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.
I do agree, what I cant believe tho is that with only like 30% of documents released they apparently had to show some things Im sure they didnt want to.What else would be in the other documents not handed over?
However, as you already eluded to, does it even make a difference..if so how?
I mean how will "they" differentiate between People who bought pre or post NWS?Like can they make a judgement that some People get more or less depending on when they bought the stocks?
Thats what Im asking, because its been a long time, I am not even sure it can be determined who bought when.
thanks for your clarification/answer last time. In your opinion, does the breach of Law count for both commons and prefs or only prefs?(pre-NWS)
Also Im curious how they gonna enforce that, I also had to guess because I dont see it online anymore when I bought them, I only remember it was around 2009 or 2010.Or maybe Im wrong and Banks/Brokers can easily look it up, maybe its just me as a regular customer who cant see it online anymore.
So just to be clear, the date in Question pre/after is Aug 2012?Or is it Sept2008 or sth like that?
I ask because I certainly bought before 2012 but afaik looking at the charts after sept 08.
Perry Lawsuit- Followup? I havent followed the news lately to be honest, but can anybody tell me or link me as to what happened afterwards?Meaning will there be a higher decision from Supreme court or en banc hearing?or is it undecided yet or worse, already decided negatively?
I found an article, its a few days old.It is not necessarily regarding trump or Mnuchin, but it got me to think.
What exactely leads us to believe that mnuchin is "good" for us?
Wasnt Hank Paulson also ex-GS and he got us here in the first place?Or the big banks?So what makes People so sure that it will be better now?
Its a serious and curious question. I am myself long FNMA and FNMAS for a not small Amount.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176236/tomgram%3A_nomi_prins%2C_goldmanizing_donald_trump/
whats the status of fairholme lawsuit?Specifically I mean the part about paying the lawyers for the costs?I know this is a really really small part and not really relevant to the case itself, but I havent heard anything about it anymore and I thought the deadline was sometime in december.
has it again been delayed?
Looks like Florida will go to Trump!
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/florida
so would he be better or worse than HRC in GSE sense?nobody really knows for sure,right?(I didnt vote,Im non american)
In general for stocks it probably sucks Id assume like Brexit..if he wins overall I mean
hm okay maybe I worded it purely or wrong then.In my answer I meant
affirm=Lamberth decision was okay->supreme court last chance(maybe)
remand->back to lamberth, prolly with instructions
Reverse->well reverse NWS or amendment.
I guess my "affirming" would be as you put it a dismiss.
thats a possibility, but if I were a judge, I would like to have as much Information as possible before deciding(in general).
Also another option would be that they would already remand but with the Information they could even reverse...or affirm albeit unlikely.
I really hope he is right, I already got used to "highely unlikely" outcomes in this story.
also thanks to your description then.do you think it has merit?
thank you,appreciate your answer!I understand now the meaning, whereas Im not sure why he did it but whatever.like I think sweeney said so too why he didnt do it years earlier then and with her last ruling(for documents) I dont really get the timing at all.
Any idea or somewhere written how those judges panel is picked then,if not by the gov?
Im sure by now Im an annoying dude on the forum since I ask alot, but can you or someone explain wtf that writ of mandamus means and how likely it is to influence what?I read the english descirption on wiki and that simply is way over my head, whereas the german, my native language wiki entry has like 1 sentence that means absolutely nothing to me in the FNMA context.
No opinion/judgement again.Guess I was right that this wont even come out in october.I only wish I knew if the docs are gonna be released in time and be useful for perry or too late..or maybe simply not useful
can you or someone else in laymans terms explain what that either means or could mean?I have difficulty understanding "law english" like even things like motion to compel are kinda hard to grasp for me without looking it up via more than just a translation.
okay so what do you think would have been the best course of action?to not notify the appeals court at all so that they finish up quickly?
Because if those documents are helpful I would probably have done the same myself(as a lawyer).
so this would imply then, the judge and plaintiffs could see all documents all the time BUT not use them in any court unless they have been granted?
I would have expected it differently...kinda like judge only can see them and unless she grants motion tha plaintiffs wouldnt see anything.
basically they dont and didnt know what was inside those released docs until now.
But again I dont know and thats why I asked
does anyone know how those docs are picked?like is sweeney looking through all of them and then picks 50 of them(this time at least) or how does that process work, like how is it decided which ones will get picked.anyone knows?
except when you google his name and fannie mae it goes to an article called:
Hensarling on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's $180 Million Transfer to the Housing Trust Fund
quote:"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the epicenter of the 2008 financial crisis that threw millions of Americans out of work and destroyed trillions of dollars of household wealth. The nearly $200 billion bailout of Fannie and Freddie is still the biggest, costliest taxpayer-funded bailout in history, and contrary to what some claim, they have yet to 'repay' taxpayers one thin dime"
or did he change his mind from march 2016
Oh I forgot to write a thanks for the explanation you gave a few days ago.
Did you maybe read todays opinion?It has a dissenting opinion from Brown.
