investorG

Yep and the expropriation claim. Not sure on timeline for that one ie. if it's been set down for trial. We need a trial date. I recall Holdenwalker saying 500 until trial for Lamberth. Not sure about accuracy. Expert evidence is due 90 days before trial. Don't expect settlement until all of the evidence is in. We still have our MOS, but it will be a pretty terrible outcome if there isn't admin reform in the short term, for example, today. scheduled for summer 2022. and I assume 3 years for appeals. the sweeney / schwartz case is out there too but it appears bogged down in some sort of appeals.

+1 and if there is a pathway out of conservatorship how on earth SPdfs are not dealt? I think we are just getting nuked with pieces of misinformation. My best gin waiting in the fridge in case we have a happy ending LOL we might get the wb82 5-10 year plan (with kicker if Tsy forced to send $125bn back post-Collins).

At this point the pref shares could possibly be valued at NPV based on some expected chances of winning in Lamberth, where I read (but am not sure) that damages, if won, would be par + 6% a year from injury, or ~ $40 (for $25 par). that trial is scheduled to start in 2022 and after appeals maybe 2025.

\ Looking at a decision tree if the answer is no, and one would have to assume Mnuchin would know what Trump thinks by now, why pass the question up to Trump? Mnuchin already looks like a bad guy by saying no. Do we really need 2 "no's" at this point? Secondly its the eve before this goes down and a decision still has not been made on this? How the hell do you have a framework, blueprint all that BS but you havent made a decision on the "thorniest issue"? Really? We are in Trumps hands here, he finishes it but you wait till the end to say no? Just say no right away, or why isnt mnuchins "no" not good enough. I dont get it. I thought this was an agreement between Treasury and FHFA? Why get Trump involved? two "no's" lessens any potential blowback on mnuchin for this disaster.

Sep 30 2019, press release from Treasury: "The (housing) Plan also recommended that Treasury and FHFA develop recapitalization plans for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after identifying and assessing the full range of strategic options. Subsequent amendments to the PSPAs may be appropriate to facilitate the implementation of any eventual recapitalization plans." January 2021: Never mind.

The Trump admin has for 99.5% of its time continued a disgusting policy from Obama 2012 of blatantly stealing from tens of thousands of U.S. citizens via two private companies and now we're pathetically waiting during the last week to see if they right the wrong by stopping the Net Worth Sweep and writing down their senior preferred investment to reflect the fact that the taxpayer has already made well over $100bn in net profits on their initial 2008 investment with more to potentially come from warrants of 80% of the companies' common equity.

Sadly it appears we made a mistake trusting that Mnuchin would do as he said. Despite my disappointments along the way I stuck with the concept of him acting in the end to fix the NWS / sr pref due in part to an interview from years ago when his wife discussed something along the lines of his persistence and stubbornness when he latches on to something. Forward looking the shares will likely be valued on the 3 legal cases' probabilities and timing. Collins has been well discussed. Are we looking at 2024-2025 for post-appeals resolution on Lamberth and sweeney / schwartz? Thank you and good luck everyone.

Despite it looking bleak, it's hard to turn away from such a clear-cut case of tens of thousands of US citizens standing up against an act of betrayal (NWS) by their own government. My hope is sadly fading for Trump / Mnuchin acting honorably to fix the situation but I've been proven wrong many times before.

non credible levers imo, for reasons already discussed. your prediction on sr pref remaining fully in place post jan20 may be right but prepare for a lower starting point on the future journey than 35% of par.

It is probably correct that nothing has changed about Mnuchin/Calabria plan. But our guess of what that plan is keeps changing. Since we don't know, the price goes low. I disagree. Until this article, Mnuchin has been on record stating they are deliberating on the issue. Then these statements appear from a late in the day interview in the article - he would have known it will end up on the front page of the WSJ. Puzzling but definitely a negative coming from him (alternative being silence). WHY? Did talks breakdown? Was a decision to punt reached with concern for impact on the financial system? What changed for him to give these statements? Mr Market letting prices freefall along with volume indicate some are getting the message. Serious question? Does one line from a biased journalist overturn all the evidence you have other then what he reported, even with direct contradicting quotes from the same person (Mnuchin)? He said he was contemplating. Maybe he decided against the consent order among other things. We may have made a mistake for believing in some person or team who has ignored / screwed us for 47 months and stays the course in month 48.

