Pollock on the attack-again

[joseph s]

Pollock on the attack. Why were all the TBTF pref stock and sub debt paid thru bailouts? No. He just attacks fnf.

https://economics21.org/html/treasury-should-not-bail-out-fannie’s-and-freddie’s-subordinated-debt-2521.html

[joseph s]

Tim Howard is right. He is a foe. He wants the big banks taking fnf biz over

[Joe Cool Stocks]

Its hard being a 'preferred' stock holder no, isnt it...

[joseph s]

You are so predictable. Lol

Watching the whambulance come for you will be fun. Expecting to be guaranteed 10x, 20x, 30x your $ is a fool's errand.

Good luck with your 400 dollar stock.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Chatter Chatter.....Da devil have lots of polish friends....dey will take offense on your thread Joseph.

[Duncan Macleod "Beta"]

Joe- not sure why but it do not think those are cbs camero participants making those comments.  

These seem more like our old friend from Citadel.  Not sure why he puts sooo much effort into trying to start squables, but the result is Board disfunction.  I know i dont particpate in such boards, so i am guessing others.  

I no longer engage in quiping with such participants- i think it is obvious they do not intend to post for the benefit of all and only seek to seperate us from our money.  While I forgive him for his mistakes i will particpate in the drama.

Kinda like Charlottsville,  the Hate group is wrong wrong wrong. But dont get sucked into the Hate drama.

[Crownjewels]

Joey--I think Tim handled "friend Alex" well in Tim's  blog response today to Alex's subdebt talltale.

[joseph s]

Yeah. He did. Tim Howard is awesome. I hope Treasury fixes this soon. Settle w shareholders with Moelis plan. Ackman will sign off.

[joseph s]

Trust me, beta. It is little Jeffy

[Duncan Macleod "Beta"]

joe- OK. i will let it go. 

Actually it was camero, AT and myself who sat at the same table in DC. 

Funny how things change.  CBS was at another Table Simms at another.

Tim P had his own table, The Delaware lawsuit guy Hines was at Tims table and spoke. 

I try and remember the good in everyone.  I have had some difficult years,  Should feel lucky to be alive. Bunch of personal issues, and two heart operations later. 

Here i am trying to make sense of things.

[Jerkoff Jeff]

Goober, prayer is not a trading strategy, and if you are born again, then you shouldn't be worshipping a stock price. God can't save you though Freddie Mac, that is not his first born son.

Blind faith in hedge fund goobers to free freddie mac from slavery to the promised land will surely fail you. Let the spirit speak to your heart. This camel is not going to pass through the eye of the needle.

[Duncan Macleod "Beta"]

edit- post narrative was going off topic. 

[Crownjewels]

Take a deep breath, slowly exhale and relax about GSE issues and lots of other things; none of us are getting out of this place alive.

Slowly, but not excessively, consume some of your favorite alcohol and dream nice thoughts. Better for you and all round you.

[Fosco Was Here]

You guys are really pathetic. Board is titled 'Commons and Preferred'. This seems more like a Preferred board.

Why the hell would any common stock holder want to spend time here; when you push the Moelis plan, which is

nothing more than a plan to screw the common for the quick benefit of the preferred.

Not going to happen...budz.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Nutding wrong with da Moe lis plan and it is the most likely outcome. We are not pushing it. We are for it and what we say here will not have any effect on any potential legislation. The reality is the Moe lis plan or a similar utility plan is coming. It is just a matter if you can deal with it, accept it and make monies or live in a world of denial and make ????monies....go figure....devil

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Hehehaha...let da devil tell da goobers how easy it is to be a preferred holder with a remote on da money robot.....its actually simple...da devil is a simpleton....

1. Priority Rules
2. Preferreds are above warrants.

Dat all.. dat it...its dat simple...hehehaha....Monies is all dat matters here....go figure....devil

[joseph s]

Funny how a bunch of pref and common shareholders were kicked off for saying something less optimistic. Then the same folks run over here and claim this is a "pref only" board. Last I checked, this board is open to all.

The other board is only open to those who agree with the folks punting people, people too scared to speak their mind and people who agree with you alone.

You cant have it both ways.

This board is "open to all". Trust me, Jeffy. Cause you post here. You will continue to be allowed to post here. Unless you get AT abusive.

