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

[SnarkyPuppy]

Amazing.

[Guest cherzeca]

Hatch is a stud.  Two days of Democrat boycotting and Hatch goes ahead with the vote.  On to the Senate floor!

 

Senate Finance Committee votes to suspend rules requiring Democrats to be present for votes on Mnuchin and Price, then confirm nominations.

 

just wait for dems to say there wasnt a committee quorum to change the committee rules re quorum (lol).  doesnt matter,  mnuchin committee vote has been favorably reported to full senate.  dems can complain there that committee vote is improper, and then full senate will vote to approve mnuchin in any event.

 

the hatching of the hatch-stud

 

edit: apparently the senate parliamentarian signed off on committee vote as being kosher: 

[Luke 532]

Anybody have a hypothesis on when the vote on the Senate floor will take place?  Is this week possible, probable, etc.?

[hardincap]

what a silly stunt by the dems. they gained absolutely nothing and painted themselves as obstructionists, giving trump more fodder for his "clear the swamp" schtick

[Guest cherzeca]

what a silly stunt by the dems. they gained absolutely nothing and painted themselves as obstructionists, giving trump more fodder for his "clear the swamp" schtick

 

think about what mnuchin is likely thinking to himself.....here is a possible thought balloon:  "hmmm, i would love to act on a bipartisan basis with democrats on GSEs. but let's see, sherrod called me a liar, and dems boycotted my committee vote.  maybe time to rethink how practical it is for me to try to be bipartisan..."

[Luke 532]

what a silly stunt by the dems. they gained absolutely nothing and painted themselves as obstructionists, giving trump more fodder for his "clear the swamp" schtick

 

think about what mnuchin is likely thinking to himself.....here is a possible thought balloon:  "hmmm, i would love to act on a bipartisan basis with democrats on GSEs. but let's see, sherrod called me a liar, and dems boycotted my committee vote.  maybe time to rethink how practical it is for me to try to be bipartisan..."

 

Christian, great point.

[Flynnstone5]

I agree that the dems will oppose Mnuchin on probably any plan at all that benefits shareholders. They will be more concerned that hf's will makes money than any shred of common sense and/or what is best for the companies future and home ownership.

 

Is there a plan of action that Mnuchin can execute on his own at will without any democratic involvement? I believe that he can structure a 4th amendment, exit the NWS and  exit conservatorship without going through congress. Can he follow through to the end by settling with P's, adjusting warrant terms if desired, structuring recap and relisting all without their involvement? I'm interested in what he's capable of completely on his own as this will likely be what's necessary to avoid another massive obstruction attempt. Thoughts appreciated in advance.

[Luke 532]

I'm more concerned about Sessions being delayed and someone else at DOJ being able to make a decision to pursue en banc regarding mandamus.

 

Senate committee votes to confirm Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general, confirmation now moves to full Senate for vote.

[no_free_lunch]

So mnuchin is in it looks like?

[Luke 532]

So mnuchin is in it looks like?

 

not yet, Senate still needs to vote (instead of just the committee)

[no_free_lunch]

Okay, just trying to catch up to you all.  It looks like it still needs senate vote.

 

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee suspended committee rules and confirmed U.S. Representative Tom Price to head the Department of Health and Human Services and banker Steven Mnuchin to be Treasury secretary Wednesday on a straight party line vote, sending the nominations to the Senate floor.

 

[rros]

what a silly stunt by the dems. they gained absolutely nothing and painted themselves as obstructionists, giving trump more fodder for his "clear the swamp" schtick

 

think about what mnuchin is likely thinking to himself.....here is a possible thought balloon:  "hmmm, i would love to act on a bipartisan basis with democrats on GSEs. but let's see, sherrod called me a liar, and dems boycotted my committee vote.  maybe time to rethink how practical it is for me to try to be bipartisan..."

But Chris... he IS bipartisan. He is for Trump and for himself!

[no_free_lunch]

PaulyMontreal,

 

What do you see as the upside with fnma common?  It looks like $20B-ish market cap already but then you need to recap the company.  There are nothing but variables here I know but can you give the 30000 ft bull case?