Its something about some workers from cable that went to a newsstation to protest(they had to pay fees to the company they worked for if the buyer didnt also take a telephone line).Later in the verdict it says it was a half truth because that only kicked in if less than 50% of their costumers also took a phoneline or sth.
Im curious if something could be read out of browns dissenting decision but unfortunately english isnt my mother language and its super exhausting for me to additonaly read through legal english.
But if someone feels like doing it, maybe it helps.
Thanks for clarifying in an earlier Post yank.I was not sure about your stance but usually found your posts informative and so I wanted to know your Position in the whole thing.
I will most likely also switch some % from common to prefs, given how cheap they are vs. parvalue and well, I think most big investors already switched aswell and I assume they have more information than i do..at least they certainly have better lawyers than I do.
he had this comment about his twitter in for weeks which I also never understood. so thats not new(totally won etc.)
so may I ask big-yank, since you seem kinda pessimistic or once here or there. you are a believer in the junior prefs(fnmas for simple example) but not a believer in commons?basially you are in it for long and a wind down?
or what exactely is your position in prefs/common and generally if i may ask
Why on earth is it falling so consistently the last weeks?I dont understand, these lawsuits shouldnt make any difference if thy are really based on lamberth and we are in appeal with perry(all-in) to remand.
I thought people who are in this wouldnt sell anymore at this Point, so Im seriously confused.
Also the volume yesterday and today is massive compared with the other days in the recent past.I really hope its not some big holders selling off.
can anyone tell me if this have been big selloffs?like 100k stacks or many many small ones?
and its written by millett, maybe fnmas is written then by brown?not that it probably makes any difference who writes it or does it.
I agree, also you cna just check yourself, there are some decisions that even took more than 12 Months. Im pretty certain that the appeals court will rule close before or after elections.
Personally I would expect a remand to lamberth...hopefully
but it does seem more likely than affirm and alot more likely than reverse.
I am seriously surprised that it dropped this much. Assumingly because of the decision last friday.
I dont know why People act on that lawsuit so strongly..I didnt even know it was out and dont really care about that at all.
Now, what would obviously be the worst, if its inside stuff and perry is fked and those ppl are selling off.
This is alot less likely tho imho, as I also wouldnt expect a decision this week, nor in september.
oh, and I also never really understood why you would short something if you can buy a put option aswell which runs for alot longer than a few weeks.
I know there are none for FNMA but in general.
For example, I would not short Tesla but maybe I will buy a put option for 18-24months(I do expect them to fall tbh).
I guess you can win more with shorts but also lose more or idk.
Maybe Im misinformed, but from what I saw I could use that put or call option for that matter any day within the running time and it also had no knockout.
It certainly has some risk,but I also would not expect a ruling anytime soon on such a case and with the additional questions/files.
Besides its not a given that they remand or reverse or only partly.
I never shorted anything in my life, and Im FNMA long, so Im not trying to protect them, I can just see why some People would do it.
Im sorry, I dont know. as I mentioned I only copied an answer I got in regards to the safety of prefs vs. commons since I am long common only.
I was always under the impression that either both win or both lose so I didnt get why many ppl have the prefs and thus I asked.
I explicitly asked this question somewhere else and a dude answered it very well imho.
Dont be so sure.I will copy his answer here.(Poor Dude on seekingalpha;
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4002690-100-percent-gses-zero-consideration-great-tax-collectors)
Secondly - In a wind down/liquidation (which seems to be the government's plan), junior preferred shares could easily be worthless. And in fact, the government is on record as stating that to be their intention. One of their goals, if not in fact their PRIMARY objective, is to ensure that existing equity holders (both common and preferred) get wiped out.
The government wants Fannie and Freddie to go away, with their work to be continued under some new legal structure or by some new entity (either the government itself or - more likely - a new corporation they'll then sell off to "new" private investors).
Is the likelihood of existing preferred shareholders being paid ANYTHING AT ALL diminishing over time? Absolutely. In a liquidation, shareholders get paid last. The shareholders only get what's left AFTER all creditors have been paid in full. And the government inserted itself into the capital structure as the "super senior" stockholder. So the order for payment in a liquidation will be as follows:
1 - Priority Claims (a small number of statutorily-protected "special interests", for lack of a better descriptor)
2 - Administrative Claims (the lawyers and advisory firms, mostly)
3 - Secured Bondholders/Creditors
4 - Unsecured Creditors
5 - US Government
6 - Junior Preferred Shareholders
7 - Common Shareholders,
and those claims will be paid (in order) with the proceeds available from liquidation of the corporation's assets. And that's why the "wind down" (asset stripping) actions of the government during the conservancy are so critical, although no one seems to be making an issue of it. When the companies were "rescued" (ha!), they held $1.6 TRILLION of wholly-owned mortgage assets - most of which were guaranteed by the government either explicitly or implicitly. But they've been required to sell those assets off, and they will all be gone when a "formal" liquidation is commenced. So that's $1.6 trillion that WOULD HAVE BEEN available to pay creditors and then shareholders, but will no longer be available because it has all disappeared during the conservancy. What concerns me is where the money went from the sale of those assets - it certainly hasn't been paid to the government and reported as a dividend payment. And I don't think it's sitting in their bank accounts as "cash", because it would then be considered a part of their capital (would it not?) and would be "swept" - meaning that it would have to be reported as a dividend payment to the government (and it hasn't been). So $1.6 trillion has disappeared, but only ~$250 billion got paid to Uncle Sam? There may be an accounting explanation which makes sense. But if there is, I haven't heard it. I guess they could have plowed the money back into financing new mortgages, and then securitized those mortgages - so it's still on their balance sheets as an asset but now with a corresponding offsetting liability? I find it kind of hard to believe that there have been that many new mortgages issued (in addition to whatever the "normal" annual amount would have been), but maybe it's possible (???).