That other board is "common only or we might kick you out", right? Or am I wrong? Is it open to all? On that board, are people who think common are 3x-5x welcome? I say they are not. I wasn't.

It is funny cause pref are 3x-5x, right? The other board is dead. You killed it, not me. You killed it by stifling healthy debate.

Previously, it was mentioned that the institutional pref holders would be sued.

I would love to see you use your own money to sue someone for hiring a 3rd party financial advisor to come up with a viable, workable plan. That would be funny. Suing someone who is advocating not chucking us into bankruptcy. Too funny. Good luck with 100-400 per share. I will literally eat crow if this hits 400 by 2025. You can serve it. Must be cooked.

Not. A recco

[joseph s]

C.J.- I exhaled..... Isn't that what Bill Clinton did in the o£al office? Yes. That's it. That's the ticket....

[joseph s]

C.J.- He did handle Pollock well. I thought Pollock might become a friend. TH set me straight. He wants it all destroyed and handed over. Quick. With guaranteed profits.

[joseph s]

In the "sue" post, it was directed at "Fosco was here/Jeff" and nobody else.

The only thing pathetic is the carcass left at the other board. It is gone. Almost everyone is here, posting. Common and pref alike.

I bet on an outcome with a "win/place" ticket to get 6-10 bucks for a 2 dollar ticket.

The others bet a trifecta with my horse winning plus a bet on the same horse to place as a side bet. If the trifecta works, they make 400 for a 2 dollar bet. If it comes in first, they get 4-8 bucks for place but have to hit the next two horses correctly to win 400. Depends on the odds whether 4 or 8 bucks for place.(the odds are way too high, this is an excellent horse)

All I need is the horse to win and I make 6-10 bucks on my win/place bet. My return is also based on the odds.

People betting win/place tickets are being told they are evil for betting that way and that they must play the trifecta. They are also being told that they are secretly wanting the trifecta to lose and are plotting against the bettor of the trifecta even though they have no clue about the other horses(nor do they care) The Trifecta bettor has went so far as to say that unless if he doesnt win the exotic, he will sue the racetrack, trainers, jockeys and stewards for allowing the race because they all rigged it.

[ron...@comcast.net]

Exercising the warrants isn't an essential property of the Moe plan. The Moe plan at its core speaks to reform and capital, neither of which has anything to do the warrrants. The plan itself looks agreeable.

[joseph s]

While warrants may not be the core of the plan, unfortunately it is one of the building blocks.

In fact, warrants have been one of the core pieces of the 3 major proposals from shareholders(Berkowitz, Ackman, Paulson/Blackstone)

Being factual and pragmatic is essential to investing. We all miss stuff. What am I missing?

Every major plan from owners included the warrants. Not a recco.

[Brandi Baloni]

and back to the important things in life...just us Blondes being Blondes!

Mnuchin’s Wife Mocks Oregon Woman Over Lifestyle and Wealth

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/politics/mnuchin-louise-linton-treasury-instagram.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

[ron...@comcast.net]

Joseph,

Warrants are not core to any housing *reform* plan nor are they a building block to housing *reform.* They're not the chief cornerstone nor a pebble in the structure of housing *reform.* Indeed, the warrants might pave the way to agreement to some plan, even diametrically oppsing plans, but such an enticement isn't part of the housing reform plan itself. That's why the warrants can play a part in any plan - even opposing plans, without effecting the plan itself.

[joseph s]

We can disagree on verbiage/wording but it has clearly been a part(I call it a building block) of every major plan put forth that keeps common and pref in tact.

I guess you could say capital is not a building block, either. They could operate with no capital for sure.

Anything could be called negotiable. My point is, what is likely?

[Duncan Macleod "Beta"]

NYT- All the news that is fit to print.  Mnuchin and his wife are doing thier service to the country out of the goodness of thier heart.  The NYT times should be thanking them, Wonder if they criticize Bezos for his excesses, or Soros,  oh of course not he is one of them. NYT is nothing but a regular  London Rag these days. Think the Sun or enquirer 

[ron...@comcast.net]

Joseph,

My only point is, everyone can rally around a utility model or Moe's plan. The warrants are an entirely different consideration. Commoners who reject the value of those sorts of plans do so because they are incapable of seeing the worth of the plan because of the pork attached to the bill if I may use such an analogy. They confuse one with the other, the plan with the enticement.

