Jump to content

investorG

Member
  • Posts

    1,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

investorG's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. The eventual FHFA selection is less important than in prior instances because the head of the agency now reports to the President. Our opponents might convince the White House to select Sandra but the likely fact that Calhoun and his utility paper were at least close to being selected indicates some sliver of potential from this administration over the next 3 years.
  2. Sandra Thompson just proposed a 25% chop the leverage ratio capital requirement from 4% to roughly 3%. Overall a $74bn reduction in leverage ratio requirement, which now makes it far less relevant in comparison to the risk based capital requirement which was left unchanged today.
  3. Even though the liquidation preference rises, each quarter of positive earnings is important in that it moves the companies further from the receivership outcome.
  4. The prices appear excessively pessimistic. Put yourself in the Democrats' shoes -- with the SCOTUS ruling, we are perhaps 3.5 years away from a Republican president putting Bob Corker in at Tsy and French Hill at FHFA who could effectively partially wind down the GSEs for 4 years through various pricing and business selection initiatives. OR, the Democrats could work for 3 years on a solution that gets them out of conservatorship via Congress (preferably) or admin (backup) and more entrenches FnF's future. In regards to timeline, I would expect this to play out over a few years -- but that's no guarantee that the prices will remain in the cellar in the mean time.
  5. The current market cap of Fannie Mae's total jr preferred debt is around $1.5bn or about 5 weeks of after tax company profits. Lots of ways to win from here.
  6. Yes, I do. As explained in prior posts. It's a 3 year process but at such a depressed level the shares can possibly re-rate first to a more reasonable level and then flat-line for a good bit of time while we wait for concrete actions to develop over those 3 years.
  7. "for sure"? I don't think much is for sure. I do believe however that "if" FnF are ever public companies again and paying a common dividend then we are looking at 15x return from current levels. And the downside is capped at 1x.
  8. For those who have been on this board longer than a couple weeks, the posts currently remind me of the 'should we go all in at 50% of par' but in reverse. We are actually at a moment for the first time in 8+ years where the name of this board actually applies - in search of a 10 bagger. The court cases are the court cases - your guess is as good as mine. On one hand I have read the max return in the Lamberth case is well above par with interest but on the other hand we could easily lose and the courts would take years. But what do we expect when Yellen is asked about her FnF plan in a Congressional hearing: "we plan to restart the NWS to fund affordable housing giveaways", or, "we would like to work with Congress in the coming years to find a permanent solution for FnF that helps all Americans especially those at lower income levels"? If the former, well then that's no good and so back to the courts or 3.5 years for a potential new admin. If the latter, should the shares trade here? Many investors held on post January waiting for the SC. They are exiting at any cost, and offer some series currently at 6% of par. The companies have $50bn of capital and rising. I think the market and media are missing that it's not a sure thing that the Biden administration follows exactly what Obama did even though many of the same people are involved. The situation is different and the BlackRock and Pimco group appears to want the federal guarantee which only comes through Congress.
  9. Just because something hasn't worked out so far doesn't mean it was a bad bet. We have certainly lost the battle the last 6 months. Yet we had many chances for things to go our way with decently high probabilities but sometimes things like erratic / uninformed judges, weak administrations, coronaviruses, and Capitol riots etc come up. And, unless we sell, there's still decent odds in front of us from these levels if we step back from this week's disappointment. The 2012 NWS was done in an environment of much less scrutiny and goodwill towards the GSEs -- things are different than a decade ago. Better court cases remain, capital is building (reducing not eliminating odds of receivership), and a legislative solution in 22-24 isn't unimaginable.
  10. I was impressed with the decisiveness of replacing Calabria, it was refreshing. The Biden admin has 3.5 years to implement a plan, likely with Congress. They probably have a motivation for a permanent solution in 2022-2024 rather than just run FnF loose for 3.5 years and risk a new administration reversing everything. Some chance the filibuster goes away in 2023 if Democrats win next year, which would smooth the way for a party line reform vote in 23-24. And if not a bipartisan deal isn't impossible, Toomey could actually push for a deal in 2022 as his pre-retirement finale. At 15 up to par and 1 down to 0, I disagree with the market and its pessimism at current levels.
  11. Hello everyone, long time. I'm not sure if I'm more surprised by today's APA ruling or the share price reaction. For the conservative justices (at a minimum) to hide behind a non-precedent setting anti injunction call on FHFA's powers to allow blatant stealing from shareholders (initially to bypass Congress and fund Obamacare extras) is outrageous at best and very likely many worse descriptions. Yet trading the jr pref down to 8% of par with Lamberth, takings, and potential Congressional 2023-24 action still on the plate also seems extreme to me. Unless someone was expecting a miracle on the constitutional claim, this event was not a 21-22 resolution after Mnuchin punted even if we received a remand on the APA. What a mess this turned into. Good luck to you all.
  12. The Doj's letter to the SC from Thursday isn't a great sign. One, it grossly misleads by suggesting the Jan letter agreement addresses the dividend sweep prospectively (final sentence of last paragraph). And secondly, if the SC is even asking this question - did the Jan letter agreement moot the case - then it shows this complicated case is above their ability to fully comprehend, raising the odds for some non-reasoned opinion.
  13. Is Tim Howard correct or not when he says the Lamberth case is derivative? ps: 1000 posts....what a mess this has been.
  14. The common dilution could be far less than expected if a) we win Collins in 1-2 years b) the housing market doesn't crumble c) the Biden admin takes a 4 year view to craft their solution / release and/or d) the capital buffers are reduced in a transition to utility. A lot of "ifs" in the above but the dilution could in theory end with the 80% warrants and slightly also from jr pref conversion (perhaps at a far higher price reducing the new shares issued).
  15. Regarding Tsy's compensation for their ongoing line of credit in the January letter agreement, capital builds faster at the GSEs through the selection of increasing the liquidation preference vs. the alternative of an earnings-reducing graduated commitment fee. Yet another double down on the Sr pref partial / full write down through legal or eventual settlement; but if it occurs, the GSEs will have tens of billions further in capital at that point than if liq pref wasn't increased in letter agreement and instead a commitment fee was installed.
×
×
  • Create New...