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

[Desert_Rat]

Is it a good thing that Mnuchin gets nailed today by Demo Warren and Owens?

 

http://dealbreaker.com/2017/05/twenty-first-century-glass-steagall-means-nothing-still/

 

Well, it's not a bad thing.

 

[Desert_Rat]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

I just watched the Corker Mnuchin exchange.

 

Mnuchin talked with Watt and hopes that the dividend will continue to be paid in the future per agreement. And Watt talked about "dancing unilaterally" in last hearing. Does this imply that Watt is the only one thinking about suspending the dividend and not Mnuchin?

 

Corker mentioned that he phoned Mnuchin last night with a few FnF reform proposals. I think they exchanged the opinions privately last night, which is why Corker didn't bring up Recap and Release this morning.

 

What's your thoughts on this? Either:

1. Corker wanted to avoid being disagreed and viewed by his big money donors as losing control, so he wanted to know what Mnuchin thinks ahead of time.

Or:

2. He got some agreements or promise from Mnuchin so he wouldn't bother to confront him again in Congress.

 

 

 

I am leaning to #1 because Corker raised his voice when he said "Hopefully completing the work" around 31:10.

But I don't want to have a biased view here. Any other thoughts welcome.

 

As previously stated, I think Watt went rogue. Mnuchin does not approve.

 

[rros]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

I just watched the Corker Mnuchin exchange.

 

Mnuchin talked with Watt and hopes that the dividend will continue to be paid in the future per agreement. And Watt talked about "dancing unilaterally" in last hearing. Does this imply that Watt is the only one thinking about suspending the dividend and not Mnuchin?

 

Corker mentioned that he phoned Mnuchin last night with a few FnF reform proposals. I think they exchanged the opinions privately last night, which is why Corker didn't bring up Recap and Release this morning.

 

What's your thoughts on this? Either:

1. Corker wanted to avoid being disagreed and viewed by his big money donors as losing control, so he wanted to know what Mnuchin thinks ahead of time.

Or:

2. He got some agreements or promise from Mnuchin so he wouldn't bother to confront him again in Congress.

 

 

 

I am leaning to #1 because Corker raised his voice when he said "Hopefully completing the work" around 31:10.

But I don't want to have a biased view here. Any other thoughts welcome.

It is possible that Corker did not want to be taken by surprise, so #1. But it is also possible Mnuchin asked Corker not to take the conversation in certain directions. It was notable that it was Sen. Brown and not Corker who asked directly about the buffer depletion.

[muscleman]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

1:27:20. No one mentioned this?

 

Corker's buddy Warner asked a hypothetical question that may be highly relevant. If a SIFI institution with trillion dollar assets got a liquidity crunch, do you believe the shareholders should be wiped out?

 

I think he is directly asking does Mnuchin believe FnF's shareholders should be wiped out in GSE reforms later this year.

 

Thoughts?

 

[Midas79]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

1:27:20. No one mentioned this?

 

Corker's buddy Warner asked a hypothetical question that may be highly relevant. If a SIFI institution with trillion dollar assets got a liquidity crunch, do you believe the shareholders should be wiped out?

 

I think he is directly asking does Mnuchin believe FnF's shareholders should be wiped out in GSE reforms later this year.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think this is apples and oranges. A SIFI that went under would presumably be fully privately owned at the time, so shareholders would justifiably be wiped out. This is probably what should have happened with FnF to begin with. Allowing shares to trade and still be outstanding has caused the government no end of headaches.

 

I don't think FnF can qualify to be SIFIs while under government control (how much more government oversight could they impose?), and if they were to be released they would not be on the brink of bankruptcy.

 

I took the question to be more about Mnuchin's stated aversion to bailouts and desire to have private capital take the brunt of any crisis. This is what Mnuchin was agreeing with.

[investorG]

 

 

As previously stated, I think Watt went rogue. Mnuchin does not approve.

 

on the record, yes he disapproves --- I hope everyone realizes how important it is for him not to irritate republicans in congress over the near term with hc, taxes, budget, and debt ceiling between now and year end.  not to mention trump's Russia problems.  trump's awful start and Ginsburg put us in a terrible short term position.

 

in reality, there's a great chance he admires it.

[investorG]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

1:27:20. No one mentioned this?

 

Corker's buddy Warner asked a hypothetical question that may be highly relevant. If a SIFI institution with trillion dollar assets got a liquidity crunch, do you believe the shareholders should be wiped out?

