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, i'm a bit confused (normal state of mind for me ;) ... the severability issues seems more about the invalidation of the nws rather than the remedy ... today's decision that unanimous verdicts only apply prospectively would seem like the equivalent of the nws being invalidated with a prospective remedy (only) ... i wonder ... is scotus terrified of setting precedent for massive settlements in backward looking reparation claims?
profit taking legal? ... because of the anti-injunction clause? ... or some other principle?
agreed ... and then we can hope the sparkler is the fuse for the nuclear explosion ... provided its not a 7 year long sparkler like skeptic believes!
so we drop 8 cents on 2x avg vol ... on a day when the dow is down almost 500 points ... and suddenly we're supposed to think the entire value proposition of two of the most profitable companies in the world has vanished - just weeks away from a likely major step towards recap and release ... well I've been through way, WAY worse over the past 12+ years, so I sure as hell am not going anywhere now
me thinks you are correct ... but ye ol nay sayers need their fun!
i'm a "zero or hero" holder (since just before cship in 2008), so will follow this to the end ... not sure what my financial ROI will be, but the insight into how corrupt the rich, the government and the courts can be that I am passing on to my kids is priceless ...
I think that's right ... but am feeling that it will be very anti-climatic
... because ... we'll then have to see what the remedy is, followed by resolution of the warrants, cap requirement, director and, ultimately, the cship it self ... don't necessarily agree with skeptic, but going past 5 seems like a stretch until more dominoes fall after scotus ... glta
just because 43 put us into cship doesn't mean you should be disrespectful
so true ... and to think they also put fnf into cship ... what next? ... take money from cash bloated, non-tax paying corporation billionaires and use it to help citizens in need, rebuild infrastructure and save the lousy environment?
looks like zero interest rates might just get us back to the precipice:
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
no, not scotus, they obviously haven't ruled yet ... my still hopeful but highly skeptical outlook has been honed over nearly 13 years of stunning disbelief in our rule of law system ... even if the nws is fully voided and the director can be fired we still lose overall because of the 10% non-repayable "draws", the warrants, excessive cap requirement and 13 years of incredible opportunity costs ... imo we need a win that allows direct claims so that we can challenge the cship itself ... but that is the least likely of everything i hope for, cheers
RPS, not sure what you are referring to as simply not true ... I said there is a possibility for dilution to oblivion ... and that the track record of the courts, media and congress have been solidly against us ... what's untrue about either of those?
rps ... the problem is that a quagmire for jp still leaves the possibility that common get diluted to oblivion from outstanding warrants, recap via SPO instead of RE and excessive cap requirements ... i know many think none of that will happen ... but given the stunning cowardice of most of the judges so far ... the equally stunning complicity of basically all media outlets ... and greed of BOTH parties to rob us blind ... well, let's just say there is still plenty of ways common can be screwed ... hence, here we sit just a tad above 2 bucks) ... cheers and glta
well, as forrest gump (sort of) ...
if nws retro voided, sps cancelled and direct claims allowed - $10-$15
if nws prospect voided, sps cancelled and no direct claims - $5
having said that, my model says biggest drives of ps (largest first) are:
- recap via RE
- toss up: warrants and lower cap requirements
I'm with you ... though I haven't read any articles explaining why the warrant could be challenged legally without calling the whole cship into question ... and, more importantly from a dilution/pps standpoint, will be the ability to recap via RE instead of serial secondary's ... and that will probably require a new director ... lots of dominos on the table heading in many directions ... now we just need to see how many are close enough to trigger a genuinely positive outcome ...
I'm good with the book value approach ... if we can recap via RE and warrants get cancelled or even bought back for something reasonable, then we are looking at pps that heads towards Patwill's land!! ... unfortunately, after nearly 13 years of the courts mostly ignoring the epic theft, I'm keeping my expectations very, very low ... having said that, to me the at-will issue is the weakest, the APA/ultra vires should be a slam dunk ... and similar claims should be exempt from the anti-injunction clause to at least have their day in court ... and, most importantly, we should be living in the United States ... we'll see ...
I have a simple model that looks at 4 main scenarios ... and under most assumptions, the pps doesn't get much above $15 unless the warrants are cancelled AND only retained earnings are used to recap ... I only have a guest membership here ... any way for me to share the model for folks to comment/critique? ... thanks
dow and nasdaq off sharply ... 1/2 through the day and volume is approx. 1/2 average volume ... so its either overall market weakness ... or ... there is a scotus leak ... Occam's Razor says pick door #1
From TH on his blog ... do these imply he has back off his quagmire trade reference?
4/9; 3:47
cat, interesting points ... and the development of the CSP could synchronize their operations ... and it seems a merger would also be consistent with a utility model ... still, waiting for all the legal/claims issues to be resolved while working to introduce a new business model seems like a lot to handle at the same time ... but maybe not
blue, for goodness sake ... don't hold back ... ;)
don't jps need dividends to restart to regain value? ... if yes, then don't we need recap to occur first? ... if yes, then jps don't care if common get diluted to oblivion by near-term low-priced IPO, warrant exercise, same sky high cap requirement and, maybe, conversion to common AFTER the dilution ... if that is all basically correct, then jps and common are NOT aligned at all ... and I don't want TP, BB, TH or any other jps peep representing my common shares
we're all good ... I just spoke with Dave Bowman ... he said something wonderful is going to happen ...
yes, maybe a dilution factor of 34 IF all capital raised externally at 4, but far less if at higher pps and/or retained earnings used ... correct?
folks, still can't figure this out ... which ruling(s) in favor of the plaintiff would automatically allow direct claims? ... many tia
major ditto!