What are the many levers? Pref down 20pct since last week. Another leg lower incoming over next month under the wb82 plan.

Question for some smart poster: ACG's timeline (under biden win) predicts (hopes) for PSPA amendment before jan20. but the window for consent order goes through June -- if Tsy is required as everyone is now saying, how do they get there - assume Yellen is on board? or some other more realistic option?

It could be accurate. It also could be that Mnuchin saw the business insider article and didn't want any FnF issues this week during negotiations and so he called the WSJ writer with some non-binding quotes. Makes lots of sense looks like the former.

It could be accurate. It also could be that Mnuchin saw the business insider article and didn't want any FnF issues this week during negotiations and so he called the WSJ writer with some non-binding quotes.

Trump has far more urgent things to do in the next 35 days than releasing FnF. Given the alt left's attitude toward him, I think his entire business may face bankruptcy soon once he leaves the POTUS position. The left will show the country whoever goes against them will end up bankrupt, and probably in prison, so in the future no more Trumps will show up. Only RINOs and alt left socialists. But I just don't see how Trump can turnaround himself at this moment. I feel really sad for him and for this country. We’re getting far away from FNMA here ... but how is what you predict about Trump any different from what it’s been the last years. He only cares about himself, not about anyone else, not the country, and if he had to, he’d also throw Kushy Ivanka etc to the wolves .... do you really think he cares about some HF ‘buddy’ - his world is transactional and he’s made a reputation (fortune: more questionable) out of conning people (steaks anyone? Trump university to make you rich?). Look at Georgia - do you think he gives a flying crap about the two Republican senators ... or ‘his’ party? It was never his. He’s got a party of one only. Whatever you believe about left or right, this man as president really has been a shame for the country. He spits on the service of those who gave their lives for the country and calls them stupid. The US was always great, and didn’t need a bumbling want-to-be emperor to make it a reality TV show. Back to FNMA - if you want to put your faith in any politician doing something for his pals it’s still Mnuchin ... whether that’s a good bet or not, who knows .... ? Clearly it hasn’t been for the last four years (and I’ve been holding for far longer trusting that the courts will eventually end this madness). Off topic but might want to check out the reception Trump received at the Army Navy Game this weekend.

Trump has far more urgent things to do in the next 35 days than releasing FnF. Given the alt left's attitude toward him, I think his entire business may face bankruptcy soon once he leaves the POTUS position. The left will show the country whoever goes against them will end up bankrupt, and probably in prison, so in the future no more Trumps will show up. Only RINOs and alt left socialists. But I just don't see how Trump can turnaround himself at this moment. I feel really sad for him and for this country. Welcome back Muscleman, your presence makes this board more interesting. Hard to feel sad for Trump when he punted on addressing FnF for 47 months; given the slim margins in many swing states, even partially recapitalized GSEs would have likely won him the electoral college through juicing the economy during the pandemic.

Some theoretical possibilities: - Plaintiffs were asking too much pre-SCOTUS hearing (i.e. the full boat, sr pref write down Plus overage) due to over-confidence - He doesn't intend to settle. Rather enter into a PSPA amendment with Calabria outside of legal world - Good public policy for SCOTUS to decide on FHFA head constitutionality even if PSPA amendment meets Collins' demands re: NWS and sr pref - He thinks trump might still win Or, more pessimistically, he plans to do nothing on Sr pref between now and jan20.

Possible. Hopefully not probable. Share prices go lower in this scenario, not sure why you're invested if this is your view.

Now that the case has been heard would the SC still rule on Calabria's constitutionality even if Collins sees a 4th amendment that is satisfactory to them regarding NWS and sr pref balance?

Anything is possible. But I'd recommend reading footnote 30 of the August 2020 CBO report on recapitalizing the GSEs through Admin options. Also some of Craig Phillips' comments. of course, however, could act isn't the same as will act...