[SnarkyPuppy]

  Noooooo no_free! Any question but that one :)  Pretty sure I exhausted my knowledge bank referencing that question on an earlier post noting, WTF DIK!?!?!?! For instance, if this was a game of chess, we would formulate an attack plan and implement it based on ours and our opponent's progress all within the boundaries of the board and rules, right? I.E. All the sharpie legal eagles on this board have and can lay out seniority in terms of shareholder rights as far as who gets what fixed % slice from a variable sized pie. (still like pie) Smartly, why the preferred's prefer a linear payout.  But seems to me, we commons began this game as pawns against an opponent that could up and take the board with them and go home, and still call that a win. Moreover, and here's where it gets really tricky my friend. We can easily win the battle and lose the war. One example, imo, is Bill Ackman shifting out from commons into preferred's. Oh man, talk about a fnma short sellers wet dream. And I haven't even gotten into recapitalizing (throw a dart on a board for the % required btw) including such other land mines but not limited to another eighty points on the warrants. No no no, no_free, guessing on a number in the short term is fundamentally a fool's game, technically speaking.

 

  My advice, my friend? Put the stock down and step away from the computer for a moment. Your focus, imo, should be on why you think something will occur and not what. Well, go ahead if you can grasp the second one but it's much harder and frankly, irrelevant. Why, is a larger concept to grasp, doesn't always mean you'll be right, but it beats trying to thread a needle. Point is, do you think common sense will prevail. Stop, and think about that as foundation for your decision to invest. Yes, I continue to stack assumptions such as no way on earth can I envision Trump keeping all over payments and exercising warrants in full. I'm also not a finance major, therefor, plenty of other circumstances could arise where those do occur and commons are still, lol, sorry, and commons are still salvageable. And not herein to referred as "ya i have a bunch of those worthless stock certificates upstairs too, want some?" Yes, just a horseshit opinion. But if it happens it ain't gonna be because the "rule of law provided that the contract they signed blah blah friking blah" If those two things occur, imo, it's because Trump wanted the money, in the same fashion Obama did. Except, what one did quietly the other does very loudly. So we know Trump will trumpet the news but given the government already swallowed the hundred and fifty billion in over payments, I see it as the public will, a half win concerning a non existent story. "So you got us half the money back because Obama did what now?" As an aside, we know Trump never brought it up during the campaign once. Why? Ok, I could see why not early on during his run, but towards the end or once President? Seems like they were digging in every hole to find something, that's something. Maybe, Jared et al are as sharp or sharper than net worth's signify, and they were all over this at about 3:30 am Nov 9th, 2016.

 

  The reason I doubt Trump will do the deuce is because if he does so, I don't see how he gets his slice. My favorite flaw in my otherwise yugely flawed reasoning. Two questions. Will Trump try to remunerate himself via the R&R? If yes, will we be able to spot or align our investments to it? For the record, I don't know. But I believe the answers lean one way. So that's the way I bet on it. Ergo, the commons. My price is $2.25 so yes, a lovey dovey number would be peachy keen. But your best case scenario is to focus on the worst ones no_free. So either commons are zero, in which case, phoque me. The commons might get diluted worse than a prohibition bottle of gin, phoque me once more sally. And or, the commons get priced at $1, in which case, phoque inay. They will run as good, better or worse than every other quasi monopoly on earth. A good long term bet to be sure.

 

  To your question my friend, and in my humble opinion my friend, use your intellect and guts to determine what type of outcome you think is the likeliest to occur. I heard certain buzz words, however we know buzz words are only such because we're attuned to them. Like driving a white car makes you notice the mistake you made by choosing white, and so on. But the three words the Treasury Secretary Designate used that stick out to me, expertise, utility and stakeholders. Which happen to align with Trump getting a small slice, not that there's anything wrong with that, the stakeholders being considered and the fnf being treated and protected with the respect that t hey should, given that they're the bedrock of wealth creation. And formed into a utility the SCOTUS couldn't pocket, like obama so naively did while assuming that no one (with a half a brain) was watching.

 

  What can I say no_free, if I'm you, and I'm a healthy, happy, educated, employed, bit of debt, bit of assets, unbelievably high risk tolerant with super fantastic self rationalization abilities, and monster hands, then this is your bet baby! This, is the lock of the day baby! Always wanted to say that. Put down five points of your portfolio on fnma and say it with meno_free, say it loud and say it proud, PHOQUE IT!

 

Good Luck folks and God Bless Us All

 

Dean Moriarty.

[no_free_lunch]

Thanks for the advice as always Pauly.  Hard to disagree with the conviction of someone who can dash out 800 words, drop of the hat.  Nevertheless, I have a feeling the preferred's will end up as common at some point anyways so that is how I think I will play this one out.  Too much easy upside with the pref's and just a few less variables.

[no_free_lunch]

Your focus, imo, should be on why you think something will occur and not what.