Similarly I've noticed on occasion Pfd holders unable to tease out the warrrants from the plan, as if the warrants are inexorably tied to the plan. Building blocks support things. Yet I don't find that the warrants support or deny Moe's plan. The plan is good apart from the warrants. The warrants are another matter that I find best to be kept separate.

Let's face it, the warrants having nothing to do with the plan and were only mentioned as an enticement to go along with the plan. That alone demonstrated they're not part of the plan. It's a sleazy maneuver. The warrants should be debated on their own merits and not used to sell a plan or obstruct the view to the value of a plan.

[ron...@comcast.net]

"I guess you could say capital is not a building block, either. They could operate with no capital for sure."

No, I'd never say that. Capital is essential, especially given a housing *reform* plan. Things to do with housing reform are expected to be in a plan to reform housing. How to pad the treasury with more money has nothing to do with such things.

[joseph s]

Well. All things are "essential" and nothing is essential. You and I dont decide what is (and isnt) essential to all parties. We may agree on what we think is (or isnt). Or not. No matter to me.

Essential?:

Capital? Not buying 3rd party MBS? CSP? CRT? Low income loans? Shareholders? TBA mkt? Warrants? Return on amount invested? Interest rate hedges? Explicit guarantee? Completely private? Completely government? More competitors(aka big 6 banks), 30 yr prepayable mortgage? Housing price concerns? So.... Maybe some things are essential, maybe nothing is.

Do I think the accounting was fraud? Yes? Can I prove fraud beyond a shadow of doubt? Hell no.

Calling something "sleazy" doesnt give moral "high ground" to other things.

Show me a plan brought forth by the big players without warrants. I will support it. Is it possible one comes out and is adopted? Yes.

Probable? Hmmmm (Like Arsenio Hall used to say)

[Fosco Was Here]

Some preferred shareholders (like Joseph S.) believe they will receive dividends while the Common equity stagnates at a low pps with no dividends; with the Moelis plan.

Preferred shareholders seem so willing to dangle out warrants to Gov, to get them to release the companies, so they can make a quick profit at the expense of the common equity.

The Common Equity decides if div's are paid. Preferred shareholders are smoking crack to think warrants get them anything. Just more stealing, taxpayer liability, which both classes lose. Warrants mean no means to raise capital. Will not happen. Warrants are not capital. It is stealing the remaining capital thus forced taxpayer to be the capital. It would destroy all most value resulting in very little tax revenue. Not going to happen!

[Crownjewels]

OK, I'll admit it, it took Joseph and me weeks to figure out that the Moelis Plan wasn't some weired circumcision rite.

Which reminds me, in this 95 degree heat near Wash DC, I just watched some "Robin Hood, Men in Tights," where Mel Brooks--as a traveling Rabbi/wine salesman--offers his circumscision skills to Robin's men, telling them "It's the latest thing, the girls love it."

After shouts of "I'll take two," etc., Brooks shows them  an exmaple using a carrot and a toy guilotine. End of sales interest.

Has nothing to do with common and preffered (someone is selling P today!) but worth laughing over.

[ron...@comcast.net]

"Well. All things are "essential" and nothing is essential. You and I dont decide what is (and isnt) essential to all parties. We may agree on what we think is (or isnt). Or not. No matter to me."

Again I'm afraid you're missing the point. Maybe I'm not being clear. It's not about what you or I think is essential to housing reform. What I'm talking about is what is essential to any reform plan *under consideration.* Walk with me...

Moe's housing reform plan, call it X, had elements that were essential to it. By essential elements I'm not talking about what we might like or not like in a plan but what makes Moe's reform plan *their* reform plan as opposed to some other entity's reform plan.

Ok, so If you remove an *essential* element of a Moe's housing reform plan, then obviously it's no longer *their* reform plan. It's no longer X. It becomes something other than X if something essential to X is removed. No problem there I trust.

