Replies to post #783182 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[HappyAlways]

No wonder people suspect that you are Glen. Your tone and presentation are exactly the same. The same warrants and LP conversion threats are used. I told people in this board many times. When they announced the PSPA, it was somewhere mentioned that the free warrants are just-in-case arrangement to protect the government shall Fannie and Freddie bankrupt. (I suspect it is in the Q&A session. Sorry that I can’t find the link. But, people in this board did echo that he/she had saw the same information.) For the LP conversion, it is a complete nonsense. LP is for bankruptcy. And, FnF have paid $310B (upto 2020/2021) to UST so far for a total loan of $179B. In fact, the bailout are credit lines. I am sure whether there were actual cash involved. Can someone write to UST and see if they can confirm ?

I hold both jps and commons. At first, I own commons only. Then I bought jps to balance the risk per Glan’s advice. It is my own call, so I am not complaining. The fact shows that commons are picking up much faster than jps.

[kthomp19]

unless someone challenges the conservatorship itself

This would require someone filing a lawsuit who held shares before conservatorship started and has held them until now. Given that no such challenge has occurred (and no, neither the Kelly nor Washington Federal lawsuits actually challenge the conservatorship) I can't see one ever happening in the future.

I based my investment on the likelihood of warrant exercise. I don't think it's right given the return Treasury has reaped, but I'm prepared for that adverse outcome.

So you are completely discounting the possibility of a senior-to-common conversion? That is by far the biggest threat that the legacy common face.

The SPS LP increase for free I don't think is on the same legal footing IMO.

Do you expect that to ever be challenged in court, let alone successfully? I don't, on either count.

That's why this whole conversation about whether or not the letter agreements violating the implied covenant is just an exercise in semantics. You're never going to file your own lawsuit on that front, otherwise you would have done so rather than wondering about it aloud on here. And it doesn't seem likely anyone else will do so given that it has been 3 years since the most recent letter agreement.