 

Why?  Trump wants to get back at Obama. 

 

I know.  It is a simple theory.  Who knows though maybe it is just that simple.

 

[Luke 532]

Mnuchin and Sessions are on the Senate calendar for today, but I doubt the Senate gets to their votes as there is a bunch of stuff on the docket: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

[Flynnstone5]

Mnuchin and Sessions are on the Senate calendar for today, but I doubt the Senate gets to their votes as there is a bunch of stuff on the docket: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

 

Sure seems that way. Started at 11 am and allocated 6hrs of debate. Listening in the background. Dems are so f-ing painful to listen to.......absolutely clueless!

[doc75]

Mnuchin and Sessions are on the Senate calendar for today, but I doubt the Senate gets to their votes as there is a bunch of stuff on the docket: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

 

Sure seems that way. Started at 11 am and allocated 6hrs of debate. Listening in the background. Dems are so f-ing painful to listen to.......absolutely clueless!

 

Yeah it's a good thing Republicans never engage in political grandstanding, filibustering, obstructionism, mock indignation, etc., or nothing would ever get done.

 

It's going to be quite a story for the Dems in the coming months if/when Mnuchin makes a bunch of HF a lot of money on Fannie/Freddie.  They must know there are few stories with such potential to degrade the support of Trump's working-class base.  I would think they'd want to save some energy now so they could turn up the volume when the time is right... but they've already got the dial set at 11.

 

It will be a good time to sell some shares, turn off the TV,  and go on vacation. 

 

 

 

[stevevri]

Senate votes to proceed to executive session to consider Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. 51-48.

 

Now McConnell will call for cloture to end the debate and they'll vote again next week to finish this off.

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

It seems like the Trump Administration has to start changing the narrative.

 

1. Release all the 12,000 documents that they can ASAP.

 

2. Plaintiff attorneys can quickly find the documents that support the narrative that the NWS had nothing to do with preventing the 10% dividend from causing further draws and that instead show that the NWS was all about capturing FnF's profits for Treasury.

 

4. Trump Administration can then focus on de-nationalizing and reversing the expropriation from FnF equity investors. This is a good thing, but to make it credible politically one needs to attack the Obama era Treasury/FHFA.

 

5. What would help is an appeals court decision that supports the plaintiffs narrative by reversing the NWS or at least sending it back to the DC District Court.

 

6. Then, Treasury/FHFA can focus on recapitalizing FnF. Obviously, if they are going to be recapitalized, high FnF equity prices are a good thing, as it allows less earnings dilution to the gov'ts warrants and thereby benefits Treasury and taxpayers. It would be nice if Tsy just cancels the warrants, but I wouldn't assume that that happens, LOL.

 

7. In fact, if Treasury/FHFA allows recapitalizing, it makes sense to support high equity prices for FnF. They can do that by restored the preferred dividends and restarting a common dividends.

 

8. Note that I didn't focus here on cancelling the senior preferred stock and the warrants. It should happen, but I imagine that will be a bit trick-y to explain. I guess one way to explain it is to find documents that show that the SPSPAs and the NWS were purposely done in such a way as to make reversing them and recapitalizing FnF as difficult as possible.

 

 

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

"I'm interested in what he's capable of completely on his own as this will likely be what's necessary to avoid another massive obstruction attempt. Thoughts appreciated in advance."

 

Someone has been posting articles about this on Seeking Alpha.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034039-right-thing-restructuring-spspas

 

I guess the gist is that there are some things that Tsy/FHFA can do in 2017, while some other stuff has to wait until 2018.

 

It seems like the key stuff can be done in 2017 and the rest would just be the icing on the cake. However, I want to be clear that the icing on the cake is sometimes the best thing about eating a piece of cake. So, I'd like a piece of cake with icing please.

[undervalued]

Mnuchin almost confirmed as TS.

[Guest cherzeca]

Mnuchin confirmed as TS

 

so senate went straight to confirmation? excellent!

 

edit: i'm confused.  senate rules are a bitch. looks like the vote was for cloture on mnuchin nomination, not the actual vote approving his nomination.  anyone understand what's going on?

[no_free_lunch]

Thanks wayne for your insights. 

 

4. Trump Administration can then focus on de-nationalizing and reversing the expropriation from FnF equity investors. This is a good thing, but to make it credible politically one needs to attack the Obama era Treasury/FHFA.

 

I don't think this will be a problem.

 

I still think that to make it politically palatable to Trumps base they need the warrants exercised but what do I know.