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.
By the end of the day?!?! ...
(just kidding)
Dude, maybe you need to chill. I bought before the cship and have held since. I post occasionally and never bully/demean those with different view points. You should try taking the high road sometimes. The view is always better ... BTW, as much as you and others may not like it, it still remains to be seen what will happen to existing shareholders. There is NO clarity on that, yet. Until we see major moves with volume (check) AND price (pending), I'm going to keep the bubbly in the frig. cheers
Totally agree and crossing 10M shs was one of my two main thresholds that something real (volume) AND significant (price) is happening. My threshold for the corresponding price increase in ONE day is $1/share or more (determined by my totally proprietary, top secret, highly classified and time tested fuzzy logic algorithm). cheers
Appreciate your perspective and I'll pass it along to the market as well. cheers
So the pps climbed before Perry and then fell afterwards ... climbed again with Trump's election and fell again with the continued draws. I agree it was good to see the letter, and I was pleasantly shocked to see the jump after being tied up in board meetings all day, but I also remain totally guarded about the fate of current shareholders. The when and how the cship will end are far from certain. Today was fun, but until we get a favorable court ruling and/or real clarity on how current shareholders would be treated in a RRR, I just can't let myself get carried away. Just look at the chart to see what a roll coaster this has been - and is likely to continue. cheers
Cmdr, appreciate the memory jog (your 8/20 post). The others' comments make the current pps even more incredible. If FnF get recapped before the end of the year, without diluting common to fairy dust, I will be amazed and thrilled. Thanks again. cheers
Cmdr, you are clearly very informed about FnF, so I'm curious about how you feel regarding the disconnect between the pps and the statement made by Mr. Cosi about recap in 2017. Given the size and importance of FnF, its hard to imagine that a lone wolf such as Corsi has managed to scoop the world-wide investment community. Alternatively, do you think that other very sophisticated and well connected investors are as optimistic as Mr. Corsi, but those investors placed their bets long ago - or continue to discretely accumulate and don't want to tip off the rest of the market? Or do they agree that a recap is likely, but that the terms will be very unfavorable for whatever reason (and hence the low pps)? Anyway, the disconnect between the pps and Mr. Corsi is hard to ignore. Thanks for any insight. cheers
I hear you, but since he said motive didn't matter in the first trial, I don't see how the gov't lying will having any bearing on the remand issues. He might still rule in our favor this time, but I don't see how motive will influence such a ruling?
Cmdr, I agree that all the facts point to the biggest taking/theft ever. However, in the "heat of war", Paulson and his gang pulled off the most extraordinary series of events that now prevent the facts from getting their fair day in the media, much less the courts. So my point is that, for now, the gov't STILL holds essentially all of the cards. Its like the gov't framed FnF of murder and wrote a law that forbids the DNA evidence that would totally exonerate them. The only thing that REALLY astonishes me is how little the media has picked up on this, but that's probably because the courts have given the gov't all the cover they need to say "look, this is all legal". Until we get a meaningful court decision in our favor or stumble across a smoking bazooka in the discovery docs, I just don't know why the WH would settle - or settle in any way we would think is fair. BTW, I love the fact that Steele took on the DE case, but I don't see how the gov't lies would affect the original legal basis for the suit. I have 50,000 common reasons why I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks for all the work you do. Cheers
With all the recent acrimony over "realism", I thought I would review my own perspective one more time:
- With very few exceptions, it seems that anyone who knows anything about FnF (i.e., the Administration, Congress, Wall Street, MSM, etc.) continues to repeat/promote the belief that FnF NEEDED a massive bailout AND that they even CAUSED the 2008 collapse in the first place because of their FAILED business model. Overall, either folks don’t know about us or they are against us for various reasons.
- So far, every court decision has been a victory for the D’s except the remand to Lamberth which, if I understand correctly, offers nothing for common, and Sweeney’s discovery, which hasn’t gotten very far and has yet to produce to evidence strong enough to defeat the anti-injunction clause.
- The government effectively has unlimited money, resources and time. P’s are paying out of pocket and are getting older and poorer every day. These dynamics do not favor the P’s.
