what would be your reference /source for your following quote.Thank you:

"Thus, if President Trump had been able to direct FHFA to pursue his policy goals from the beginning of his administration, as the Constitution required, FHFA would have collaborated with Treasury to amend the PSPAs in one of two ways: (1) to reduce the liquidation preference on Treasury’s senior preferred stock to zero and end further increases to the liquidation preference so long as the Companies did not make further draws on Treasury’s funding commitment; or (2) to convert Treasury’s senior preferred stock to common stock. In either event, Treasury’s entitlement to 100% of the Companies’ net worth would be gone, and the Companies’ other shareholders could share in the upside."

I am not sure where to find it in the Collins litigation as an option?

do you have the short interest for FNMA?

Thank you for the info.

Not hard to feel your anguish

Yea, lol...and then some!

from Tim Howard:
"Well, this letter will at least give the Fifth Circuit justices something to think about. The key statement here is, “From the start, I would have fired former Democrat Congressman and political hack Mel Watt from his position as Director and would have ordered FHFA to release these companies from conservatorship.” There is little doubt about the first action. As to the second, President Trump had 20 months to “order” Mark Calabria to release Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship and never did. That, to me, does weaken the hypothetical that he would have done that had he be able to fire Watt. But it will be up to the justices to make this determination."

with Comment:
"Tim, I think the last sentence in Trump’s letter address your point about ordering “FHFA to release these companies from conservatorship.” Trump Claims his administration was “denied the time it needed to fix this problem because of the unconstitutional restriction on firing Mel Watt.” So while 20 months wasn’t enough time to begin and complete the work to release the companies from conservatorship, Trump is stating a full 4 years from day one would have been sufficient.

Craig Phillips discussed this in an interview where he said had they not had to wait to fire Watt, there would have been ample time to complete the privatization as well. This certainly should tilt the favor in plaintiffs favor.

Will be interesting to see how the 5th circuit judges try to untangle this mess of a ruling handed down from SCOTUS with Trumps curveball thrown in."

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/why-shares-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-rising-today

Yes, and let's reveal while were at it the hidden documents!

unfortunate that you cannot read between the lines

yes, agree

thank you. definitely a positive . Important NWS "not invalidated ". WE are moving in right direction

using the pps as a guide , the drop began suddenly at 3:40 for 17 cents and then quickly reversed 15 minutes later for the last 5 minutes for 10 cents up.likely the initial drop was the initial response to leaking of the report followed by a positive delayed reaction to it. This really is not all bad......baby steps.

Agree, as we have been doing ....let's see where this takes us.

Agree, nothing yet to get too excited about but then again all good so far. Would need to at least power over $3 and have the volume up over 8 million

In general ,i would agree with being cautious . But overall things are looking positive.

my guess has been 10-15

depends when you bought. At a .35 cent purchase price $5-8 sound pretty good, even if holding 8 plus years....lol.

nice!

Agree, had the same thought a while back. But he also predicted "exciting " news at the end of 2017 for F&F...Never happened ,unless you count the added buffer to the NWS

And here is the fella who is behind the Milken/ MBA plan in recent news:

Amazing story about well-timed stock gifts and the people who made them. https://t.co/c834k0dFag via @WSJ

— gretchen morgenson (@gmorgenson) December 21, 2017

This is the mother of all shake outs!......lol

what are your expectations at this point?

Are you still planning to close out your position mid to late December? If so why? If not why not? .Just curious as to current thoughts.

LOL! About sums it up

yes, but then again the last 5 years Congress has been majority "right" and nothing has been accomplished!

thank you , nice and interesting find.

can't argue there but the greatest concern voters have would likely be how they were, are and will be affected personally and in particular, financially. I wouldn't underestimate singular voter intelligence as the democrats recently did in 2016. I doubt people would be pleased at the prospect of their monthly mortgage payments increasing either through difficulty getting a 30 year or being subjected to increase rates. Or worse yet , being unable to buy a home and lose the capital renting.Push comes to shove, sectors of the population care or find it interesting the issues you mentioned,but the majority of the "average Joes" ( not the people you read about or hear about in the "fake" news) will vote with their pocket books in mind and how they were, are and will be affected as individuals and as a family.And giving your money to large Wall st. banks is a negative for most people when other options could exist. Resolving housing finance in a positive way for the middle class and minority groups in the next few months, and well before the mid terms, could be a decisive voting factor and if handled right a bonus for the republicans.

that is true! but they can't buy everyone. And people ( "average joe") will be the ones doing the voting come mid term for who takes control of the senate . There will be a lot to be accounted for and a bad mark may be therefor the politicians that voted for the big banks and Wall st. and not for the middle class or small businesses or minority groups on they issue. Of coarse those who are "retiring" don't have to worry!

