Replies to post #603986 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Brooge warrants cancelled]

but she did NOT mention this on friday

[bcde]

"Neither. They are a private research firm, but they have had actual meetings with FHFA and Treasury. They are very plugged-in and their words should carry a lot of weight. They are getting their info straight from the horses' mouths."

In the last 12 years, how many of the pro JPS holders' predictions have come true?

In the last 12 years, how many of the doom and gloom predictions of FnF haters have come true?

Most probably there will be no change in Commons capital structure. Gov does not want to scare way companies from taking Gov money in this crisis. At this time Gov needs to prove that it is not going to treat other companies like mafia conservatorship.

[amelia43]

Hold on! I didn’t say that commons would go to 30 cents. I was just repeating what JosephS said in his post.

Besides I am being a smart ass asking what is/who is ACG. I can read and google. Just want to remind folks that in the past 7 years we have heard so many groups on so many opinions that in the end nothing happened. So to somehow treat ACG like they are the authority that can deliver release, relist, blah blah is a bit unrealistic.

[YanksGhost]

My research on ACG Analytics reveals a far different view than yours and your allegations of their inside track with Treasury and FHFA. ACG's primary business is selling policy impact opinions to fund managers for investment purposes. They attend an extensive conference schedule reaching well beyond the Beltway, comb the Congressional record and agency data to provide an informed, broad-based view of coming governmental actions.

I do not believe Gaby or anyone else at ACG has ever had a one-on-one insider's conversation with Treasury or FHFA, other that an open mike Q&A at some industry rubber chicken luncheon symposium. Their "inside information" seems to be what their fund client base may glean from political connectivity.

I'm not saying ACG is a bad house or their conclusions are lightly considered. Based on their size they connect a LOT of dots from a LOT of data points and seem a well disciplined group with sound insight. But to say they have some "inside track" from the horese's mouth is naive, IMO.