rros Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 bond guys of Wall Street. I am still having a hard time accepting this. Most MBS are held by central banks. Namely, japanese, russian and chinese. The other big chunk, maybe half?, is held by the federal reserve. Then, smaller chunks may be held by large institutional investors and pension funds. So is it foreign governments that have leverage or Wall st? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Gary Cohn is bought and paid for by the bond guys of Wall Street. He's the only adult in the room at the White House. If you believe that Cohn, Mnuchin and GS are such strong opponents, what is it keeping you in the investment? Not disagreeing, but with litigation as good as dead IMO, what's the positive catalyst that you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/berkowitz-says-fannie-freddie-legal-fight-may-go-five-more-years I don't think the Sweeney case is doomed. It might take a while though. Also, the DE stuff isn't doomed, wait and see. I did downsize. I now have exactly $1 m of preferreds (redemption value). I'm optimistic about that position doing well eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I'm not sure Mnuchin Cohn etc are opponents of FnF preferred and commoners, it's just that they've been slow to be proponents. Eventually, maybe everyone will see that the GSE's building capital would be helpful. Treasury would get paid for the guarantee but not via the NWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 new constitutional claims case filed in minn: http://www.gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Bhatti/17-cv-02185-0001.pdf this case raises a claim that i dont think i have seen before. it's a nondelegation argument tied together with fhfa's claim in other litigation that it is not the govt when acting as conservator. it is reasonably clear that the vesting clause of the US const would not permit a broad delegation of legislative/executive power to a non-govt entity. not clear to me why this case was filed, as it is similar to the rop case in michigan...will likely result in a single consoldiated action. any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/berkowitz-says-fannie-freddie-legal-fight-may-go-five-more-years I don't think the Sweeney case is doomed. It might take a while though. Also, the DE stuff isn't doomed, wait and see. I did downsize. I now have exactly $1 m of preferreds (redemption value). I'm optimistic about that position doing well eventually. The Sweeney case is most likely (very likely) doomed; resolution may take 5 or more years; Berkowitz has whined. Still at a loss as to why you're selling. Maybe it's because you have more confidence than I do about finding better opportunities, but riddle me this: Suppose 10 years. What is the most likely return and what return would that generate? I'm convinced that we get face value, which works out to about a 20% annual ROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Sold half my position today. Too many unknowns and too much $ tied up as dead money for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Sold half my position today. Too many unknowns and too much $ tied up as dead money for too long. Interesting. Added 50% more of Freddie preferred at 4.50ish cost basis in the last week to Fannie preferred after reviewing Moelis proposal and listening to audio presentation as well as CATO institute discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Sold half my position today. Too many unknowns and too much $ tied up as dead money for too long. Interesting. Added 50% more of Freddie preferred at 4.50ish cost basis in the last week to Fannie preferred after reviewing Moelis proposal and listening to audio presentation as well as CATO institute discussion. My thought is without any catalyst/positive news, I can see it just continuing to bleed lower and lower. When we're closer to a catalyst can always buy back possibly lower at that point. If I miss it and it spikes, then I'm still holding half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yeah, cause that always works ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yeah, cause that always works ::) What do you mean? Don't they ring a bell at the top? I heard the same guys alert you when to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yeah, cause that always works ::) Tell me you're glad you didn't dump your whole position on the Feb verdict now that it's been halved. One wrong statement from Mnuchin and this goes on sale again. Like I said, kept half of a large position. Either my downsides limited, I'm successful with half or I get an opportunity to buy at lower price if that seems intelligent at the time. Makes pretty good sense IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Won't you think Corker, Mark Warner, Hensarling, Crapo and Watt would give up at some point? Looks like they won't. How can they have one sided biased opinion panel in these hearings? Why does senate call Stevens 'The Honorable David H Stevens "? Is he some kind of king of banks? https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/6/principles-of-housing-finance-reform Looks like they are precisely timing this one. I wish Mel Watt does a one 'on-your-face-senators' this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yeah, cause that always works ::) Tell me you're glad you didn't dump your whole position on the Feb verdict now that it's been halved. One wrong statement from Mnuchin and this goes on sale again. Like I said, kept half of a large position. Either my downsides limited, I'm successful with half or I get an opportunity to buy at lower price if that seems intelligent at the time. Makes pretty good sense IMO. I've spent way to much of my life trying to time stocks, but I made most of my money sitting on a few. That's where I'm at. I'm good with the odds here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Won't you think Corker, Mark Warner, Hensarling, Crapo and Watt would give up at some point? Looks like they won't. How can they have one sided