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

[Mephistopheles]

Fwiw Ackman said on CNBC he will try to meet with trump and make a deal on Fannie

 

Argh, I wish they showed more than  just 2 minutes of video online, it's such a tease

 

EDIT (Full Video):

 

[Steve_Berk]

He's saying that he didn't seek it and is happy being in congress but agree it would be bad

 

Hensarling being floated for Treasury Sec. That can't be good.

[Guest cherzeca]

dont see "housing policy" discussed here:  https://www.greatagain.gov/index.html

[Guest cherzeca]

+1 we still need to get a remand or reversal in perry

 

i have consistently viewed an investment in fnma to be all about handicapping the litigation, and have generally discounted political machinations regarding reform proposals.

 

and in the last two days, fnma common is up over one third.  on a purely political, nonlitigation event move.

 

it is startling to see a president-elect who has as informal economic advisors mnuchin (and he may become formal after inauguration), paulsen (who advises on housing issues!), and icahn, all of whom have a very predictably shareholder-favorable orientation.

 

who knew?

 

Keep in mind Mnuchin is on the Board of SHLD.  Berkowitz is on the Board of SHLD.  Berkowitz had also publicly endorsed Trump prior to the election.  Preferred shares will be thought of kindly in Trump's administration.

 

And don't forget Ken Blackwell who is on the transition team.  He was Director of the pro-GSE shareholder group Coalition for Mortgage Security back in the day.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/04/07/in-washington-friends-of-fannie-freddie-are-multiplying/

 

There are at least a handful of influential people that are pro-GSE shareholders that will be directly advising Trump.

 

interesting article written by ken blackwell in 2014:  http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/207937-treasury-stealing-from-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders

 

edit: and slightly OT and more recently, there is this:  http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/hillary-is-a-cheater/

[Spekulatius]

Fwiw Ackman said on CNBC he will try to meet with trump and make a deal on Fannie

 

And conflict of interest wouldn't be a problem if Trump makes a deal for his hedge fund buddies? Asking for fodder for investigations?

[investorG]

now that the briefs are in, what's a reasonable time frame on the mandamus ruling?

 

imo the release enthusiasm is a little over-hyped currently in the media and message boards.

 

the mandamus ruling is important for any settlement potential, as there's less incentive to settle if the 11000 documents remain contained

[Mephistopheles]

now that the briefs are in, what's a reasonable time frame on the mandamus ruling?

 

imo the release enthusiasm is a little over-hyped currently in the media and message boards.

 

the mandamus ruling is important for any settlement potential, as there's less incentive to settle if the 11000 documents remain contained

 

Given a new administration, what's the incentive to settle regardless? It's not like Trump and co give 2 shits about what goes to the public in those documents. As cherzeca mentioned, the lawyers work on autopilot and will keep doing so. They will do everything they can to obstruct and delay the trial to increase their billing hours, unless someone stops them.

 

 

[gurpaul88]

Commons close to +100% in 3 days.

[SnarkyPuppy]

Agree seems like speculation, but the volume has been very strong.

[BTShine]

An investment in FNMA(S), etc has always been speculation and handicapping.  It seems logical the odds dramatically shifted when Trump won and his advisors are Carl Icahn, etc.    Most sober, clear eyed businessmen would see this case as one where the govt stole from shareholders, therefore the odds are Trump will see things that way.

[colinwalt]

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

[merkhet]

now that the briefs are in, what's a reasonable time frame on the mandamus ruling?

 

imo the release enthusiasm is a little over-hyped currently in the media and message boards.

 

the mandamus ruling is important for any settlement potential, as there's less incentive to settle if the 11000 documents remain contained

 

Given a new administration, what's the incentive to settle regardless? It's not like Trump and co give 2 shits about what goes to the public in those documents. As cherzeca mentioned, the lawyers work on autopilot and will keep doing so. They will do everything they can to obstruct and delay the trial to increase their billing hours, unless someone stops them.

 

Are you asking about President Obama or President-Elect Trump?

 

President Obama has some incentive to the extent that he wants to find a way to permanently fund affordable housing trusts through the restructuring.

 

President-Elect Trump wants to fund a huge infrastructure push, and I think that monetizing the warrants would go a long way towards helping to fund that.

[investorG]

regarding the settlement question,

 

Your guess is as good as mine regarding what Trump will do.

 

But Obama might want to settle the current lawsuits to avoid emails coming out, depending on what's in there.  this would allow trump a clean slate to handle the GSE's however he sees fit without ongoing lawsuits.

 

So imo the mandamus ruling is important on this front.  any good ideas on timing?

[BTShine]

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

[Sunrider]

How do you guys defined good businessman - according some analysis around, Trump investing the money from his dad in the S&P would've made him a richer man than all of his very successful businesses .... ?

 

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

[colinwalt]

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

 

Agreed :-)

[colinwalt]

How do you guys defined good businessman - according some analysis around, Trump investing the money from his dad in the S&P would've made him a richer man than all of his very successful businesses .... ?

