.
Jessie, fun indeed. Just thinking through things for myself and I appreciate substantive input.
Invested in a few BK. Usually organized theft to some degree - the cram-down is a terrible thing sometimes...
Anyway, get me to 15 and I am happy, gravy from there - but I won't be holding for 50 GL to you
In the real world you get what the courts give you - not what you deserve
So maybe listen to people accurately informing you about the court I dgements?
Unlike you I followed the AIG case. Not sure what the case is going bought to show what you guys claim
Btw damages in aig case? Yup zero
Nonsense. The clause says Treasury CAN abandon agreement and not that it MUST
Why would government give up warrants for no reason? Makes no sense at all
BTW I am all in common and I am hopeful.
But this pie-in-the-sky valuation stuff just irks me. So do these baseless claims about warrants disappearing -- tell me how and why that will happen in concrete terms?
There is nothing that leads there right now...
The President and Treasury have no power to cancel HERA, that is a law -- only the courts or congress could remove HERA.
You really do not know what you are talking about.
Best we are looking at is (i) Appeals overturning NWS, but that is very unlikely, more likely (ii) Appeals sends back to Lamberth, says make a record and try this cases.
So, then, the Trump admin is settling WITHOUT having lost a case -- the most you can look at is some money back (or perhaps some warrants cncelled or strike going up), waarants being exercised and company going through R&R.
Then Ackman's prize range of $23-47 looks perfectly sensible -- and the most you will get.
The government has not lost a case -- no reason for huge settlement. In fact, government is yet to be shown to even need to go to court OR HENCE SETTLE!
Well, you might want to look at Trumps' business career.
When did he ever just give some advantage (and of billions no less!) away WITHOUT being legally compelled to do so?
Sorry, I just do not see it happening. A whole hell of a lot has to come from the docs, and ignite a firestorm in the media, to make that even remotely feasible.
And we do not even HAVE the docs!
The only shareholders who matter are those who could fund such a suit over a decade.
The big pockets pressing the present suits, if the settle, then the lawsuits are done, finished...
I happen to think they will take their par value prefs, and $23-47 common, NOW -- rather than pie-in-the-sky ten years from now
LOL
Really?
Since when, in the history of the country, and under its constitution, did the President have the power to cancel a law passed by congress?
That is not how the country works, sorry.
A court could strike the law down, or congress can pass another law, those are you options.
My friend, no case apart one, that I know of, is challenging the original deal and SPSA -- and no one seems to want to fund that one.
So there is no legal challenge to the warrants legality -- whether or not they have been been exercised.
Even if they are exercised, who will fund the decade long court case? You?
So, going into settlement talks, we have a couple of cases, and maybe new evidence, challenging NWS -- maybe some warrants get given up or stike goes up in settling those cases.
Otherwise -- nothing to change the warrants. Nada.
Sorry to break it to you.
lol
And who is rescinding HERA? Congress is not.
And as yet every court has dismissed the NWS cases.
All we will get is Lamberth overturned and the chance to pursue a case -- whose judgement is unclear.
Now, against that background, why do warrants get cancelled?
Get real.
No problem, Ackman says 23-47 WITH warrants, so that is plenty good enough for me.
I do not see Trump just giving warrants up for nothing since it is politically sensitive giving his friends hugs payouts. BUT the warrants might be given up in part to settle NWS suit...
As you rightly note, there is no viable legal challenge to warrants. Ony thing in play is NWS and money for that -- maybe they cut warrants to pay that off.
Nothing more is feasible imho
I have followed every word and NOTHING he said, and nothing we know of, suggest the warrants will not be largely intact after settlement.
Read Mr. Ackman -- I trust his acumen way more than yours.
$23-47 if we are lucky and be happy with that. We really only have POSSIBLE NWS suits, since no court has even granted that we have standing on NWS! That much leverage only goes so far...
Fantasy indeed on warrants
This "collateral" stuff is nonsense.
The warrants were part of the contract and granted to government -- finished, end of story, government owns them.
Get over it. You may, like myself, think it was wrong -- but where is the court case to overturn it. Are YOU funding the many millions it will take?
Maybe some of the warrants go in settlement, but the only thing under real threat from courts is NWS -- so warrants really only come in through that door.
Play with 8.6 earnings and the PE and you get near Ackman. You guys need to seize on the little stuff since you have nothing else lol
WARRANTS WILL STAND -- GET OVER IT
In the ballpark if you play with the PE etc with earnings of 8.6
That all you got to defend your fantasy of the warrants being cancelled?
Nothing huh?
Divide your 86 by 5 and you get closer to Ackman's valuation -- because the warrants are not in doubt.
What leverage is there to remove the warrants? No viable court case challenges them.
When the big boys settle, who will fund any case challenging the warrants -- and these cases cost big.
So I think Ackman is right -- the warrants will stand, though perhaps not all and/or not at the crazy strike price, since this brings the government to the table. And there is little viable way to strike them down -- that takes court and years, wake up people.
So, personally, I think anything over $50 value a common share is pie in the sky. (Remember the Ackman range was 23-47) . IMHO
Rick, Kase is run by Whitney Tilson who basically follows Ackman in 80% of his picks - and this is really Ackman's take too
Still true, but take it from whence it came
Appeals is waiting for docs.
No one has mentioned here that Gov STILL not given up the new docs -- when does someone ask Sweeney to compel?
I am assuming people are waiting for new decision-makers to be installed at Tsy and DoJ. THEN you ask for Sweeney to compel doc release.
THEN someone need to petition to share docs with Appeals.
