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.
Skeptic - agreed - JPS FNMAS is down relative to Commons FNMA at 52% at ~90 days since the cap rule and new admin.
JPS is getting crushed because everyone realizes it is a “quagmire,” and is going no where.
Glad you agree! Keep up the good work!
April FOOLs!
Donot - MarketWatch is very imprecise. I'm using what Luvan put out there ... much more precise. I think 87 days is about the time of the cap rule announcement ... as good a time as any. 90 days is 40+% anyways ...
Sorry you went out of your way using the MarketWatch imprecise tool
Patience, you'll have to make a decision at some point. No better time to make your decision than SCOTUS. If SCOTUS does nothing outside of uphold the 5th circuit, there will be another time in the future that will be the "+1".
My recommendation is pick a date and stick to it. If SCOTUS doesn't go how you anticipate. Sell and move on ... need the self-discipline ... of course, now that Biden is in play, he may write down the LP without SCOTUS, but I think Biden wants this put to bed by SCOTUS across the board, not just removing Calabria.
Even Hindes said Biden wasn't for the nationalization of the companies.
Donot - false
Past 87 days it is 43% FNMAS fell relqtive to FNMA at 0% change.
Put in 87 days which is close to election time when Trump lost. Probably when Berkowitz started looking to sell.
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FNMA,FNMAS
FNMA vs FNMAS for past 87 days is about 43% loss of value for JPS FNMAS vs Common FNMA.
Will FNMAS fall to 5$ per share as the quagmire sinks in and JPS bagholders aren’t buying the themes to stay in their ridiculous positions, where Tim Howard, the CFO of Fannie who issued the JPS FNMAS that all JPS are invested in, called the JPS investment a “quagmire.”
Put in 87 days which is close to election time when Trump lost. Probably when Berkowitz started looking to sell.
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FNMA,FNMAS
JPS want direct claims because the funds suing want damages direct damages. If I’m hearing the JPS folks, they also believe there will be no retrospective relief.
Direct claims have been squashed everywhere. I think direct claims will get crushed again before Scotus. Derivative claims will be allowed to continue.
Winning the APA claims provides retrospective relief. Winning the separation of powers sends Calabria home.
See page 117 (of the brief not pdf) of the Prayer for Relief section. APA gives us the write down of the LP.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/150470/20200817202932035_Collins%20J.A_.pdf
JPS continue to drift lower ... JPS need direct claims for their paymasters and don’t want retrospective relief because it has commons outperform considerably ...
Shadow ...
Navy & JPS, over the past 85 days its closer to 42% where JPS has lost relative to Commons.
JPS, don't be fooled by the long diatribes of JPS supporters. They are not writing to dissuade prospective Common shareholders from buying FNMA, they are writing to keep you JPS bagholders in your position while they continue to unload JPS across FNMAS, FNMAT, FNMFO, etc etc etc.
Hate to see you JPS folks miss out ...
Good luck!
FOF - I understand, but it is very hard to trust over social media. Pags, Hindes, Bradford, pumping JPS, as well as a myriad of "boutique" funds ranking commons at 0$s per share.
I've never seen such a concerted effort, loosely coordinated, to undercut an asset.
FOF, has Pags commented on Ackman's Commons estimate? Anything on that front? A peep from Investors Unite? Anyhting? Buehler? Last I checked Common shareholders are part of Investors Unite ... I've only heard Pags talk about JPS over the past year, and specifically after the "Big Dud" ... hmmm
Now JPS continue to fall even more. Looks like 5$ for FNMAS is on the horizon ...
Every opinion day the odds go up ...
JPS should Sell - FNMAS, FNMAT ... preemptive and buy FNMA Commons
Figured I get it out there before the EOD messaging ..
JPS, you have a finite amount of time to rebalance your portfolio. Over the past 85 days, JPS has lost approximately 50% value compared to FNMA commons.
Tim Howard, the CFO of Fannie who issued the JPS shares you are invested in said your shares are a, and I quote, "quagmire."
Bradford has reported HoldenWalker has sold basically all of his JPS.
Bradford has reported Berkowitz has recently sold as of the beginning of Fairholme's FY 2021.
Please be aware that the long postings that basically only JPS holders read are exactly for that... JPS eyes. They wan't you to stay in your quagmire trade so they are not the last bagholders. Be careful!
These items are screaming "quagmire." I'd hate to see you guys miss the boat!
Boston - put in 85 days into the link below for FNMA and FNMAS ~50% depreciation of FNMAS to FNMA over the past 85 days. Not good for JPS, aka quagmire ... 85 days is approximately election day ... hmmm
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FNMA,FNMAS
LuLeVan - JPS has lost close to 50% relative to Commons - put in 100 day comparison point - you really need to stop overestimating the homefront and underestimating the public ...
