Because now that FnF are profitable and have net asset value, the government can't simply shut them down without addressing our shares. It could have before, but it's too late now. And if by chance they pulled rank with their seniors - but really, why would they? it is beyond reasonable that our government would cancel shareholder claims of a healthy company, of which poses no risk to our financial system - don't you think their usurious preferreds would be laughed out of court?
That said, I agree with others that the sweep amendment was the best thing that could have happened to FnF. Since I believe the Treasury just wants their money back - and why not? isn't this consistent with how they exited other companies they recapitalized? - this full sweep gives FnF sufficient time to repay their debt before they're small enough to not keep up.
Also, unlike Joe I think it's unreasonable to assume whatever changes are recommended Monday will mean a hill of beans. For one, nothing is going to be instituted immediately because, what's working now is working now. Why risk change at this juncture?
Time and that sweep... both on our side.
Two, some entity will exist to pool the crap JPM wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Why not FnF? They're very good at what they do, are proven, and are now actually regulated.
I like this bet, a lot. I'm just not willing to lose more than I can afford to in case I'm wrong.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