- If the NWS is not defeated, even in a RRR, shareholders face the possibility of the warrants being exercised, FnF having to repay the PSPA obligation (which would be the ultimate theft but all monies paid to Tsy so far have been dividends, NOT reductions of principal) and the dilution that will be needed to recap the companies – at levels that might be unnecessarily high.
- The company’s capital is being intentionally run down to zero. That may or may not force a resolution, but one thing is for sure – having zero capital will make it easier to make FnF look weak and in need of a replacement, not harder.
All the above points are based on facts and/or outcomes that are supported by existing documents that, again, so far have not been successfully challenged in court. The reality is that we are in a very deep hole and the market – which is watching this like a hawk to make a windfall – is saying the outcome is highly uncertain. I personally believe the function of FnF will continue, but the current shareholders may not, as frequently happens in Chapter 11 reorganizations and asset sales under Chapter 7 liquidations.
As far as I can tell, every counter argument to the above is based on hope – which also happens to be my own investment thesis as a legacy “hostage” investor who bought just before the cship. Cheers
Agree that sweep will occur ... and tax cuts, I mean reform, will be one more reason why. BTW, even with all the losses, I don't see any release until lawsuits are dealt with as their existence would really complicate RRR. Having said that, with all the court losses, it remains to be seen how much leverage they will provide. I guess it depends on the cost basis of the P's and what pps gets them a big enough payday. cheers
Yes, the frauds who absconded with taxpayer money should go to jail just like all of the crooks from the 2008 collapse, the FnF cship and sweep, Wells Fargo, etc. What? None of those folks went to jail? Oh well ... cheers
The pre and post cship evidence is on our side, however HERA, congress, wall street and, for the most part, MSM are not. It remains to be seen where the WH and courts ultimately stand.
BTW, Harvey is a horrible disaster and any loss of life is tragic. It also seems inconceivable that congress and the WH will pass up the opportunity to cash in the warrants as they could shell out as much as $100B or more in relief for Harvey. It will be at our expense but at least it will be for a good cause. I wonder how the IRS would react if I took a tax deduction for my prorated share of the warrant proceeds. cheers
he could have meant "yes, will strike this week" or "yes, the gov't has been stealing the profits way too long".
On a more substantive note, if the P's case depends on the Delaware statutes re dividends, why would the gov't lies have any bearing at all on the case? I really don't understand that. thanks and cheers
Cmdr, today sell volume almost 3X buy volume, the volume was 1.5X average volume and we dropped 5.3%. Thoughts? cheers
Its possible that the recent run-up was in anticipation of some favorable news regarding the Delaware case which, unfortunately, did not occur. So this maybe be profit taking and/or risk-off trading while we wait for the next shot on goal. Disappointing, but not an exodus.Anything truly meaningful will probably move this by dollars, not cents, and with volume in excess of 10MM/day. cheers
When I bought when the pps was down from $60's and the gov't just declared FnF adequately capitalized, so I was gambling on the economy and, eventually, housing, to recover. I thought that was a good bet and NEVER imagined my own government would blatantly steal not once but TWICE (cship + NWS). If you read my recent post, I'm not the self appointed pumper police, just trying to offer a balancing perspective for those who have not had the pleasure of being robbed in full view by their own government. cheers
Not sure how you define skin in the game, but I own 50K shs. that I bought jut days before the cship at ~$6/sh. Hope you are much better at investing than trying to divine what folks do or don't own :) cheers
PS Yes, I was one of the fools that believed the gov't when they announced, just before the cship, that FnF were adequately capitalized. I know, how could I be such an idiot to still be skeptical about a favorable outcome. I guess some folks never learn - but I supposed you already divined that as well.