To paraphrase the old joke: If he says "no" he means "maybe". If he says "maybe" he means "yes". If he says "yes", he's no poker player. Between Mnuchin, Calabria and Crapo's statements and the WSJ editorial opinion, something seems to be brewing. Have to be honest here- something seems off. The market, while sometimes inefficient when structural/technical reasons exist (applicable here) and therefore can be slow to react to emerging phenomenon, cannot be this stupid to allow for a 50-100% increase in prices at PSPA 4th amendment signing. I think the market is applying some small discount to account for the risk that Mnuchin doesn't sign the amendment, but have to imagine a large portion of the PSPA amendment is already baked into the price at this point. I could be totally wrong here, given that the details of the amendment are key variables and unknown (simply end NWS? partial write-down of senior pref? details of commitment fee?) but I'm not sure I'd expect a 50-100% increase in prices even in a better-case scenario. I think the market wants closure on the implications of a SCOTUS decision + more specific views on Biden's likelihood of playing nice nice with any consent decree (for example- could Biden not assign a new FHFA director quickly and dramatically increase the capital requirements to make it near impossible to raise private capital and therefore keep the GSE's as cashflowing entities for the govt? The SCOTUS decision won't be final until June so a capital raise won't happen until June - and by then a new FHFA director can come into play and quickly raise the capital standards) Just typing out some random thoughts. Obviously moving in a positive direction but I'm skeptical that the market is just so obviously dumb that it's missing the upcoming PSPA amendment. Thoughts? Welcome to reality. Liquid Jr pref trading @ 43pct of par IMO due to: a) mnuchin might not act on sr pref writedown. b) consent order uncertainty re: FHFA and admin transition c) jr pref have little leverage due to non-cumulative nature of dividends -- would expect a potential exchange at discount to par. d) other unidentifiable pitfalls. Despite most of the propaganda on the message boards there are no free lunches and the market should be respected as a decent leading indicator.

Perhaps Calabria and Collins should simply take the best deal they can get with Tsy (rather than full compensation with overage) in the next 5 weeks to get this resolved. After today and the unlikelihood of retroactive compensation on the constitutional angle, Mnuchin's quote seems accurate: a remand -- if we even get it on APA -- would take a good amount of time and further litigation before potential resolution.

It was likely removed because it's unworkable if you expect private capital to invest with ~ $250bn of preferred on top of common.

It sounded like they wanted to help us but aren't sure how due to some technical legal points. There is some risk they go the Breyer route and wish us luck in the takings court. It appears APA has a greater chance than constitutional backward remedy. The collective group on the call wasn't as 'on point' as I would have hoped in terms of some questions asked and answers, this doesn't appear to be their prime wheelhouse of expertise. I would have preferred to hear more real-world high level commentary about the money #'s in and out, the Obama admin emails, non-cash resolution options, etc. which cement the obnoxiousness of the NWS. Neither side should be comfortable expecting a win IMO. We could lose.

Plus Mnuchin's planted question with Timmons-SC designed to clarify the trigger point for release during the capital build. IMO, Mnuchin is unlikely to make this type of effort if he wasn't serious about a PSPA amendment/consent decree. Overall, I looked for any sign of a change in direction away from the objectives written out in the UST Housing Reform plan. I didn't see any, and new signals (from Powell/Crapo/Warner) left me feeling even more positive. Mnuchin appears to be a man of his word who works in an administration that prides itself on keeping promises. Like it or not that's a wager we are all making. agree how can you have a plan for releasing on a consent decree if you don't do a final agreement? IMO he just showed his cards/purposely telegraphed etc. I am just trying to poke holes to the thesis. At this point, the ball is on Mnuchin's court right? He has complete control over which direction GSE goes whether we get any court win or not. If he left without doing anything about GSEs, is that similar to sticking up middle finger to everyone who's betting on this? With no 4th amendment correcting the NWS, Mnuchin (Trump) has been flipping us off for 23 straight months (post-watt).