Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3715592 times)

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11720 on: February 19, 2019, 06:27:03 AM »
not sure why this thread is now focusing on Bradford and gasparino.  irrelevant to any real analysis of situation


Seahug

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11721 on: February 19, 2019, 06:34:55 AM »
not sure why this thread is now focusing on Bradford and gasparino.  irrelevant to any real analysis of situation

Yes, sorry about that.


investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11722 on: February 19, 2019, 06:40:32 AM »
not sure why this thread is now focusing on Bradford and gasparino.  irrelevant to any real analysis of situation

while I don't think it should be dwelled on, it's actually relevant imo.   this is as delicate of a political situation as is possible.   perception matters.   creating another carney in gasparino is counterproductive and can actually influence the outcome when he correctly points out (to millions of trump-loving viewers) that the re-election team for trump doesn't want a 'Paulson gets rich' theme as an opposition tool.  this is likely why congress is involved so heavily and perhaps the delays waiting for a potential different court decision.   if it was such a layup, mnuchin and otting could have acted several weeks ago.

locutusoftexas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11723 on: February 19, 2019, 08:33:09 AM »
Messin' is not my intention. It's a note of caution that there's significant risk. This is much less predictable and has taken much longer than buying run of the mill chap 11 or near chap 11 bonds (done a number of times - ukraine, worldcom, conseco, etc).  It's also my guess than many would take significantly less than par for the jprefs given these factors which suggests a price ceiling if one were to add. If I recall the Citi pref conversion was at 60%.

Prudence and price information ... I dunno - doesn't seem useless to me but maybe everyone knows everything already. Glen (100% and margined) and Berkowitz (35% concentration and forced to liquidate half) may have lacked prudence. But it's not over as long as we survive.

Cheers!

Sorry, the mention of shldq was a personal red flag, in that I learned long ago that the only possible, rational value play in situations with a negative net asset value, a very low stock price, and possible (or imminent) bankruptcy is to own the debt and not the common. Bruce Berkowitz actually destroyed his credibility and his various managed funds by making the rookie error of buying Sears common late in the game, when the cash burn was accelerating and with Lampert clearly willing to burn up the assets rather than to liquidate. Clearly there was no margin of safety.

Bradford has done such a nice job of tracking the GSE situation, I was shocked at the possibility that he would buy the Sears common at this point.

Of course, I have pointed out on this board, that the GSE prefs and common did not qualify as classic value plays once the assets had been written down and the NWS had been implemented, especially given the Executive Branch's need for cash at the time (and maybe now). The asset value was effectively zero and the discounted total value of dividends for shareholders has been zero under these circumstances. So no assets, no future dividends -- just hope that politicians and courts will do the right thing. Sorry, that is not a value play by anyone's definition. At a minimum, no margin of safety. Please forgive my lack of faith in politicians and, over the last two years, the demonstrated incompetency or bias (corruption?) of the federal courts.

By the way, I definitely hope that I am wrong in my skepticism, since this has become a very fundamental Constitutional issue.

Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11724 on: February 19, 2019, 08:35:31 AM »
It's also my guess than many would take significantly less than par for the jprefs given these factors which suggests a price ceiling if one were to add. If I recall the Citi pref conversion was at 60%.

According to this document, https://www.scribd.com/document/13339335/Citi-Tarp-Conversion, Citi prefs were converted either at par or more. However, I don't know enough else to tell you how it all went down.

This article, https://baselinescenario.com/2009/02/27/citigroup-arithmetic-explained/, says that the $3.25 number was likely the product of negotiation, and that the share price immediately prior to the conversion being made public was $2.46, which dropped to $1.57 following the announcement.

Again, I don't know how many strong parallels we can draw here, but it fuels my thesis that the juniors have an embedded call option on the commons, which they can exercise by agreeing the settle the lawsuits.

As for Glen contemplating other investments, I see that as less of him looking to get out soon, and more of him doing early research on where to put his $3M or so in par value once the juniors get there.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11725 on: February 19, 2019, 08:44:54 AM »
@IG
"...perhaps the delays waiting for a potential different court decision.   if it was such a layup, mnuchin and otting could have acted several weeks ago." 

I agree with this.  I think a court win makes everything much much easier. this also would come after calabria is confirmed, so waiting for a possible court win would then be able to be reinforced by a FHFA director who is on record (and never revoked) that NWS is invalid...so with a court win that would be a twofer.  which means that whether fhfa appeals in this circumstance is a very twisted question, which would be resolved by the introduction of the admin plan at that time.  plus mnuchin is real busy now. so I do believe we are in wait for collins mode...though whether or not the dividend is paid out will likely come first   

allnatural

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11726 on: February 19, 2019, 09:41:05 AM »
As optimistic as one can get about Collins case... if we are back to relying on courts for any progress from here... Not a good sign IMO.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11727 on: February 19, 2019, 09:56:26 AM »
As optimistic as one can get about Collins case... if we are back to relying on courts for any progress from here... Not a good sign IMO.

collins would certainly grease the skids

hardincap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11728 on: February 19, 2019, 10:05:18 AM »
I don’t think recap is that controversial? Especially given no one seemed to object in calabrias confirmation hearing. Also Calabria said multiple times as soon as 2015 that receivership is legally required, so I hope otting prevents the possibility of Calabria going rogue by moving to recap before Calabria is confirmed. Releasing f&f after they’ve been recapped however is certainly going to be controversial and here a court opinion would help greatly

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #11729 on: February 19, 2019, 10:22:57 AM »
I don’t think recap is that controversial? Especially given no one seemed to object in calabrias confirmation hearing. Also Calabria said multiple times as soon as 2015 that receivership is legally required, so I hope otting prevents the possibility of Calabria going rogue by moving to recap before Calabria is confirmed. Releasing f&f after they’ve been recapped however is certainly going to be controversial and here a court opinion would help greatly

what I heard calabria say was that receivership was available instead of conservatorship and NWS (which he said was illegal). 

who knows, but my best guess is that no action by otting who will wait until calabria is confirmed since if admin is going to "bypass" congress, admin will want to do it with an fhfa director that the senate itself confirmed