LOL!! That was the FnF investing version of Eat This, Not That!! Yes, there are many defenders between us and the goal, but as you entertainingly point out, we have many shots on goal! As was said in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre "Caution? We don't need no stinkin caution!" cheers
Any chance of pretending to have just a smidgen of caution until we get the next court ruling (e.g., Delaware)? All of this unqualified optimism makes me think of the guy who was afraid of his own shadow who wrote about the dangers of hubris. cheers, shadow
Yes, we are down ytd, but the increasing volume + modest, positive pps change in AUGUST suggests someone is being very cautious - or stealthy - about getting in. And I am not one to say stuff like that, fwiw. cheers
There were a lot of things said back in 2008 that have become totally moot, like all of the statements about cship being temporary and restoring FnF to financial health as soon as possible. Also, many here justify their confidence in the outcome based on the large positions taken by very sophisticated hedge funds who are also the plaintiffs in key law suits - and they all expect the warrants to be exercised. I hate the warrants as much as anyone, but fully expect they will be exercised short of a miracle in the courts. cheers
So the warrants MIGHT be illegal and that will prevent the gov't from exercising them??? Really??? The sweep and the cship MIGHT be illegal also and look where we are. Both the gov't and the TBTF banks desperately want FnF's $$$$$$$ - and they both have demonstrated beyond ANY doubt that they will do WHATEVER it takes to get as much of that $$$$$$$ as possible. Even a court victory on the sweep leaves the (possibly) illegal warrants in place. Finally, be careful what you wish for ... the warrants may be the only reason existing shareholders get anything. Remember, we want this to be a recap and release, not repeal (receivership) and replace ... cheers
You are welcome. BTW, its not that I am trying to be preachy. I have made some MAJOR investment mistakes through my own hubris (i.e., I knew better than the market). Just hoping to help others avoid the same errors. cheers
My point is that hubris creates most of the true, non-natural disasters in life. That certainly applies to the 2008 financial crisis, putting FnF needlessly into cship, imposing unjustified and punitive cship terms, instituting the NWS, hiding 11,000 docs, etc. etc. etc. But it ALSO applies equally to those who paint the fate of FnF as exclusively positive or negative - and berate those who disagree. Since we are neither at $0 or $30, the market tells us that there is a chance this could go either way, with a decided bias towards the low end. As a 50K shs pre-cship long, and a US citizen, that is extremely discouraging to say the least, but the pps is an indisputable fact. So beware of those who claim this is a done deal either way, as for sure they are the epitome of hubris.
Joseph, are you assuming reversal of sweep and exercise of warrants? TIA cheers
HAL 9000: hello Commander, why have you come to see me?
Commander: well, there are rumors that the FnF net worth sweep is going to end before the end of this year and I wanted to see what you thought about that.
HAL: well, even though the sweep appears to be legal under HERA, HERA itself may be unconstitutional, more documents may be released increasing the chance of finding a smoking gun, the original "bailout" + 10% interest has essentially been repaid (if it was treated as a loan), the companies' capital is nearing zero, there are no reasonable replacements for FnF and two of the best financed plaintiff's recently said it should happen. So, yes, I think it will happen.
But, Commander, what do YOU think will happen?
Commander: Something wonderful.
HAL: I'm afraid. I'm afraid it won't happen.
Commander: Don't be. We're all in this together.
HAL: Will I dream?
Commander: I don't know - but it will definitely feel like one!
For true longs, of which I am one, the FnF saga has not only been a costly ordeal, but an emotional assault as well. We have watched our own government drain two of the largest and most profitable firms in the world without compensation to shareholders - and, so far, the courts have said its been legal. So it seems odd that those of us who express skepticism at favorable legal or administrative resolutions, particularly imminent ones, are accused of being shorts. Unfortunately, if you look at what has actually happened, the only thing that might truly be justified is skepticism - the same skepticism expressed by the market, as evidenced by the pps, and even Bruce Berkowitz who has repeatedly said this may likely have to go to SCOTUS. I remain highly skeptical about a favorable outcome any time soon - but also hopeful that some how, some day, shareholders will be compensated fairly. cheers
yam, I agree and have asked the same question many times before and have never received a counter argument (though I don't read every post so maybe I missed one). Given how the gov't has run circles around the plaintiffs with the language in HERA, I just can't see how this one paragraph is going to sink the gov't argument. The last sentence in the Delaware law even uses our favorite word again, "may" ... as in "... a dividend on the remaining class, classes or series of stock MAY then be paid out ..." I would love to be wrong but definitely not holding my breath. cheers
Rek, many thanks. A few thoughts:
- If the Eton Parks meeting, triggering cship without meeting the 12 requirements to do so and the proven "death spiral" lies (and possible perjury) alone are not greed and deception, then we clearly have different perspectives. Maybe the cship criteria are arguable, but the other two are not. Remember, I wasn't arguing a legal point, I was addressing motivation for why the gov't will exercise the warrants. Given their track record, I would guess they will exercise the warrants first and then see who comes after them.