THEN Appeals peruses docs and finalizes judgements (majority and minority)
Assuming the appointments happen this week, then I think this takes a couple of weeks more at least before docs get to Appeals and then it rules...
BUT an Appeals ruling overturning Lamberth, or even NWS, would fit hand in glove with Trump, and shareholder, media campaign detailing Obama misbahevior in newly released "secret" docs.
Sets up many more options for Trump?Mnuchin in settlement talks imho
Fingers crossed.
Point (g) is most telling. Trump wants to show federal agencies overstep and lacking accountability (perhaps through no oversight and gaming the court system) --
Now where could he find a case of gaming the court system where the agency lacks accountability ?
And which agency has a paper trail, newly released, documenting these abuses?
And which agency could he make an example of?
I think we are setting up to eviscerate FHFA, the Obama admin behavior and then set-up settlement talks... I think we are going to see some carpet bombing media campaign with the docs. Remember Trump HATES Obama, HATES Obama being seen as upright etc., the chance to drag Obama thru the mud a little will not be left unused IMHO
Gonna be a painful short squeeze here at some point IMHO
30 year mortgage not going anywhere ergo Fnf not going anywhere
The idea Trump will allow house prices of his base voters to tank is nonsense - therefore Fnf are staying around under a plan like Ackman's
Amen - no longer using ordinary people's deposits/savings to go make wild speculations that pay off for a few years, paying off execs, then eventually go belly-up destroying depositors (ie you and me), the banks and potentially the country
Shut this down! This alone would be a huge step forward and show Trump is not bought-&-paid for like HRC
Sogo, new leadership has not come in yet, so no new orders yet.
Just following orders till they change is my guess -- and/or negotiating tactic. I guess former...
SoFor, I pray it may be so... a real shot for that, IMHO
And also on the senate record saying that FnF were well run for many decades, too
LOL, thank you Einstein
Spare pair of trousers time?
..for our short friends. What does the Executive order say about changing FnF I wonder?
Not just the Munchkin focussed on FnF but the Trumpkin too!
Nice
Anyone watching C-span? What are elected representatives debating or doing?
Have they voted on any of the three nominations on calendard for today? Who they talking about now?
Maybe I go look...
Wow, Board is in Conservatorship!
Anyone know if this is FNMA style conservatorship -- ie they take all posts for themselves
Or usual conservatorship where they promote the mealth of the board by allowing good posts and removing bad
Obviously Rick's contined posts are confusing me -- how could they not be removed in healthy conservatorship (JOKE!)
Really? Thought two breaks we caught recently were named "Trump" and "Mnuchin"? But, hey, I could be wrong...
BTW Bradfor should take a note from his friend Berkowitz -- do not crow till it is over and the check cashed. (And not even then...)
Beautiful, really deep... Rick, I cried.
Well, it is going to be interested what Treasury does -- they are home alone over there too without new Treasury Secretary.
Better follow a court order lol
Sweeney may get a chance to levy some more sanctions, I pray these minions do so she can give em a bit of what they deserve IMHO
Watch out -- we have an "Administrative Warning" lol
I believe you are right and Mnuchin will be confirmed by Republican majority.
Curious whether the committee could be by-passed at a point and just go to a vote of senate...
On the other hand, it gives the Appeals court more time to get, and use, the released docs and then rule -- IMHO we need that Appeals court ruling to drive a better settlement deal
No. There is no timeline on the Appeals ruling and none related to the Mandamus or docs...
There MAY be a connection - perhaps Appeals was waiting to see these docs. But there is no timelime.
The IS a timeline now for Sweeney making a judgement on whether Government pays costs of plaintiffs on discovery of docs
Someone knew about this Mandamus ruling last week when we saw the little run -- that is my suspicion...
Anyway, now the dominoes start to fall -- someone needs to apply to Sweeney to share these docs with Appeals court
Then the docs need to get to Appeals
THEN we get an Appeals ruling -- looks like our juridical friends we waiting for the handover of power (with Mandamus) and Appeals was waiting, quite reasonably, for the docs...
Now we see ;)
Lamberth overturned puts different light on settlement talks -- PLUS those docs are going to garner some media attention, maybe on TWITTER?
Scary to hear about the past stuff in Sessions closet...
I personally think DeVos's testimony raised real questions about her comptence - I would vote against her if I had a vote - in contrast to Mnuchin whose grasp of the details was outstanding.
Nice point about Sessions, I did not know who was making decisions about priviledge on docs - I assumed Treasury lawyers.
It cannot hurt to have Sessions - I get the impression he will apply the law and damn the consequences...
Yeah, Mnuchin confirmation may see us move little higher to the 5's.
A Mandamus ruling will see us move a good amount IMHO -- and they must be getting near. It is getting a little embarassing for the Federal courts. Someone over there needs to actually rule one way or the other.
A Mandamus ruling then sets up Appeals court -- THAT would be the big one IMHO. Since if we have a favorable Appeals ruling then Trump has the cover the negotiate alongside a media campaign outlining the outrageous behavior of Obama admin.
Where would we be after a favorable Appeals ruling with this administration? I can see $7-8.
Add on top potential news/plans from Mnuchin and we really do have a quite a number of potential catalysts lined up -- but right now our juridical friends need to rule and finish embarassing themselves IMHO
Good things come to those who wait now
It is the law as written in HERA an elsewhere -- whether he makes the decision Treasury directdirects him to remains to be be seen...
If not, then they need to start investigating his actions as Director and indite him -- or at least hint they might move that way. Retirement would then look good, since under inditement old Mel ain't running for shit...
3.5 million volume of FNMA already