Mulvaney and other proposals would have the same negative affect on both common and preferred shareholders. Several other recent proposals involve steering all the equity into what, for all practical intents and purposes, might best be described as an entitlement program for minority and low income families. Talking all these programs up on a regular and continuing basis only helps create an environment where media and social-engineering focused non-profits may latch onto one as the ticket to their agendas that do NOT include anything for stockholders.
I CRINGE every time one of these gets featured in some article or post here, that someone precisely like a Gretchen Morgenson will seize on the concept and burn it into the brains of The Beltway in some op-ed piece or magazine feature as some ticket to re-election. That would absolutely, positively put an end to any shareholder's dreams and rationale for investing in any part of either GSE.
The only intent shown in the Black Stone proposal is their own. Since the concept was never implemented (or even seriously entertained, as far as I know), it is irrelevant to any actions taken by government. Why pro-plaintiff guys like Bradford or even obi keep legitimizing it by continued reference makes me wonder what their true intent is for Fannie Mae. Is it to assist shareholders in recovering value, or is it for other reasons like notoriety or approval from FnF investors who are so desperate for a positive outcome that may seem to be slipping away that "anything" sounds better than no-news/dead-money? I don't claim to know the answer, I can only observe huge reaction to this week's bogus rumors and the paroxysms of reaction running the gamut from excitement to questions of validity to expressions of anger to laments of having been misled and disappointed when the whole enchilada was exposed as a hoax.
Why would anyone thrust the Black Stone/Skadden presentation to the forefront and talk it up when the expressed outcomes are so negative for all shareholders? Why?
JMHO.