So is this the right construct for the JP crowd? ... they need dividends to be turned on again to restore JP value ... so they only need nws voided PROSPECTIVELY (they just need it to stop to start recap) ... then push for a RAPID recap via massive common dilution, instead of retained earnings, that would then allow dividends to start sooner than later ... and they don't care if warrants are exercised ... if that is basically correct, then Tim P (and maybe even Tim H) might not give a damn about commons ... is that a fair characterization?
yes, that makes sense to me ... but I've learned that the law can be unpredictably arcane and that's why i worry the court could weave a loss for us on the acting director angle ... but I am hoping the nws get retro invalidated on one of the other arguments
I won't be surprised if we lose the "for cause"/constitutional issue on the technicality that that the nws was signed by an acting director who could be terminated for any reason (at least that is my understanding of what I've read) ... re succession and anti-injunction, they both seem to hinge on whether or not the court believes shareholders should have to rely on FHFA suing itself when there is a clear conflict of interest ... I think we should win one or both of these as otherwise there would be NO checks and balances on a conservator run amok ... I think I could see how a win on the succession issue might allow other direct claims but not sure how that would work with the anti-injunction ... btw, many thanks for all of the great research you share
I won't be surprised if we lose the "for cause"/constitutional issue on the technicality that that the nws was signed by an acting director who could be terminated for any reason (at least that is my understanding of what I've read) ... re succession and anti-injunction, they both seem to hinge on whether or not the court believes shareholders should have to rely on FHFA suing itself when there is a clear conflict of interest ... I think we should win one or both of these as otherwise there would be NO checks and balances on a conservator run amok ... I think I could see how a win on the succession issue might allow other direct claims but not sure how that would work with the anti-injunction ... btw, many thanks for all of the great research you share
yeah, if the director is NOT removeable at will ... and no direct claims allowed ... then even if the nws is cancelled retroactively, we might not get much above 5 ... i do "expect" the nws will be fully cancelled ... the real wild card for me is direct claims ... that could open/re-open a slew of potentially very strong claims ... but definitely NOT expecting that!
I think there is a lot more room for a mixed outcome than you allow ... that mix may not get us to 20 or more ... but it definitely could get us to 5 or 10 ... and that is a hell of a lot better than where we are now by any objective standard ... but yes, most probability curves how two tails ... and we know which one is between you legs (... jk ... really ... just having a bit of fun ... cheers)
yes, totally agree that anything is possible ... I guess after owning 50K common shs. pre-cship (and adding 50K more a while back) and watching the courts turn their backs on us over and over again ... and only a 5-4 en banc majority ... well, let's just say that my investment strategy has been reduced to hope ... which is no better than what is sold by the cosmetic and nutritional supplements industries ... lol ps thanks for your posts - they are helpful on those days when 12+ years of anger, disbelief and frustration weigh on me ...
problem is courts have been doing weird shxt all along ... they could say, oh, the loan was paid back in full BUT the warrants were the kicker for taking the risk ... and the consideration of $0.0000000000000 (you get the idea) was appropriate for insolvent companies ... of course that bs ... but so was the "shall" vs "may" argument ... the board "approval" ... the total write-down of the DTA ... the anti-injunction "no-one-can-sue-us-even-though-we-broke-the-law" ... etc., etc., etc. ... until direct claim are allowed, the utter bs underlying the cship itself, and warrants, will remain LEGALLY walled-off ... even though the theft occurred in broad daylight ... I'm hoping scotus throws us a bone and I can get out at $10 ... but am prepared to be very disappointed by some fancy bs legalese rationale as to why the nws is valid, no direct claims are allowed and our wonderful director that so many think is here to help us can keep his job ... I may not be skeptic7 ... but I'm at least skeptic2.5 ... lol
Agreed! ... in the next 4 months we should know if this is the bell lap and who will win the race ... or if its a relay race and SCOTUS hands over the baton to the final runner (which could ALMOST like a win if there is a big lead for P's after the hand-off) ... Go Team Constitution!
well, that provided some unexpected, and useful, insight ...
yeah, the False Alarm Express!!
yeah ... GB just wanted 10% non-repayable draws, write down of all DTA, all shareholder rights ... and, oh ... let not forget the warrants for 80% of both companies ... but shame on BO for taking the remaining 20% ... LOL
totally agree ... that's what i said also ... the gse were NOT responsible ... fwiw ... i could even understand the gov't USING them as a conduit to mitigate the crisis ... but they should have been compensated ... not scapegoated and raped ... absolute power corrupts absolutely ... and that's exactly what the anti-injunction clause allowed ...
yes, me too (to put it mildly) ... not confident scotus will allow direct claims (which would mean once you have crooked, self dealing conservator, your fk'ed), but if they do, I would hope just the threat of Wash Fed lawsuit proceeding would add significant leverage to settlement talks ... and I think the pps would reflect that pretty quickly ... thanks again for clarifying the direct claims issue