You need to anticipate better ...
Felt more Kaoboy but who knows ... shenanigans day after day - now they’re working hard to stop the leaking ...
Nice to see the JPS “quagmire” still holds Carney’s and Kao’s attention. JPS has lost approximately 50% value since the letter agreement was published.
Lu, thoughts on Bradford’s report that Berkowitz has sold JPS? How about thoughts on Bradford’s report that HoldenWalker has sold almost all of his JPS?
Ebbs and Flows depending on time period - so 40% ... fact remains substantial depreciation compared to Commons. But you know better ... the most stubborn fall hardest ... I always find it interesting about the mindset of the only top achiever from a family ... typically overestimate themselves while underestimating others ... still time to rebalance the quagmire trade to FNMA commons ...
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FNMA,FNMAN
Good luck!
Rob - the same old stuff repeated. Honestly, I think it is more meant to keep floundering JPS folks in their investment instead of scaring Commons.
A lot of JPS have pulled the trigger on selling their Tim Howard "quagmire" shares (Tim Howard was the CFO of Fannie when they issued the JPS shares all JPS are now invested in and has called them a "quagmire" for good reason). Evidenced by the depreciation of JPS relative to Commons by 50%.
If more "skiddish" JPS sell, it makes it harder for JPS bagholders like Carney and Kao to exit their trades. Sad, really, when they are rooting against the very companies they are invested in from winning before Scotus.
Ho hum ... we will get all the information we need soon.
LuLeVan - why would Tim Howard call JPS shares a "quagmire?" Why has JPS shares lost 50% value compared to Common shares?
Much simpler ... as no one reads long diatribes ...
LuleVan - JPS shares are a quagmire. Tim Howard, the very same person who issued the shares you own, called the JPS shares a quagmire.
The Liquidation Preference is on the table to be 0'd out. If that happens game, set, match, Commons win forever. Period. QED. Full Stop.
Why go to such twisted logic and scenarios? This isn't that complicated at this point. The Biden administration seems open to writing off the LP even if SCOTUS doesn't.
Hasn't Berkowitz sold? According to Braford, he has ...
Hasn't HoldenWalker sold? According to Bradford, he has ...
Seems a bit desperate. Wouldn't you balance your GSE portfolio to add commons even from your perspective if there is a chance the NWS is voided and LP goes to 0? Or the whole conservatorship goes down the tubes?
Why did JPS lose 50% value relative to commons shares? Could it be Tim Howard is correct? A quagmire?
Luvan - when will the money be raised? If Scotus doesn’t raise “some” money, then what about the CFC? How does the takings settle? If LP is written to 0 by Scotus, how does the CFC settle without Treasury providing substantial funding based on how the GSEs would be better capitalized if the NWS never happened?
Shareholders, if Scotus doesn’t give all the money back from 2012 going forward, will have 2 bights at the apple.
This whole TINA thought process is completely myopic - need to see the forest beyond the trees ...
Chess - u take him too seriously ... i find one liners work best - he wants you to engage to continue the negative messaging so he can help get folks out of their JPS quagmire trade ...
Jcro - why so sensitive as to when the ruling happens? Have a cocktail, relax, and enjoy ... unless ...
Guido, I like ROLG’s ideas, I’m not a big fan of his “certainty.” As the SCOTUSBlog responded (notice bold)
Response I got from Scotus blog
So do folks think SCOTUS has already voted on all outstanding issues, including Remedy?
Rob, agreed
Golf - correct - my mostake
Guido, thanks!
Amelia, I think JPS is in a quagmire relative to commons once Scotus rules ...
Will be close to a 1:1 ratio on 25$ par and with each passing month the ratio will increasingly favor Commons.
Adjust your JPS portfolio accordingly...
Good Luck!
Rob / Guido -
Here is another item. Most likely SCOTUS has already voted on Collins and has already assigned a justice to write the majority opinion based on the typical SCOTUS timelines I’ve read. Now they need time to write the opinion along with all the other cases that need to be managed.
Isn’t this DOJ letter a dollar short and a day late if it wasn’t solicited by SCOTUS? Seems to me it could be the letter is to accurately represent the facts of the opinion (Jan 14th LA), in other words, was the DOJ letter solicited by SCOTUS to accurately state the most current record for the opinion? Not for the DOJ to send a letter after SCOTUS has probably already voted.
The DOJ letter seems to be too late for it to be unsolicited but who knows. It was March 18th, more than 3 months after oral arguments. SCOTUS has already made up their mind ... but again ... who knows ... maybe they haven’t...
How would the DOJ catch wind of an undecided SCOTUS? Could a DOJ letter really update a SCOTUS decision this late in the game? Was the letter written as just an easy attempt to sway the court if there was a small chance of success? The proverbial “why not” and “can’t hurt” angle ...?
