Jump to content

FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

twacowfca

By twacowfca
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

orthopa Apprentice

orthopa

Posted
Posted

Who do you guys think holds more sway with Donald Trump?

 

The hedge fund/money guys that he knows and helped get him elected....or political people/factions within the government? It seems to be if Fannie/Freddy were hated so bad and wanted to be dealt with why didn't legislation go through? Weren't a couple of the bills that were drawn up bipartisan? What was the issue? I don't think now that congress is republican it changes  things much as you probably wont find an administration that had it out for the GSE's more then Obama, Parrott, Sperling etc.  If the GSE truly wanted to be gotten rid why didnt it happen?

 

I understand that a certain treasurer could be very good or bad for FNMA/FMCC but could it be any worse then what shareholders have been dealing with for the last 8 years with the Obama admin?

 

If the treasury appointments are not favorable then turns back to a litigation story and not an event driven story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hardincap Newbie

hardincap

Posted
Posted

opinion today looks bad for the p's "conservator must conserve and preserve" argument.

 

Generally, “[w]hen a statute uses a permissive term such as ‘may’ rather than a mandatory term such as ‘shall,’ this choice of language suggests that Congress intends to confer some discretion on the agency.” Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1401 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The simple point here is that the Act “provides the agency broad discretion in enforcement decisions,” N.Y. State Dep’t of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d 1209, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1993), and requires the conclusion that the FCC’s decision here is not reviewable

 

hera:

 

Powers as conservator

The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—

(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and

(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cherzeca

Guest cherzeca

Posted
Posted

opinion today looks bad for the p's "conservator must conserve and preserve" argument.

 

Generally, “[w]hen a statute uses a permissive term such as ‘may’ rather than a mandatory term such as ‘shall,’ this choice of language suggests that Congress intends to confer some discretion on the agency.” Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1401 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The simple point here is that the Act “provides the agency broad discretion in enforcement decisions,” N.Y. State Dep’t of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d 1209, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1993), and requires the conclusion that the FCC’s decision here is not reviewable

 

hera:

 

Powers as conservator

The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—

(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and

(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

 

all true hardincap. 

 

but there is this:  fhfa could be conservator or receiver. so it may as conservator do certain things, but if acting as receiver it must do other things.

 

and perry's reply brief cited cases which construed "may" powers as specifying some powers that could be performed and, by omission, other powers that may not be performed.

 

the real crux on appeals here imo is whether appeals court buys govt's assertion that as long as fhfa was exercising a power, then all judicial scrutiny stops (4671f), which is what lamberth said.  as i recall, this assertion did not get alot of airtime in the orals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rros Newbie

rros

Posted
Posted

opinion today looks bad for the p's "conservator must conserve and preserve" argument.

 

Generally, “[w]hen a statute uses a permissive term such as ‘may’ rather than a mandatory term such as ‘shall,’ this choice of language suggests that Congress intends to confer some discretion on the agency.” Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1401 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The simple point here is that the Act “provides the agency broad discretion in enforcement decisions,” N.Y. State Dep’t of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d 1209, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1993), and requires the conclusion that the FCC’s decision here is not reviewable

 

hera:

 

Powers as conservator

The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—

(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and

(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

 

Just a common sense, non-legal view..

 

may = is allowed to

 

Lawmakers may use the word "may" in cases where "even though it may (is allowed to), it can't" so there is the alternative: can't. As opposed to "may not". Example: may preserve and conserve. But if it can't, it must liquidate.

 

In receivership, the use of the word "may" is useless as there are no alternatives. Liquidation can always be achieved. In all instances. There is no reason "to try". So another way to refer to the word may is "try" or "allowed to try".

 

But since this a non-legal view I may have just wasted everybody's time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
waynepolsonAtoZ Newbie

waynepolsonAtoZ

Posted
Posted

FCC case, does someone have the cite? Is it a net neutrality case?

 

I've argued elsewhere that Internet service should use the common carrier model, not the "information service" model. Not a lawyer, but I understand that the FCC has the authority to decide which model to use. Regulation ends up being different depending on which lane is chosen, slightly anologous to FHFA being able to decide between C and R.

 

Scalia agreed:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-neutralitys-little-known-hero-antonin-scalia/361315/

 

I imagine the big players supported Trump and that we'll see various kinds of "choking" and picking favorites by the major telecoms going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onyx1 Newbie

onyx1

Posted
Posted

Bruce Berkowitz, the firm’s Founder and Chief Investment Officer, will host a one-hour conference call on November 18, 2016, at 11:00 AM EST, with the objective of giving investors the opportunity to participate in the discussion of portfolio outlook and recent performance. Click here to view the press release.

 

The format of the call will mirror that of February's public call: Mr. Berkowitz will provide commentary on investments while responding to comments and questions submitted in advance by the public.  Fairholme will accept questions and/or comments until Friday, November 11 at 5:00 PM EST.  All topics for discussion may be submitted electronically to Ask@fairholme.net.  Please note that submissions will remain anonymous.

 

UPDATE: Guest Speaker Will Address Fannie and Freddie Legal Progress during Fairholme Conference Call

We are pleased to announce that David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, will be joining the conference call. Mr. Thompson, one of the lead attorneys representing Fairholme's interests, will discuss our legal progress with respect to our investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

 

http://www.fairholmefunds.com/confcall2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cherzeca

Guest cherzeca

Posted
Posted

this is somewhat OT, but if like me you really didnt know mr. blackwell, head of trump transition team for domestic policy, then this video might be worth watching: 

 

https://www.facebook.com/blackwellohio/videos/1281634615244269/

 

edit:  more background on blackwell:  http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/left-panics-over-blackwell-as-possible-wh-domestic-policy-advisor/

 

http://www.frc.org/ken-blackwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onyx1 Newbie

onyx1

Posted
Posted

Bob Corker on CNBC this morning. 