- Re warrants, TIA for the work you did in your prior posts and I will check them out. One question, though - given the enormous impact of the warrants if the NWS is voided/reversed, have any other scholars/analyst/attorneys weighted in on your observations?
- I am painfully aware that my pre-cship ownership is irrelevant to the warrants, but courts do look at coercion, so IF any plaintiff gets that far (a big IF), then who knows. As an example, weren't the AIG terms deemed unnecessarily punitive (even though it was an empty victory (but still under appeal))?
Thanks again for the enormous input you share with the board. cheers
Rek, given the absolute and unrelenting greed and deception of the gov't so far, why in the world would they NOT exercise the warrants? With the exception of one (or two?) plaintiffs, it seems that the rest are willing to accept the original deal, warrants included. FWIW, as a pre-cship owner, I feel like the warrants are grossly excessive/punitive given that fnf were not in any distress and actually used to help save the TBTF banks. So what say ye? cheers
yes, though I would hope that would be challenged because of Paulson's Eton Parks disclosure. No one could deny that cratered the pps (except for the govt, of course ...)
bull, takings claim, if there is one, would be when they were put into cship, not after (as you point out because of HERA (though the constitutionality of HERA is still a question)). So courts would have to decide if fnf had a positive net worth at time of taking. Remember the gov't can take property for their purposes, but there is also supposed to be "just compensation". Bottom line ... without a court win soon, we will have very little if any leverage in a RRR scenario which, folks forget, could totally take place without any existing shareholders. I'm hopeful this will turn out different but I am not drinking any Koolaid either. cheers
I don't think they will stop without a court order - which is very unlikely for the reasons you note. It may ultimately be that fnf could be used anyway the gov't wants, for any reason, then the question is do we have a takings claim - and if we do, what would be the value? I think we would have a takings claim, but the govt would replay the AIG argument and say our shares are worthless, or nearly so, UNLESS we can demonstrate that the original placement in cship was a scam. Since so many support or accept that fnf NEEDED the "bailout" - even those who are pro fnf - we could still be screwed. Yes, that is the worst case scenario and I hope to god that doesn't happen as otherwise the gov't would have literally stolen two of the largest and most profitable companies in the world in broad day light. All because of "may" instead of "shall". Holy sheet.
cmdr, always appreciate you sharing with us your exchanges with Steele. cheers
LOL ... and it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Yogi Berra :)
If buying my 50K shares days before the cship and reading every thing I can on why my shares mysteriously became nearly worthless is showing up at half time, then god bless you old timers who must have bought on the 8th day of creation (LOL)
So far, every court has ruled that FHFA has acted within its powers, which apparently includes stripping the GSE's of their assets for the protection of the taxpayers. One exception is the remand to Lamberth for POSSIBLE contract breach. Those who attack and/or dismiss my posts confuse my efforts to be objective with bashing - yet the market confirms my skepticism with nary a change in the pps (traders might get off on a few pennies up and down but to me, that is noise).
I'm still hopeful that a REALLY damaging piece of evidence shows up that actually moves the market, but until then I guess I'll have to be satisfied with just being Halftime Harry watching from the sidelines, singing ...
10,000 secret docs hidden from view ... 10,000 secret docs
Take one out and pass it around ... 9,999 secret docs hidden from view
cheers
cmdr, this could easily be read as someone who was very worried about additional tax payer losses and wanted to wind down the GSEs to avoid any such additional losses. I own 50k pre-cship shares, and want my f'ing $ back as much as anyone else, but I don't see anything scandalous in that excerpt. Yes, it was very cleverly written to obscure the real reason for destroying the GSEs, just like using "may" instead of "shall", but makes DeMarco's motive sound like its protecting tax payers, not helping TBTF banks get rich. Sorry. cheers
cmdr, multiple courts have ruled in favor of the sweep - and it is a contract between FHFA and UST. How in the world could Mel be fired for cause by following the terms of a contract repeated validated by the courts? cheers
I realize it may be almost impossible for the original terms of the cship to be successfully challenged, but I still think we should avoid anything that makes it look like fnf ever really needed the $187B in bogus "bailout" funds. Even the NYT and Rolling Stones articles perpetuate that false narrative, so no wonder no one in congress could give a sheet about the truth. cheers