Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 2379482 times)

HalfMeasure

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9870 on: May 16, 2018, 11:03:08 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".


cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9871 on: May 16, 2018, 11:12:32 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9872 on: May 16, 2018, 11:20:31 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo
You are all correct. But we better be lucky.

undervalued

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9873 on: May 16, 2018, 11:28:00 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo
You are all correct. But we better be lucky.

Does anyone know why the FHFA and Treasure are still fighting hard in these courts if they're friendly to shareholders in their future plans? Isn't a court win a good windfall for Mnuchin's shareholder friendly plan? Why aren't they weakening their stances?
Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it. - Will Rogers

blackcoffee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9874 on: May 16, 2018, 01:24:11 PM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo
You are all correct. But we better be lucky.

Does anyone know why the FHFA and Treasure are still fighting hard in these courts if they're friendly to shareholders in their future plans? Isn't a court win a good windfall for Mnuchin's shareholder friendly plan? Why aren't they weakening their stances?

yes because there is no real difference between the 2 major political parties when it comes to banks. They are captured by them thanks to hanky p and the bailouts.
that's the short answer. Trump isn't the savior here only the courts and they're all punting and delaying. Rampant corruption is the answer you're looking for and a lack of consequences for said corruption.

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9875 on: May 16, 2018, 05:29:24 PM »
Just had to throw my $.02 in which is broadly inline with others. Looks like all we have to do is just sit and wait huh?  So we need either a change to the 3rd amendment, receivership(unlikely due to mnuchins comments) or some other congress and a new path forward.

A lot of maybes but maybe this is Stevies' thought all along, wait till Hensarling, Corker out and work with new congress after all.

Does the fact that the stock still trade mean it will see value eventually? She mentions this as a reason?

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9876 on: May 16, 2018, 06:01:04 PM »
Just had to throw my $.02 in which is broadly inline with others. Looks like all we have to do is just sit and wait huh?  So we need either a change to the 3rd amendment, receivership(unlikely due to mnuchins comments) or some other congress and a new path forward.

A lot of maybes but maybe this is Stevies' thought all along, wait till Hensarling, Corker out and work with new congress after all.

Does the fact that the stock still trade mean it will see value eventually? She mentions this as a reason?

i do not have a high regard for treasury counsel, based solely on what i heard in the oral argument.  she was unprepared for the nationalization question, and countered it by saying the shareholders may eventually get value without offering a cogent explanation why...a big booboo for an appellate litigator.  if that judge is seriously perplexed that a conservatorship/receivership statute was converted into a nationalization statute without clear statutory language to that effect (and that is a big if, sometimes judges make comments in oral arguments and then apparently say never mind in conference), nothing that treasury counsel said will assuage him

SnarkyPuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9877 on: May 17, 2018, 04:57:49 AM »
Emily, with all due respect, many (not all) of your posts are simply a complaint about the current situation.  That doesn't add value to the board and just bogs it down.  With that said, I do appreciate it when you post something that adds value to the board.  Thank you.

1+

............................................................................................

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2747
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9878 on: May 17, 2018, 06:57:45 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo
You are all correct. But we better be lucky.

Does anyone know why the FHFA and Treasure are still fighting hard in these courts if they're friendly to shareholders in their future plans? Isn't a court win a good windfall for Mnuchin's shareholder friendly plan? Why aren't they weakening their stances?

Because DOJ is still controlled by Obama. Just look at how DOJ refuses to hand over documents Congress requested, and how Rod Rosenstein threatened to investigate every one of Congress Intelligence committee member. If DOJ has the ball to fight Congress, it definitely has no problem fighting against FnF shareholders.

doughishere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9879 on: May 17, 2018, 07:08:39 AM »
Treasury's argument that a recovery for shareholders is possible (unknown and un-timed) is a straight arrow to the heart of the nationalization argument by plaintiff, so it is worrisome. Not to mention an acceptable delay strategy, as a recovery might be possible... within the next 1000 years.

except i didnt see the judge concerned with nationalization buying it

And wouldn't that argument be analogous to something like: "I didn't steal your property, I just took it but I could return it under some nebulous circumstances thus absolving me of theft".

as i recall this was from ms wright, treasury counsel, who was hardly inspiring confidence.  it was a very weak response, which only added to her lack of credibility imo
You are all correct. But we better be lucky.

Does anyone know why the FHFA and Treasure are still fighting hard in these courts if they're friendly to shareholders in their future plans? Isn't a court win a good windfall for Mnuchin's shareholder friendly plan? Why aren't they weakening their stances?

Because DOJ is still controlled by Obama. Just look at how DOJ refuses to hand over documents Congress requested, and how Rod Rosenstein threatened to investigate every one of Congress Intelligence committee member. If DOJ has the ball to fight Congress, it definitely has no problem fighting against FnF shareholders.

CC: BagholderQuotes.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 07:15:00 AM by doughishere »