Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 it seems that the MBA folks really only wanted the federal cat-risk guaranty, which fhfa's perspectives includes. as far as i can tell, fhfa persps are very compatible with a recap plan along the lines of moelis blueprint, using it as the execution process to get the end result (i mean, if you are told to execute the fhfa persps, which provides for substantial capital in addition to any CRTs that are done, which have to be economically feasible, would you try to destroy the warrant value that treasury has?) totally adverse to what has been reported re CW2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 i have read some commentary that seems to indicate that the FHFA perspectives contemplates a run off of FnF and creation of new SMEs (credit guarantors) as if reincorporating under a state charter is somehow a liquidation. CW2.0 as reported certainly called for that. i dont see that in what FHFA released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Any leaks from the Phillips meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 as general as fhfa was specific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 as to this tweet: "Treasury’s Phillips @WHF_DC: major goal of Administration is a level regulatory playing field between those who keep home mortgages in portfolio and those who securitize them" a fed guaranty of mbs is antithetical to this "major goal". if mbs are guaranteed by treasury, there will be a strong market incentive to securitize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Treasury Counselor Craig Phillips @WHF_DC : broadly supportive of new FHFA white paper, “no allergic reaction to it”, the questions now are “the how” for example “how to measure the value of low-mod versus overall goals” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 https://twitter.com/ks_lyons/status/954055477352108033 Lylac Realty, LLC @ks_lyons Craig Phillips "no allergic reaction" to anything Watt suggested, "agree substantially" with his view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 I emailed Mrs. Shapiro to see if there is a transcript available post-meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Can anyone explain why Jrs. aren't moving much today? We just had the T. Scy counselor agreeing -to a good extent- with Watt's plan. What is the holdup? Risk of receivership to create new shareholder-owned companies where the fate of legacy holders is uncertain? Both Millstein and Berkowitz -in their original plans centuries ago- capitalized new entities using Jrs. at full face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Can anyone explain why Jrs. aren't moving much today? Probably because markets are inefficient. Take advantage if you don't already have as much as you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Can anyone explain why Jrs. aren't moving much today? We just had the T. Scy counselor agreeing -to a good extent- with Watt's plan. What is the holdup? Risk of receivership to create new shareholder-owned companies where the fate of legacy holders is uncertain? Both Millstein and Berkowitz -in their original plans centuries ago- capitalized new entities using Jrs. at full face value. imo timing. and the fact that they've had a great move of late. watt and phillips just mentioned importance of working through congress. this could slip to 2019 when some bad actors are gone. and if it doesn't slip to 2019, the bill has to go thru hensarling. crapo might try to tack this on to the dodd frank re-do which would increase the odds of something passing the house and getting into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 FHFA: Capital buffer is necessary Treasury: We expect our dividend Action: Coordinated and agreed upon capital buffer FHFA: Millstein plan Treasury: Nothing we are allergic to Action: ? I think the odds are EXTREMELY low that FHFA acted in a silo here, despite clear coordination on other related actions. They are politicians and they are very carefully doing what politicians do - crafting the optics of what is happening behind closed doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 i think the market is confused, and i cant say i am surprised. you have three principal actors, watt, mnuchin and corker/warner, and only watt has really tipped his hand in any specific way. CW2.0 is still being written, but to the extent it promotes competition, watt is clear that he is against that and wants FnF all alone (at least initially) as national full market participants such as they are now but subject to utility regulation (which would seem positive for shareholders). phillips just wasted everyone's time by saying nothing, which leads me to believe that mnuchin is too busy still with other things to get any treasury plan signed off. but yes, i would have thought the market would be more positive to the last 24 hours events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 I think the odds are EXTREMELY low that FHFA acted in a silo here, despite clear coordination on other related actions. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 FHFA: Capital buffer is necessary Treasury: We expect our dividend Action: Coordinated and agreed upon capital buffer FHFA: Millstein plan Treasury: Nothing we are allergic to Action: ? I think the odds are EXTREMELY low that FHFA acted in a silo here, despite clear coordination on other related actions. They are politicians and they are very carefully doing what politicians do - crafting the optics of what is happening behind closed doors I think the politics of who says what, when, and in what order is important. FHFA having this plan and Treasury saying "yeah sure, why not" is much better optically than vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Seems to me like the timeline is getting extended (discouraging), but the likelihood of a favorable outcome is increasing (encouraging). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Huh??? Joe LightVerified account @joelight Phillips: "There actually aren't shareholders so there's no longer a fiduciary relationship between stakeholders in the traditional way. We sort of see ourselves as the stakeholder at the Treasury" but not represented by the board and employees because of the shares' nature Calabria said yesterday... “We do want to see our state-owned enterprises move towards liberalization.” https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/3F8481DA-FBCD-11E7-8AB6-ABAEF652B326?