Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 1131223 times)

Mephistopheles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6490 on: March 17, 2017, 09:41:04 AM »
also notice the dividend payment is already included in cumulative dividends paid

But that doesn't make sense because isn't it for the quarter ending 3/31? How do they know how much dividend there will be in the first place? Seems like they are just assuming. I wouldn't take that cum dividend number to mean anything re whether the NWS is reversed or not for this quarter.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6491 on: March 17, 2017, 09:41:41 AM »
also notice the dividend payment is already included in cumulative dividends paid

that's not a biggie.  if treasury/fhfa want, they could have dividend paid and then reconributed by treasury for more pref stock, which is the whole point of the in-kind dividend provision

waynepolsonAtoZ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6492 on: March 20, 2017, 12:58:40 PM »
Gary Cohn is on the rise at the White House. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-white-house-new-york-moderates-spark-infighting-and-suspicion/2017/03/18/51e3c4d2-0b1c-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.91f5867f6fd3

With all the GS guys at Tsy and WH, it seems that the possibility of The Donald doing something for FnF investors is DOA.

Recapitalization could still happen, but it will take a while.

rros

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6493 on: March 20, 2017, 01:01:51 PM »
Gary Cohn is on the rise at the White House. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-white-house-new-york-moderates-spark-infighting-and-suspicion/2017/03/18/51e3c4d2-0b1c-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.91f5867f6fd3

With all the GS guys at Tsy and WH, it seems that the possibility of The Donald doing something for FnF investors is DOA.

Recapitalization could still happen, but it will take a while.
So what is GS's plan for the GSEs?

DocSnowball

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6494 on: March 20, 2017, 02:46:06 PM »
Isn't all this pure speculation though?
I'd think the things that matter are rights of shareholders in case of liquidation, and what percentage dilution occurs and how preferred shareholders are converted in case of restructuring.
Whether the sweep reverses this month, or what GS wants - how does that matter? I'm assuming the worst anyway as a way to disconfirm my hypothesis

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6495 on: March 20, 2017, 04:00:53 PM »
collins brief today on the fhfa uncosnt structure:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/urdvu3nqlow0eox/collins%203%3A20%3A17%20brief%20re%20separation%20of%20powers%20fhfa.pdf?dl=0

excellent brief imo

edit:  especially part where collins argues there is no distinction between an official who serves unlawfully because of a violation of appointments clause (where unlawful officials prior acts are voided), and an official who serves unlawfully because of a violative removal clause.  fhfa argues that at worst, court should simply amend statute going forward to make removable at will, leaving past decisions intact.  collins i think does a great job of challenging this.

fhfa argues that while an officer who was improperly appointed never was in a lawful position to act, fhfa director was in a lawful position to act notwithstanding the removal issue, and is lawful until the removal issue is resolved.

collins argues that consistent with appointments clause caselaw, the NWS should be invalidated and reconsidered, if the director wishes, by a director who is removable at will.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 04:11:46 PM by cherzeca »

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6496 on: March 20, 2017, 05:57:46 PM »
collins brief today on the fhfa uncosnt structure:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/urdvu3nqlow0eox/collins%203%3A20%3A17%20brief%20re%20separation%20of%20powers%20fhfa.pdf?dl=0

excellent brief imo

edit:  especially part where collins argues there is no distinction between an official who serves unlawfully because of a violation of appointments clause (where unlawful officials prior acts are voided), and an official who serves unlawfully because of a violative removal clause.  fhfa argues that at worst, court should simply amend statute going forward to make removable at will, leaving past decisions intact.  collins i think does a great job of challenging this.

fhfa argues that while an officer who was improperly appointed never was in a lawful position to act, fhfa director was in a lawful position to act notwithstanding the removal issue, and is lawful until the removal issue is resolved.

collins argues that consistent with appointments clause caselaw, the NWS should be invalidated and reconsidered, if the director wishes, by a director who is removable at will.

How come Chad Readler, the defendant's counsel is arguing that CFPB is unconstitutional but in the Collins case defending for the government?

Desert_Rat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6497 on: March 20, 2017, 06:13:31 PM »
Isn't all this pure speculation though?
I'd think the things that matter are rights of shareholders in case of liquidation, and what percentage dilution occurs and how preferred shareholders are converted in case of restructuring.
Whether the sweep reverses this month, or what GS wants - how does that matter? I'm assuming the worst anyway as a way to disconfirm my hypothesis

Of which I gotta believe GS would be a proponent of. They may not dig FnF scalping points they'd rather pocket, but I'm sure their primary concern here is with the govt stealing assets. The next asset stolen could be theirs.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6498 on: March 20, 2017, 06:56:22 PM »
collins brief today on the fhfa uncosnt structure:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/urdvu3nqlow0eox/collins%203%3A20%3A17%20brief%20re%20separation%20of%20powers%20fhfa.pdf?dl=0

excellent brief imo

edit:  especially part where collins argues there is no distinction between an official who serves unlawfully because of a violation of appointments clause (where unlawful officials prior acts are voided), and an official who serves unlawfully because of a violative removal clause.  fhfa argues that at worst, court should simply amend statute going forward to make removable at will, leaving past decisions intact.  collins i think does a great job of challenging this.

fhfa argues that while an officer who was improperly appointed never was in a lawful position to act, fhfa director was in a lawful position to act notwithstanding the removal issue, and is lawful until the removal issue is resolved.

collins argues that consistent with appointments clause caselaw, the NWS should be invalidated and reconsidered, if the director wishes, by a director who is removable at will.

How come Chad Readler, the defendant's counsel is arguing that CFPB is unconstitutional but in the Collins case defending for the government?

we will see what doj argues in collins going forward.  given PHH, we may see change in position by doj, but if so i would expect doj to argue against vacating nws as remedy, which is consistent with its position in PHH

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #6499 on: March 20, 2017, 08:18:01 PM »
Does anyone know if the judge NANCY F. ATLAS for Collin's case is liberal or conservative? It seems to me that all liberal judges have made bad rulings for the plantiffs so far.