Good update article. In reality, if a solution is found through Congress, it would require a"tri-partisan support (democrats ,and both the moderate and conservative republican trenches). Remember, it was not solely the lack of democratic party support that failed the Obamacare repeal, but rather discord within the moderate and conservative views of senate republicans. On that basis,I find hard to believe that the senate would have the votes to eliminate the GSE's and replace them with untested systems especially since the GSE's are working so well presently and I would have to feel by now a majority of the members of Congress understand that the 2008 financial crisis , although multifactorial in its causes, had a lot more to do with the big banks lack of discretion , than the GSE's .Further, I find it hard to believe, with the above in mind, that the Administration would want to wait a full year to see if a tri-partisan resolution can be found . If I were in their shoes ,I would want to get a resolution well before the mid-terms ,so as to favor republican support in the election, especially if their grass root support is at risk with the upcoming tax reform.Thus I doubt they would be in favor of extending the GSE jumpstart another year which would likely mean another year of conservatorship. My "guess" they will try to provide an all around solution, perhaps along the lines of the Moellis proposal and Ackman's presentation but modified. They will have something for everyone and enough for the shareholders that would eliminate and/or substantially reduce the threat of the current or possibly new lawsuits.I suspect the arrangement will be similar to the pre crisis arrangements with the exception that the system will be more carefully regulated. The simplest method would be to have the GSE's survive , be released and continue to play a role.Selling everything out to the big banks ,I think would be a political catastrophe for the republicans.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3317146-mulvaney-weighs-wells-fargo-penalties

lol

Most definitely agree. Patience (again) is the key. Not aware of any news.(same old, same old). Tim Howard has a nice response to his thoughts on any potential "EO" and the Perry supreme court appeal (which I would concur with).Selling earlier in the day , hopefully will level off . RSI was on the higher side at open (close to 70 and possibly a reason for traders to lock in profits) but now just above 50. Volume has not been exciting (currently 5% below the 50 day average). Volatility with todays pps is relatively low which reflects the lack of excitement for the twins as the news and things focus on Trump's other EO actions, twitter and oral comments and while earnings date ( to my knowledge not officially announced) is several weeks off . the lull and general fog remain until things start to happen in 2018 or perhaps some news on the document "peak" or the Delaware case.

great photo...lol

:))...I guess the board did not like your choice of bourbon. It was an excellent pick! After several taste tests with friends, Larceny came out on top!. Cant beat the price either! Cheers from KY

agree, volume today was just a little above average and not the strength you would like to see on a legitimate breakout . However,buy volume definitely outpaced sell volume as we ended up the high for the day and reached above the 10 day MA. Last weeks volume was up 110% over the 50day average as well.These all seem to be all good things as we trend up in the right direction. I personally think it is hard to tell which direction short term trading will go at tis point, but longer term prospects (next 3-6 months seem optimistic ; all factors considered .People may want to get in the "game" now versus missing out on the possibility of a sudden upswing. A sudden downswing would seem unlikely.

Could be .I wish I knew! However not much on the downside excepting possibly a minor negative court decision which likely wouldn't have a great impact on the pps..Doubt their would be a big impact even if Delaware should go south. The big case is Sweeney's ...and that is caught up in the document/discovery issues right now (which ultimately could be positive , not negative). Also in the next 8 weeks , Congress not likely to do much with the GSE's from a bipartisan standpoint After that we are into the Holiday season .So downside for pps. seems to look limited. On the upside there are rumors of a "blowout" earnings (at least for Freddie) in the 3rd Quarter,predictions of NWS reversal (from Corsi and I believe 2 others) in the backdrop of of the GSE's now have fully paid the Government back of a fraudulent loan, and the considerations of impact of the DTA's , tax reform and the loss of the capital buffer as we close out the year ( this latter point seems to be more of a positive factor the closer we get to 2018 coupled with Congress inactivity)

Not sure I entirely agree. On Monday and early Tuesday( before Watt's statement and Hensarling's comments) the stock (FNMA) was up 31 cents to 3.28and volume was way up 228% over the 50 day average. After his comments the stocked dropped then rebounded to close the day wherein started and up 222% on average volume.Wednesday reality hit in and the stock was down 6.3% (20 cents) on strong volume (94% vs. 50 day average) suggesting a reaction by institutional players to Watt's comments and that there were no immediate plans for "relief" by the FHFA and that he was leaving the job to Congress and the Treasury. Thursday was a day on consolidation. Watt's comments pertaining to the timing of "relief" are now old news. The stock correspondingly was unchanged ,with average volume and very low volatility (10 cent) range. But Friday was a different day!Volume was again up (25% ).and the stock was up 12 cents (4%), with 75% of the final rise after 3 pm,on strong volume, which is unusual for a Friday before a weekend.The pattern of events strike me as unusual if strictly related to Watt's statements!

volume was up 25% on the day (50 day moving average) and 141% for the week with a weekly 10cent increase (FNMA). Interest is picking up again it seems as it did 3 weeks ago and buyers favoring sellers, but not by a lot overall. This seems even more favorable especially since the the questions on the sept 30th NWS are no longer an issue.

maybe. last 4 trading days have been up,3on volume greater than 40% 0f the 50 day average. Today over a 400% increase . I would say something is attracting the big players. Although "greed" always plays a role, would suggest something else is going on. Perhaps tomorrow with Watt? Who knows?