This is why I think it was solicited in some way by SCOTUS ...
I’ll let you know - Not asking for anything specific to the cases, just want to know if she has seen an unsolicited correspondence with SCOTUS in another case long after oral arguments completed.
Here is another item. Most likely SCOTUS has already voted on Collins and has already assigned a justice to write the majority opinion. Now they need time to write the opinion along with all the other cases that need to be managed.
Isn’t this DOJ letter a dollar short and a day late? Seems to me it could be the letter is to accurately represent the facts of the opinion (Jan 14th LA), in other words, was the DOJ letter solicited by SCOTUS to accurately state the most current record for the opinion? Not for the DOJ to send a letter after SCOTUS has probably already voted.
The DOJ letter seems to be too late for it to be unsolicited but who knows. It was March 18th, more than 3 months after oral arguments. SCOTUS has already made up their mind ... but again ... who knows ... maybe they haven’t...
Sent an email to Amy Howe drawing attention to the situation and getting her perspective... will await her response ...
In fairness to Gabby, she laid out scenarios and was getting the same erroneous info that Pags and Hindes were getting. In the vision interview, she went into depth as to how the Commons could outperform JPS. We are now definitely closer to that path than the JPS hopium path with the Big Bang.
The only thing I fault ACG on is the timeline being a little too confident without fully understanding the ramifications of a Trump loss. They had egg on their face with the timeline.
Guido, certainly logical to think within the Treasury letter it would say something to the effect of “in response to your inquiry on [date], please see Treasury’s response below ...,” if Scotus prompted the letter.
Still, it took until March 18th to generate such a basic letter? I suppose it could take two months to get Biden’s approval as two months is two shakes of a lamb’s tail in swamp time.
I’ll correct Tim Howard on one item. He says subtle ... there is nothing subtle about that letter. It just reinforces how outrages Mnuchin’s Jan 14th LA was and how it does not moot the case. I reposted my posts speculating on the intent of Jan 14th LA the day the Treasury letter was released. Biden’s Treasury basically just affirmed it.
Were there back channels between Scotus and the Executive? Calabria also needs to go so Biden can move on his affordable housing mandate ... also giving Scotus an easy way to void this ...
Truly fascinating ...
Fire ... the CFC can be used for that if desired ... need to ask for somethings g reasonable from Scotus to ncease chances of favorable verdict ...
There goes Bradford making himself look naive yet again.
Liquidation Pref being 0’d out is the only main item. JPS are afraid of that outcome ...
Bradford should stick to notifying us all and be a clerk ... let those who are better at understanding the bigger picture - legal, political and financial - put the intricate pieces together.
Bradford is putting forth the unified JPS messaging so everyone doesn’t dump JPS for commons. If SCOTUS writes the LP down to 0, Commons win forever ...
Guido, as good a speculation as any ... I don’t know if the court has a question they need to file the question and response, or just the response ... could publishing the questions be telegraphing an opinion ... ? If someone can find another case where Justice questions were asked after oral argument and filed in the scotus web system, then ok ...
The underlying commonality across these lines of speculation is it goes to remedy and a favorable outcome for Common investors ... can’t say the same for JPS - still a quagmire ...
And/And/And ... the DOJ is just acting in an honest fashion calling the 4th amendment exactly what it is - moving NWS to an LP increase and then reinstating 10%.
I care more about the Scotus reason as to why they asked. Correlating the oral argument question with this Treasury letter, I think the more liberal justices are trying to understand if they want to join in on retrospective remedy with more conservative justices ... Or all Justices wanted to better understand the 4th amendment ... either way it’s a good sign IMO as it points to retrospective relief ... that’s my tea leaves reading ...
Rob, the letter may have been prompted by some Scotus members to get further info on the 4th amendment to see if it addresses their concerns in line with the 5th circuit.
To me I think the more liberal justices asked for the confirmation from Treasury to determine if they want to join the majority on the remedy issue or not.
I’m not sure Thompson cares if the Treasury letter was prompted by some Scotus members to better understand the Jan letter agreement was sufficient for remedy in line with the 5th Circuits view on prospectIve remedy. 5th circuit said ending the future quarterly cash sweeps (NWS) was enough.
I think Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barret didn’t need the clarification. I believe Kavanaugh and Alito get it.
I think maybe Roberts, Sotomayor, Breyer, etc., may have wanted clarification from Treasury to see the Treasury’s view if the LA/4th amendment and the technical ending of the NWS (but not the LP quarterly increase & 10% dividend) was enough to moot the case and enough of a remedy for FnF. Treasury essentially said no, Scotus Justices who wanted clarification, you need to rule fully on the retrospective relief.