biased opinion panel in these hearings? Why does senate call Stevens 'The Honorable David H Stevens "? Is he some kind of king of banks? https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/6/principles-of-housing-finance-reform Looks like they are precisely timing this one. I wish Mel Watt does a one 'on-your-face-senators' this time. Watt: Now there's a near-term catalyst for you. Presently has the power to do whatever he pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Yeah, cause that always works ::) Tell me you're glad you didn't dump your whole position on the Feb verdict now that it's been halved. One wrong statement from Mnuchin and this goes on sale again. Like I said, kept half of a large position. Either my downsides limited, I'm successful with half or I get an opportunity to buy at lower price if that seems intelligent at the time. Makes pretty good sense IMO. I've spent way to much of my life trying to time stocks, but I made most of my money sitting on a few. That's where I'm at. I'm good with the odds here. Page 12 of this memo by Howard Marks on Second level thinking answers the when to sell dilemma https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/2015-09-09-its-not-easy.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Cut n paste protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Policymakers forget duty to protect taxpayers from financial failures by Josh Rosner http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/339179-policymakers-forget-duty-to-protect-taxpayers-from-financial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 my expectations for this week aren't tremendously high. even if watt withholds some cash, his language with congress suggests that he will caveat it with anti-shareholder, pro-congressional commentary. however, I don't understand why henserling's commentary can damage the securities at these levels while ben carson's of a few weeks ago (investors can get money back eventually) seem overlooked. we know carson works and speaks with mnuchin, and that trump/mnuchin are most likely required to pass the legislation that the opponents might come up with (Barring a veto-proof margin on a divided topic). anyway, it is what it is for now. some people are giving up even at these low prices. maybe they know things we don't. in the mean time it would be nice, and well worth the wait, if someone in power besides Capuano mentioned the rights of shareholders. good luck everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 My worry is that we keep going in circles than just taking an action. This is precisely what you should want to happen. The inability of Congress to agree on a solution means Mnuchin will be "forced" to act. And if you believe Mnuchin is shareholder friendly, as I do, then I don't see a problem. And my answer is "I don't know" if you have a follow-up question on the who, what, when, where, why, and/or how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaufort Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 Take a look at Mel Watt's testimony on May 17, 2017 at the 39-41 min mark, during Senator Tester's questioning: https://www.c-span.org/video/?428337-1/mel-watt-testifies-housing-finance-policy What do you make of the big, goofy grin on Watt's face at the end of the exchange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 Good point. However, party needs every vote to pass any legislation (healthcare, tax reform etc.) , so I wonder if Mnuchin will ever take an action as they need Corker's vote as an example. Do you agree? I believe it's pretty clear that Mnuchin will take action if Congress fails to do so. I don't think there's anything to wonder about regarding that. If you want to wonder, I would suggest spending that energy on what action Mnuchin will take and how it impacts shareholders. On another note, if I send a message to the banking committee "Why are you calling MBA head as 'Honorable' in your June 29th meeting? He is paid by large banks and is a private citizen like us", do you think they would care to respond? I don't want to waste time but it is worrisome as it shows the committee is in pockets of large banks. No reporter has caught this? It's semantics. You shouldn't care and shouldn't spend a second sending a message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Corker and Warner... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/senators-said-to-consider-breaking-fannie-freddie-into-pieces-j4fa7uex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Corker and Warner... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/senators-said-to-consider-breaking-fannie-freddie-into-pieces-j4fa7uex Splitting up single- & multi-family and having multiple smaller companies sounds like a mix of the Berkowitz & Millstein proposals. Will be interesting to see how they deal with existing shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Corker and Warner... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/senators-said-to-consider-breaking-fannie-freddie-into-pieces-j4fa7uex Splitting up single- & multi-family and having multiple smaller companies sounds like a mix of the Berkowitz & Millstein proposals. Will be interesting to see how they deal with existing shareholders. Single family is the bulk of their businesses. I may be mistaken but it is above 90%. Since it is risk-weighted at 50% (low risk) makes capital requirements less onerous. In my view, this is a private capital solution. Senators meddling with this, Corker and Warner, is an attempt to slow down again any progress in any other venue (Moelis) in an effort to extend the conservatorship. Unless it is the continuation chapter to Moelis. This break up, a-la-standard oil, should be handled after companies have been recapitalized, have exited conservatorship and are standing on their feet. And shareholders should reap the benefits. The split made Rockefeller the wealthiest american ever! Shareholders getting a piece of each smaller company will have unanimous consensus among everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now