Luke 532 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 @luke, im seeing 2.5m volume nov 16,17,18. iirc, there was similar spike in volume and fall in share price just prior to lamberth Yes, those 3 days are included in the average. That's double the daily average the past few months. It could be something and I wouldn't be surprised but the averages over any period of length doesn't seem all that abnormal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaufort Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 BB has been liquidating Sears and Seritage in his FAIRX fund, presumably due to redemption requests. This is the mutual fund. The hedge fund has already been wound up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 BB has been liquidating Sears and Seritage in his FAIRX fund, presumably due to redemption requests. This is the mutual fund. The hedge fund has already been wound up. fwiw Bloomberg said the hedge fund positions were distributed to the investors rather than berko selling them and then sending the cash to the investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Trump: "We'll be working on health care, infrastructure and welfare reform... That'll all take place right after taxes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locutusoftexas Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 According to Berkowitz's conference call and as indicated in the most recent fund report, The Fairholme Fund holds at least 18% cash and has more than enough to handle redemptions without selling off holdings. He has apparently recently sold a small portion of Sears stock since the hedge fund was liquidated. The Seritage transactions appear to involve only a few percent of holdings and seem to involve selling shares recently acquired at $0. This does not look like forced liquidation of The Fairholme Fund (or the other Fairholme funds) to me. That having been said, suing the federal government in federal court does not appear to be a strategy offering a high likelihood of sucess, nor can one rely on the Executive or Legislative branches to correct the situation in shareholders' favor, given the money that they are receiving from these companies. Put another way, the federal government has found a massive source of free cash, and the shareholder lawsuits ask the government to police itself (via the federal court system). From that simplistic view, the odds of success for individual shareholders do not look sufficient to justify an investment in these entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Why does this Admin care about MBA lobbyists and Fellow Travelers? They screwed up the whole system as they were loyalist to previous administration. dont know that the administration does care about fellow travelers...but senators with MBA cash in pockets certainly might. my expectation that there will be sound and fury in congress about GSE reform, signifying nothing. plus ca change, plus la meme chose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Why does this thread attract every troll west of the Mississippi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Just reading the sixth circuit decision in Robinson vs FHFA. Again affirmation that FHFA can do whatever it wants as long as it is fulfilling its duties as conservator or receiver (even if it infringes my rights as a property holder under the Fifth amendment). Bizarro! But we’re not expecting much from the Courts at this stage anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Trump picks Mulvaney as acting director of CFPB. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 He favors recap. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4913/text Trump picks Mulvaney as acting director of CFPB. Interesting. Meaningless. Until Trump opens his mouth and states clearly where he stands nobody else matters. Danger is, his mouth might remain shut all throughout the process. Given he said not one word in 1 year this danger is very real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 He favors recap. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4913/text Trump picks Mulvaney as acting director of CFPB. Interesting. Meaningless. Until Trump opens his mouth and states clearly where he stands nobody else matters. Danger is, his mouth might remain shut all throughout the process. Given he said not one word in 1 year this danger is very real. Sure, but to be fair I don't recall Trump ever mentioning CFPB at all and in his first comment about it (this past week) he had a strong opinion and is taking action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! ok, i'm prepared for someone to wake up tomorrow and sell the preferreds I own trading at 18-19pct of par closer to zero. for this investment, 2017, 'yikes' is spot-on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! link? Tweeted by Joe Light, but I don't have the actual document. https://twitter.com/joelight/status/935271444782702592 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Memorandum Opinion attached04313786257.