Now let's apply that to the warrants. Remove the warrants from Moe's paper that disclosed their *reform* plan and guess what, we're left with the very same reform plan. It's still X. That's because the warrants had nothing to do with Moe's *housing reform* plan. Rather, the warrants are part of another plan. Warrants are an element of his plan to sell X. But the plan to sell X is not part of X. The plan to sell X we can call Y. Y is an enticement for people to go along with X. You might like Y. I even might like Y. Y could help us make money by getting Tsy to approve X. But whether we like Y or not, it's still not X.

Remove the enticement of Y and we still have Moe's X to consider - all the essential properties of Moe's plan are still intact. Moe's X should be evaluated on its merit, not on enticement Y.

All I'm saying is the *merit* of utility models or any other plans for reform GSEs have nothing to do with warrants, unless of course the plan under review incorporates the warrants in some relevant way to reform GSEs, such as to recapitalize the entities. But that's not what we have here.

Cheers from Paris.

[ron...@comcast.net]

Fosco,

Stuff like can make it harder for others to get their point across.

[SimSla]

The warrants are discussed/incorporated because as of the date of any plan so far the government has legal right to them. Any  plan(as of today) excluding the warrants will be labeled shareholders/vultures/speculators windfall. Unless we win in court or reach a settlement with the GOV the warrants will be taken into consideration.

[joseph s]

C.J. Jesus. That made me wince. Yes. That was incredible when we found out it wasn't a satanic ritual. I hope you have 5 nice glasses of water to cool your self. A bunch of posters need to lay off the koolaid and drink some countrytime lemonade.

"Lemonade is a popular drink and it still is."

[joseph s]

I also love it when others tell me what I "believe" when I said no such thing.

Kick me off a board, then once the board dies come here and attack with lies.

It's cute.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Commons do not dictate to any class if a dividend gets paid. Its quite the opposite as equity have no say directly in operations at all....just some clarification....NO NO say whatsoever....go figure....devil

[littlede...@gmail.com]

True true joseph that warrants are a major part of all the plans out there. I might even go as far as to say it is one fundamental and crucial part of the Moe lis plan....me no no sink you can separate Moe lis plan without taking into consideration the warrants....go figure...devil

[joseph s]

The funniest thing about all this board talk is that my "support" of a plan is meaningless. Anyone else's here is meaningless, too. The big money interests, FHFA and TSY need to support it. Otherwise it is a non-starter.

Any of us(including me) saying we know what will happen for sure is utter bullshit.

But. Saying the odds of one outcome or another is a wholly different thing.

Saying pref will never get divvies and common will recap organically over 20 yrs? not likely. Warrant cxl? not likely. Zero dilution? not likely. Bankruptcy? not likely.

[Fosco Was Here]

Thats fucking bullshit! We better take those fucking warants because we dont want those greedy hedge funds and retail investors to make money. Total fucking bullshit!

The warrants are fucking illegal! Period!

[Fosco Was Here]

All bullshit hedge fund propaganda. Hey, let's steal some more and take those fucking fake warrants...

[ron...@comcast.net]

LD,

Specifically, what part do warrants play in Moe's plan to reform GSEs and housing? I already know how warrants fit into the overall deal to get Tsy to go along with Moe's plan, but I'm more interested in understanding how "it [the warrants] is one fundamental and crucial part of the Moe lis plan...."

I'll make it real simple. How would the "fundamental" and "crucial" parts of the Moe plan to reform GSEs and housing be fundamentally and crucially altered if they didn't include advice on the warrants? In other words, other than being sweetener for the deal, what affect do warrants have on Moe's GSE and housing reform? Again, please be specific. Answer the question.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

See is nutding we goobers can do about it. Da devil cool wit Moe lis. Like da devil said, we z goober are for it but we don't control anyding or any legislation. We goobers are rolling wit it and going to make Monies out of it.

There is two choices for you.

1. Accept it and row with it and make monies. Like da devil said before junior's will likely see RV. Commons will be ok. But not at da numbers most see it to be.
2. Deny it's coming and complain on a message board for Pete's sake. And roll with what you got and if you are commons you are commons.

Like joseph said, pitch your common complaints to people who matter not to goobers like da devil, joseph etc.