Regardless, the government is in full control of the assets and balance sheet, and they can set the remaining assets to whatever level they want them to be on the date a liquidation is declared. And they've already stated their aim that whatever assets remain will not be sufficient to cover secured and unsecured creditors, AND the government's investment, with anything at all left over for existing shareholders (both preferred and common).
In fact, it's somewhat surprising to me that FnF bondholders and MBS holders seem to be so complacent over this situation. They seem confident that there is enough value in the companies for them to be paid in full no matter what happens, but that's placing a lot of faith in the government to act in a way which respects the payment priorities of the capital structure - when they've clearly demonstrated they have no such respect (not for the lower rungs, at least). There's nothing at all to stop the government from stripping the assets down to a level which is sufficient to pay only Priority and Administrative claims, if that's what they wish to do ...
How much would one junior preferred share of Fannie Mae stock be worth in a hypothetical liquidation that started tomorrow? Who knows? It would depend on how judiciously the assets were liquidated, and how many claims were submitted (and for how much) by all those higher up the pecking order for payment than junior preferred shareholders. And there's a WHOLE LOT of flexibility in both those things. A share might be worthless now, or it might have some small value. All I know is that it was worth a WHOLE LOT more back in Sep of 2008! And it is becoming worth less and less, with each passing day ...
thanks for the clarification
I appreciate it, because you maybe noticed, english isnt my mother language I live in Austria, I have really trouble understanding the lawsuits or statutes, thats a whole different ballgame of english than the one I use when speaking with someone normally.
yes I meant liquidation or actually the worst case possible, like what is the % of zero return, seems pretty damn high if most prefs dont even have 20% of their par value.
Anyway, I ask because first of all I got my FNMA commons via inheritance, meaning I personally would not have bought them(but that doesnt nec. make it a bad investment, just saying its not my "style")
And I also know that my father got fucked a few years ago with General Motors aswell, Im pretty sure he got nada or very close to it and then they come out again and now its nearls 32$ so yey...
I am a bit sceptical to put it mildly altho I personally also would believe that shareholders are absolutely in the right, especially if the argument holds no water that they would have gone bankrupt and had to be saved->shareholders should be busto.
Furthermore how could they really sell more stocks after that, then they should have halted any trading until a conclussion was made, at least in my opinion.
damn I didnt mean to start an argument. Thanks for explaination tho, I just have 1-2more questions.
You answered me that in liquidation case youd expect fnmas to be worth 16$.
How do you get this number or estimate?I ask because if that would be true, well then everyone could print money.just buy the prefs and 3-4x in whatever time it takes,even if its 5 or even 10years thats still a very good yearly return.
Is there no way that also prefs look through the fingers or get at least a good Amount less than youd pay for a pref. right now?like no way at all?no rebranding no whatever?
Thanks for the response,
btw Im long common FNMA myself, Im just debating myself which choice is better and for that I have to have knowledge about what would be the worst case scenario and most likely scenario for both either.
Obviously I am also hoping for better results but if pref. would be a safe bet since you at least get what you pay for right now,well then it would be obvious.But from what Im reading thats also not so certain, seems like they could also become worthless in some circumstances.
My Question is regarding the common/pref "debate".
Im sorry if this is answered somewhere already, if so please link me to it.
I see that many people hold pref or some switch to pref or well, switch from one to another and back.
I think its fair to say that a good Litigation benefits both common and preferred and I would also say its really hard to have a case in which prefs profit and common doesnt and other way around aswell unlikely.
So, I would assume the prefs give some sort of security in worst case scenarios.But can anyone say how much that would be?Is that amount decreasing with every passing day since afaik they wanna take everything until end of 2017 or 2018 or are those totally unrelated things?
SO,to be more specific with what I mean.Current FNMAS price is exactely 4USD.Now obv if NWS is invalid etc. etc. it will go up 25$ish or w/e.
But, what worth does it have if lamberth is affirmed/other cases lost or thrown out?anyway to calculate that?
I dont understand why People expect a Ruling already.I mean yes Im also waiting but seriously I expect a ruling in october if even so.I looked through some older cases and some took more than 9Months.we are currently at not even 5 Months.