 

I was hoping CNBC would post a video.  No such luck.  I did hit the audio record though, and here is my transcription:

 

Sorkin:  “Senator I wanted to ask you a question about Fannie and Freddie.  I spent some time with Bill Ackman the activist investor last week.  One of his great hopes is that they get resolved.  What do think is going to happen?”

 

Corker:  “Well, Mike Crapo is coming into the Head of the Committee in the Senate and I know that he wishes to deal with this and Hensarling does on the house side.  I met Bill Ackman and talked about some of the ideas he has.  I think what you are going to see is that this is the second priority here.  The first being the dealing with the Dodd-Frank excesses, the second dealing with the GSEs.  From my standpoint, we have to eliminate the model of public sector losses and private gains.  Having two entities that are continually guaranteed by the federal government, yet are stockholder ownership is a model that doesn’t work.”

 

“I will say, while I don’t agree with everything that Bill Ackman has talked about, I do think he understands that. And I think maybe, maybe, there is a way to get to a place that is not the system that we have today.  But the model that we have had is totally, utterly, ridiculous.  I mean it is ridiculous.  To have the GSEs with 0.5% capital and $5 trillion in assets combined is a ridiculous model.  We’ll see where that goes.  I’m hopeful that will be dealt with.  I will say that dealing with GSE’s is the most complicated issue I’ve dealt with since I’ve been in the senate.  Far more that dealing with the excesses of Dodd-Frank.  It’s going to take some gray matter to get it into the right place.”

 

My take:  Positive development as he opened the door a crack for negotiation.  But he laid out a marker for eliminating the government support.  I have no idea how much influence Corker will have in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cherzeca

Guest cherzeca

Posted
Posted

Bob Corker on CNBC this morning. 

 

I was hoping CNBC would post a video.  No such luck.  I did hit the audio record though, and here is my transcription:

 

Sorkin:  “Senator I wanted to ask you a question about Fannie and Freddie.  I spent some time with Bill Ackman the activist investor last week.  One of his great hopes is that they get resolved.  What do think is going to happen?”

 

Corker:  “Well, Mike Crapo is coming into the Head of the Committee in the Senate and I know that he wishes to deal with this and Hensarling does on the house side.  I met Bill Ackman and talked about some of the ideas he has.  I think what you are going to see is that this is the second priority here.  The first being the dealing with the Dodd-Frank excesses, the second dealing with the GSEs.  From my standpoint, we have to eliminate the model of public sector losses and private gains.  Having two entities that are continually guaranteed by the federal government, yet are stockholder ownership is a model that doesn’t work.”

 

“I will say, while I don’t agree with everything that Bill Ackman has talked about, I do think he understands that. And I think maybe, maybe, there is a way to get to a place that is not the system that we have today.  But the model that we have had is totally, utterly, ridiculous.  I mean it is ridiculous.  To have the GSEs with 0.5% capital and $5 trillion in assets combined is a ridiculous model.  We’ll see where that goes.  I’m hopeful that will be dealt with.  I will say that dealing with GSE’s is the most complicated issue I’ve dealt with since I’ve been in the senate.  Far more that dealing with the excesses of Dodd-Frank.  It’s going to take some gray matter to get it into the right place.”

 

My take:  Positive development as he opened the door a crack for negotiation.  But he laid out a marker for eliminating the government support.  I have no idea how much influence Corker will have in the process.

 

sounds to me like corker has covered his GSE short

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cherzeca

Guest cherzeca

Posted
Posted

corker is upset they don't have enough capital. how about as a first step, stop sucking the capital out of it bob?

 

attorneys like it when an adverse party makes their case for them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cherzeca

Guest cherzeca

Posted
Posted

 

Maria Bartiromo's twitter feed says it's either Dimon or Mnuchin and that Dimon has already said he's not interested.  Announcement expected on Friday.

 

I don't buy the trump trade aspect. It sure would be. I've to get a ruling though.

 

there is a multiplier effect going on with "trump trade", in my mind.

 

i start from the proposition that perry remand (at least) is more likely than not. before trump, the question was what's next.  answer was litigation (even assuming the priv docs are produced). my investment take was sell on the judicial news.

 

now with trump administration, i see much more likelihood of a settlement...if simply because the negotiating party on the other side has changed remarkably in appearance. so my investment take is to become much more of a holder post judicial decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve_Berk Newbie

Steve_Berk

Posted
Posted

yeah, same here. Previously, I was just waiting for the remand, and I was planning to sell on the spike. But now, I think I'm going to wait to see how things shake out with this new administration

 

 

 

Maria Bartiromo's twitter feed says it's either Dimon or Mnuchin and that Dimon has already said he's not interested.  Announcement expected on Friday.

 

I don't buy the trump trade aspect. It sure would be. I've to get a ruling though.

 

there is a multiplier effect going on with "trump trade", in my mind.

 

i start from the proposition that perry remand (at least) is more likely than not. before trump, the question was what's next.  answer was litigation (even assuming the priv docs are produced). my investment take was sell on the judicial news.

 

now with trump administration, i see much more likelihood of a settlement...if simply because the negotiating party on the other side has changed remarkably in appearance. so my investment take is to become much more of a holder post judicial decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...