 

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

 

 

Sorry to disappoint, not going down this OT rabbit hole :-)

[Guest cherzeca]

as to mandamus decision timing, i have never seen the fed circuit handle a mandamus appeal, so i have no clue based upon similar situation.

 

i will say that the briefing timing was VERY tight, and there has been no scheduling of oral argument, so it may be as soon as a couple of weeks.  mandamus grant must satisfy a very high standard, which makes this a relatively easy decision

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

I've calculated the upside for commoners is $24 billion, but that assumes that the warrants are issued. Please feel free to take that $24 b times five if you want to do so. It's conceivable in the era of The Donald.

 

Upside for preferreds is $28 b assuming return to redemption value.

 

In an era of pay-to-play politics these numbers may be all that matters.

[Gregmal]

How do you guys defined good businessman - according some analysis around, Trump investing the money from his dad in the S&P would've made him a richer man than all of his very successful businesses .... ?

 

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

 

For one, simply making the decision to invest the money, into an index fund or real estate or whatever, is a much harder decision to make than one gives credit for with the blind and naive "index fund would have done better" argument. Secondarily, as many here should be intimately familiar, outperforming an index is no easy task either. And lastly, I dont care what people say, but being in a position where you own or are associated on a high level basis with 400+ companies is all the proof you need of his business success. The "oh but he had 4 that went bankrupt" argument is pretty hilarious as by my count that still means 99% of his businesses are still around. And when you're comparing that to someone like HRC whose most daring business venture was getting paid $250,000 an hour to give speeches, the whole conversation seems utterly preposterous.

 

Bottom line is that Trump may be a bit of a whacko with questionable judgment and character, but he is unequivocally, at the very least, a capable businessman. Considering this, as well as the fact that being a morally grounded person has never been necessary to be POTUS, and its clear that the bickering by many is largely founded in subjective and personal biases rather than any sort of legitimate reasoning.

[Sunrider]

Let's take this to the Trump thread on the general forum. I think being associated with hundreds of companies is not a meaningful criterion of business success, more a sign of being able to stamp your name on things. That said, I don't care very much, I just hope that he turns out more like a Reagan type president.

 

How do you guys defined good businessman - according some analysis around, Trump investing the money from his dad in the S&P would've made him a richer man than all of his very successful businesses .... ?

 

Except, I think that "Most sober, clear eyes businessmen" is stretching things just a bit where Trump is concerned... no?

 

Agree to disagree on this one?

 

For one, simply making the decision to invest the money, into an index fund or real estate or whatever, is a much harder decision to make than one gives credit for with the blind and naive "index fund would have done better" argument. Secondarily, as many here should be intimately familiar, outperforming an index is no easy task either. And lastly, I dont care what people say, but being in a position where you own or are associated on a high level basis with 400+ companies is all the proof you need of his business success. The "oh but he had 4 that went bankrupt" argument is pretty hilarious as by my count that still means 99% of his businesses are still around. And when you're comparing that to someone like HRC whose most daring business venture was getting paid $250,000 an hour to give speeches, the whole conversation seems utterly preposterous.

 

Bottom line is that Trump may be a bit of a whacko with questionable judgment and character, but he is unequivocally, at the very least, a capable businessman. Considering this, as well as the fact that being a morally grounded person has never been necessary to be POTUS, and its clear that the bickering by many is largely founded in subjective and personal biases rather than any sort of legitimate reasoning.

[merkhet]

Marsha Blackburn is on the Trump transition team. See article from a year ago:

 

http://nlihc.org/article/bill-would-create-gse-reserve-fund-end-treasury-sweep

[doughishere]

What is she like? Bob Corkers arch-rival?  /s

[Guest wellmont]

Marsha Blackburn is on the Trump transition team. See article from a year ago:

 

http://nlihc.org/article/bill-would-create-gse-reserve-fund-end-treasury-sweep

 

This idea is still sweeping profits out of Fannie and away from owners.

[BargainValueHunter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hedge-fund_us_5826076ce4b02d21bbc8781e

 

Paulson, head of Paulson & Co., was one of the very few big names on Wall Street to immediately back Trump after he secured the GOP nomination. The billionaire investor hosted Trump in June for a fundraiser at Le Cirque, a jackets-required midtown Manhattan haunt for the wealthy styled after a traveling French circus, where top donors (like Paulson) coughed up $250,000 to attend.

 

Now, Paulson is a top policy advisor to the incoming Trump administration and he is poised to cash out from the administration big league. Back when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government, their shares were declared value-less. But speculators bought up their stock at pennies on the dollar, with the hope of pressuring the government to recapitalize the housing lenders’ losses and release them back to the private market. If the shares could rise from just pennies to $30 or 40, the gains would be astronomical.

 

Paulson is one of the biggest investors in Fannie and Freddie stock and signs point to Trump going forward with their preferred policy. It will provide a windfall of hundreds of millions if not billions for billionaires like Paulson and Fairholme Capital Management’s Bruce Berkowitz, among others. Berkowitz backed Trump and donated $125,000 to his campaign.