__twitter_impression=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 FHFA: Capital buffer is necessary Treasury: We expect our dividend Action: Coordinated and agreed upon capital buffer FHFA: Millstein plan Treasury: Nothing we are allergic to Action: ? I think the odds are EXTREMELY low that FHFA acted in a silo here, despite clear coordination on other related actions. They are politicians and they are very carefully doing what politicians do - crafting the optics of what is happening behind closed doors I think the politics of who says what, when, and in what order is important. FHFA having this plan and Treasury saying "yeah sure, why not" is much better optically than vice versa. i agree with this. i am also reminded of goldman sach's ex ceo, rubin, who was a big optionality guy, and mnuchin worked under him then. rubin argued that you make a decision late in game after keeping all options open, because your ability to make a "correct" decision increases over time as more information is developed and more participants have shown their cards first. it seems to me that treasury (mnuchin) is following this conceptual pathway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Huh??? Joe LightVerified account @joelight Phillips: "There actually aren't shareholders so there's no longer a fiduciary relationship between stakeholders in the traditional way. We sort of see ourselves as the stakeholder at the Treasury" but not represented by the board and employees because of the shares' nature wtf? :o Watt said that the SMEs should be shareholder-owned companies. Does Phillips (and Mnuchin) think that current shareholders have no rights at all and will just be washed away? Or just that current shareholders are that only in name because they have no voting rights or ability to participate in company earnings? Common shares took a small hit just now but not nearly to the extent I would have expected. This news seems to drastically increase the uncertainty behind both commons and juniors, though it is much harder to wipe out (or heavily dilute) the juniors. Joe Light also tweeted this: https://twitter.com/joelight/status/954066284362240000 [Phillips] said Mnuchin is committed to ending the conservatorships during this administration So if Congress gets nothing done at all Mnuchin will eventually act, but it could take up to 3 more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfMeasure Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Huh??? Joe LightVerified account @joelight Phillips: "There actually aren't shareholders so there's no longer a fiduciary relationship between stakeholders in the traditional way. We sort of see ourselves as the stakeholder at the Treasury" but not represented by the board and employees because of the shares' nature wtf? :o Watt said that the SMEs should be shareholder-owned companies. Does Phillips (and Mnuchin) think that current shareholders have no rights at all and will just be washed away? Or just that current shareholders are that only in name because they have no voting rights or ability to participate in company earnings? Common shares took a small hit just now but not nearly to the extent I would have expected. This news seems to drastically increase the uncertainty behind both commons and juniors, though it is much harder to wipe out (or heavily dilute) the juniors. Joe Light also tweeted this: https://twitter.com/joelight/status/954066284362240000 [Phillips] said Mnuchin is committed to ending the conservatorships during this administration So if Congress gets nothing done at all Mnuchin will eventually act, but it could take up to 3 more years. I think you have to contextualize it from the perspective that (I think) he was addressing the governance structure, not necessarily the economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 "Watt's views appear to broadly coincide with the package being developed by Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Ind., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio." https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fhfa-breaks-silence-on-housing-finance-reform ok, i confess ignorance. i was aware of a CW2.0 in the works, as reported by bloomberg, but i wasnt aware that there was a crapo/brown in the works. anyone know about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 I think you have to contextualize it from the perspective that (I think) he was addressing the governance structure, not necessarily the economics. The market seems to agree with you. I would love to have more context behind those quotes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Huh??? Joe LightVerified account @joelight Phillips: "There actually aren't shareholders so there's no longer a fiduciary relationship between stakeholders in the traditional way. We sort of see ourselves as the stakeholder at the Treasury" but not represented by the board and employees because of the shares' nature wtf? :o Watt said that the SMEs should be shareholder-owned companies. Does Phillips (and Mnuchin) think that current shareholders have no rights at all and will just be washed away? Or just that current shareholders are that only in name because they have no voting rights or ability to participate in company earnings? Common shares took a small hit just now but not nearly to the extent I would have expected. This news seems to drastically increase the uncertainty behind both commons and juniors, though it is much harder to wipe out (or heavily dilute) the juniors. Joe Light also tweeted this: https://twitter.com/joelight/status/954066284362240000 [Phillips] said Mnuchin is committed to ending the conservatorships during this administration So if Congress gets nothing done at all Mnuchin will eventually act, but it could take up to 3 more years. imo mnuchin will likely go through the motions in 2018. odds favor nothing will get done, the divide with the House R's is probably too deep. and the deadline is 7 months away. phillips just bought time. in 2019, maxine waters enters the scene replacing hensearling, if the D's win the house as predicted. i'd guess watt gets renominated to see this through. and in the senate, it's likely either crapo (or someone else if he takes the finance committee chairmanship post-hatch) OR sherrod brown. in this base case scenario, things become easier for mnuchin. in addition, housing reform can stimulate the economy. we just had taxes. trump's possibly running for re-election in 34 months. they might want any economic benefit to come later in his first term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 "Treasury's Craig Phillips also told a group today that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will require a draw from Treasury as a result of tax reform which reduced the value of deferred tax assets. This is despite a deal with FHFA to allow each to retain $3 billion in capital" Doesn't make any sense. Only conclusive is they are saying one thing and doing another. 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