We roll wit our DD. Dat all...dis is just some goober to goober reality check...not knocking commons at all...go figure...devil

[ron...@comcast.net]

"The warrants are discussed/incorporated because as of the date of any plan so far the government has legal right to them. Any plan(as of today) excluding the warrants will be labeled shareholders/vultures/speculators windfall. Unless we win in court or reach a settlement with the GOV the warrants will be taken into consideration."

Maybe so, Sim. But as you'd likely admit, the warrants have absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of any plan to reform housing or the GSEs.

[SimSla]

The warrants are not at the heart of any reform plan. They also create problems with the recap. I think if the warrants are outstanding at the end of all this Treasury will find it difficult to find someone to invest in common equity.

The threat of reverse split is what IMO will keep investors on the sidelines.

[ron...@comcast.net]

"The warrants are not at the heart of any reform plan."

Sim,

Thank you.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Bottom line is we are all equity. Both PREFERREDS and commons will get paid. Preferreds are likely to see RV through conversion. Commons will be ok too. We just don't know what the value will be? Da devil have both but heavily tilted towards PREFERREDS.

The preferred holders are not against the commons here. Its the common goobers who perceive that in some type of grudge. You no no see Preferred holders starting these decisive topics. Its mostly common holders. Its all good goobers...you bought you you bought....for each their own....go figure...devil

[ron...@comcast.net]

LD,

I'll take that as agreeing with what I've been saying.

[joseph s]

I disagree that the warrants will make investing difficult. AIG had the exact same terms w/ warrants and had no issue raising capital.

Warrant exercise will make folks expecting 10x or 100x their $ angry.

[SimSla]

It is better for preferred shareholders (and for common ones for that matter) if there is no conversion of preferred to common. Currently the warrants threaten only the common with dilution and later on with reverse split. If you remember the government response as to the reason for taking warrants was that the GOV wanted the common to be worthless. If the preferred shares are converted even after the dilution the reverse split will make your cost equal or more than the FMV in most cases.

[SimSla]

I had shares in AIG. AIG did a reverse split. The share price as of today is below my new (after reverse split) cost. 

[joseph s]

It is also better for pref if warrants are cxld.

Not up to me.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Not sure what you have been saying. But, I totally agree with what da devil is saying. If it's similar to what da devil is sayin...den yes....da devil stands by da dd....go figure....devil

[littlede...@gmail.com]

True..warrants is not at the heart of every reform plan.... The purpose of the reform plans is to develop the best face saving way out for the gov, let bankers off the hook with minimal damage and transition/rename fnf to a utility model....go figure...devil

[SimSla]

All the plans currently need to consider the warrants since they are legally enforceable. If they don't nobody will take them seriously and the drafters will be accused of helping the speculators.

This may change due to court victory or settlement (the GOV also needs to sweeten the deal if they want to keep the money F&F overpaid).

[joseph s]

SimSla- I am sorry for your loss on AIG. However, capital was not difficult to raise.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

When you look at the Obama whitepapers, it was 3 plans. Those are the outlines which includes the utility model. Those do not address conversion rates or warrants or any type of equity restructure.

The following whitepapers from industries follow the Obama whitepapers' lead and expand on the utility model which they included conversion, new equity structure outlines and warrants. The industry whitepapers expands to give more detail in which the administration will take into consideration.

From where I sit, Moe lis or so e type of Moelis is the most likely outcome.

Warrants will be a part of any restructure because they are part of the original c ship. Unless you can beat the warrants in court (unlikely) it is here to stay....go figure...devil

[SimSla]

We do not need to beat the warrants in court. From the docs we saw and the ones we will get soon it is clear the GOV will eventually lose in court be it the Supreme Court. Fairholme is adamant they will fight to the end. In order to settle the GOV needs to give something of value to the shareholders that does not hurt the taxpayer. Currently the  only thing i can think of is the warrants.

Giving Obama whitepapers (put together by Geithner and varsity team) as a blueprint to follow is very sarcastic if not hurtful at this point. As to the Moelis and the warrants see previous posts.

[Wayne Z]

Hey guys, Forgive me if I am bringing remedial points. But isn't the released docs all related to the formation of the net worth sweep? The Amendment to the Appeals is an attack on the legality of HERA not being able to be supervised by the courts which argues it to be illegal? Did they mention the warrants as illegal on any of the released docs? Thanks.