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion attached judge sleet treated o'melveney case (SCOTUS) as if it had no bearing on case. i find this amazing. of course, this will be appealed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Shocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 so briefly, the power of a conservator under HERA is in dispute in all of these cases. Perry argued that you cant nationalize a conservatee and deplete it of assets when the historical understanding of a conservator (both at common law and re FDIC) is to conserve and preserve assets, and restore to normal operations. hindes/jacobs argued that a conservators powers to issue stock is no greater than the conservatee's own powers under state law, as scotus said in omelveney case that conservator stepped into the directors/shareholders shoes. both perry and hindes/jacobs courts are taking very literal interpretations as to what HERA means re conservator powers ignoring relevant precedent in my view. hindes/jacobs will be appealed (among other things, "distinguishing" omelveney case as judge sleet did was in error), and it gives ammo for the constitutionality arguments being made in rop and bhatti cases, that fhfa is unconstitutionally structured without oversight or checks by both executive and legislative branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! ok, i'm prepared for someone to wake up tomorrow and sell the preferreds I own trading at 18-19pct of par closer to zero. for this investment, 2017, 'yikes' is spot-on! Am I the only one who thinks the less cases the better? No cases, no more hand grenades in our faces. And by now we know lawsuits have been -for whatever reason- ineffective. Either way, 2018 will bring legislation or potentially administrative reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! ok, i'm prepared for someone to wake up tomorrow and sell the preferreds I own trading at 18-19pct of par closer to zero. for this investment, 2017, 'yikes' is spot-on! Am I the only one who thinks the less cases the better? No cases, no more hand grenades in our faces. And by now we know lawsuits have been -for whatever reason- ineffective. Either way, 2018 will bring legislation or potentially administrative reform. if this gets resolved judicially, this will only be done by scotus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Delaware case dismissed... yikes! ok, i'm prepared for someone to wake up tomorrow and sell the preferreds I own trading at 18-19pct of par closer to zero. for this investment, 2017, 'yikes' is spot-on! Am I the only one who thinks the less cases the better? No cases, no more hand grenades in our faces. And by now we know lawsuits have been -for whatever reason- ineffective. Either way, 2018 will bring legislation or potentially administrative reform. if this gets resolved judicially, this will only be done by scotus. This is the only way things were ever going to end up, right? Either shareholders or the government was going to appeal any decision all the way up to SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 reread judge sleet's so-called opinion. he distinguishes the o'melveney case (scotus) in a totally ignorant manner, by saying as opposed to the o'melveny plaintiffs in a contract/tort context, "Indeed, Plaintiffs do not have a private commercial contract with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac." excuse me? dgcl makes it explicit that preferred shareholder plaintiffs have a contract with issuer. it's their certificate of designation. the guy took 4 months to write this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 reread judge sleet's so-called opinion. he distinguishes the o'melveney case (scotus) in a totally ignorant manner, by saying as opposed to the o'melveny plaintiffs in a contract/tort context, "Indeed, Plaintiffs do not have a private commercial contract with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac." excuse me? dgcl makes it explicit that preferred shareholder plaintiffs have a contract with issuer. it's their certificate of designation. the guy took 4 months to write this? once Ginsburg failed his moral compass test, only the supreme court could possibly save us in the courts. all the other judges simply hide behind his reputation. put simply, the 3rd amendment fails all tests of honor in our country. fwiw, my thesis, ever since the February disappointment, was the court cases are important only as placeholders to drag this out to a legislative or administrative solution while providing shareholders some modest negotiating leverage. tomorrow we'll gap down and then we'll see where we stand in the afternoon and the rest of this week. the preferreds are down 20pct in a month, price level does matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 reread judge sleet's so-called opinion. he distinguishes the o'melveney case (scotus) in a totally ignorant manner, by saying as opposed to the o'melveny plaintiffs in a contract/tort context, "Indeed, Plaintiffs do not have a private commercial contract with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac." excuse me? dgcl makes it explicit that preferred shareholder plaintiffs have a contract with issuer. it's their certificate of designation. the guy took 4 months to write this? This just goes to show that the courts can find any reason to dismiss, however tortured and convoluted. I would hope SCOTUS is different but at this point how can we be sure? Ginsburg found a way to affirm Lamberth's dismissal against all odds and logic. If this happens for one or two SCOTUS justices then all judicial avenues could be closed off. 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