[joseph s]

Not Perry/Fairholme. They have not challenged the whole cship. That is a difficult task to do when the context of financial panic is there.

I had friends tell me it was the end of the world. I thought that was silly.

In one of these panics, I truly believe the gold standard will return. These things are cycles....

[Wayne Z]

I agree that challenging the entire c-ship will be hard given the panic back then. Let's just say we will win the "Amendment" to our case, does that address the warrants or just puts the idea of being able to challenges HERA on the table? That I mean by allowing the courts to intervene on HERA topics. Thanks.

Edit: grammar

[SimSla]

Winning the court cases ( Washington Federal aside) will stop the sweep but not cancel the warrants. 

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Stopping the sweep is good enough for now,  goobers betta take some profits.  Book high then buy back on the pullback.  Dont book too quick though watch and gauge.....You know how much monies we make if we KO the sweep?...Da devil finally can take da blue suede and leather shoes out of layaway.....go figure...devil

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Goobers need to stop worrying about the warrants and start to worry about making monies.  Why are goobers including da devil arguing over someding we cant control on top of that, argue with a fellow goober equity holder who is on da same boat. 

Getting rid of the warrants is a possibility but very very very unlikely.  You winning the 700 million powerball today is a possibility too but very very unlikely.....Winning the NWS is a good possibility given the amendment to our complaint.  Lets focus on that.  If we win the NWS, we make MOONA monies no matter if you are preferreds or commons.....dont let a few evil goobers divide this group and stop threads like how we are going to spend our monies.....dose are da fun threads not like these.....

"oh oh...i got commons...i am scared chitless....i am up against da devil's impeccable dd and I am sure to lose...oh my god...maybe bring god into it...that might help....wha wha....we betta start bashing on a board and hope skibri will sell and join us"....go figure....devil

[Brandi Baloni]

my take is that Pollock wished FHFA would not have honored sub-debt - then, the jr. preferred stock would have no case, and no stockholders would have gotten anything, and it would have been easier to do a re-org / bankruptcy / liquidation. that being said, it is a meaningless argument now, but i did not fully read his diatribe. 

if you read jim rogers, or calabria, et al, they would probably say that they should have let the whole systems fail and liquidate everyone with mass chaos.... they never let the economy hit rock bottom, and have cured the ills with more debt. american economy is a crack addict that needs more and more debt.

keep in mind that the current sitting president has said that he would default on us govt debt in order to negotiate deals. given that, expect nothing.

[littlede...@gmail.com]

OK OK sorry.....Da devil holds commons too....Commons are in da monies......we just dont know how much....dat was a friendly jab......but Uz get da picture...Goobers are all IU....remeber...Beta sat across ski and Ron, Cat was at eggman's table, Joseph was with David and cammy.....Brandi was picking her nose at da corner.....joe stocks was at da table by da lobby looking at his phone at all his bad picks deep in da red.....go figure...devil

[littlede...@gmail.com]

Who on EARTH IS POLLOCK? Who cares....hypothetical chatter....I wash I still have my six pack from 10 years ago.....go figure..devil

[joseph s]

I was invited but could not make it. I had an injury and it was cold as hell in D.C.

Maybe I wouldn't be so blunt and forceful on the board if I had met y'all. On second thought, I would be more forceful....

Brandi- Appreciate the comments. I agree that Pollock is saying that saving all the banks was cool. That they should have let the sub debt fail here to signal that the companies were done for.

Problem is, they did the opposite in both their public actions and public words. They said shareholders still had economic interests(in so many words) and would participate in the recovery. In private, they said they were destroying them.

[joseph s]

Brandi- Impressed that you are joining the argument. Usually it is just you and me discussing what we did with each other's moms last night.

[Wayne Z]

Thanks guys.

[Crownjewels]

Joey--Have some lemonade. To paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's the latest thing, girls love it!"

[Crownjewels]

Fosco--

Unfortunately, as with so many developments on this odyssey, only if some federal court says so.

Unless, you plan to "storm the castle" and then we'd really need Mel Brooks?

[G. Buckman]

It's GOOD to be The KING!

[joseph s]

C.J.-

Lemonade is a popular drink and it still is.

[joseph s]

CFPB guy is gone. I actually love this thread