 

I think he is directly asking does Mnuchin believe FnF's shareholders should be wiped out in GSE reforms later this year.

 

Thoughts?

 

it's kinda relevant -- warner did say with foreign subsidiaries so it wasn't directly the GSEs but it was, I think, a trick question to get him to bite.  Mnuchin, I thought, did well by not taking the bait.  overall I thought mnuchin did well today, better than before. 

[muscleman]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428291-1/treasury-secretary-comes-fire-glasssteagall-stance

 

1:27:20. No one mentioned this?

 

Corker's buddy Warner asked a hypothetical question that may be highly relevant. If a SIFI institution with trillion dollar assets got a liquidity crunch, do you believe the shareholders should be wiped out?

 

I think he is directly asking does Mnuchin believe FnF's shareholders should be wiped out in GSE reforms later this year.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think this is apples and oranges. A SIFI that went under would presumably be fully privately owned at the time, so shareholders would justifiably be wiped out. This is probably what should have happened with FnF to begin with. Allowing shares to trade and still be outstanding has caused the government no end of headaches.

 

I don't think FnF can qualify to be SIFIs while under government control (how much more government oversight could they impose?), and if they were to be released they would not be on the brink of bankruptcy.

 

I took the question to be more about Mnuchin's stated aversion to bailouts and desire to have private capital take the brunt of any crisis. This is what Mnuchin was agreeing with.

 

Well I was wondering if D-Warner was using a hypothetical SIFI example to ask what Mnuchin would do with shareholders of FnF.......

 

 

Yeah Warner pushed repeatedly for the answer and Mnuchin hesitated for a while and said he would expect shareholders to be wiped out before government took any losses, which makes sense, and is definitely not  the case here for FnF, which government had the most profitable bailout.

 

 

[Desert_Rat]

FWIW, although it's entirely possible that Warner was referring to FnF, he was in the middle of questioning what changes to Dodd Frank Wall Streeter Mnuchin had in mind, of which bailouts is included in. If not that Warner raised the question would anyone here think anything of it?

 

Besides, F what Corkey and Warner think. What's more important is that Mnuchin stick up for FnF in the future as he did the banks today.

 

Here: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/334125-mnuchin-mum-as-dems-press-for-answers-on-tax-reform-dodd-frank

[SnarkyPuppy]

So basically this entire thing is predicated on the fact that Mnuchin secretly wants shareholders to prevail because he was once on a board with Berkowitz

[Desert_Rat]

So basically this entire thing is predicated on the fact that Mnuchin secretly wants shareholders to prevail because he was once on a board with Berkowitz

Corky seemed too satisfied with his conversation with Mnuchin last night. Then again, I really don't believe he fantasizes about a zero here. He's just a dick supporting his gravy train.

[Midas79]

Not that I would expect this from Mnuchin, but this would have been a great chance to expose Corker's "public losses, private gains" spiel for the lie that it is. Private shareholders got crushed in 2008 and the public has made a handsome profit on the "bailout." The numbers don't lie.

[Desert_Rat]

Trump would  ;D

 

Refreshing after 2 decades of lying and deceit.

[SnarkyPuppy]

Trump would  ;D

 

Refreshing after 2 decades of lying and deceit.

 

What?  He hasn't done this.  And I'm not sure if he's a beacon for the enemy of "lying and deceit" (he will tell you he is, believe me).  Not to make this political, but stop being ridiculous.

[DocSnowball]

Can any one on the board guide me how to find out if Paulson owns any FnF still? Thanks

[rros]

Can any one on the board guide me how to find out if Paulson owns any FnF still? Thanks

http://www.schroders.com/getfunddocument?oid=1.9.2228909

[muscleman]

Can any one on the board guide me how to find out if Paulson owns any FnF still? Thanks

http://www.schroders.com/getfunddocument?oid=1.9.2228909

 

Thank you. It didn't say the position size though. But as long as he still has this position, it is a good thing.

[DocSnowball]

Can any one on the board guide me how to find out if Paulson owns any FnF still? Thanks

http://www.schroders.com/getfunddocument?oid=1.9.2228909

Thanks so much! Appreciate it

[Desert_Rat]

Can any one on the board guide me how to find out if Paulson owns any FnF still? Thanks

http://www.schroders.com/getfunddocument?oid=1.9.2228909

 

Thank you. It didn't say the position size though. But as long as he still has this position, it is a good thing.

 

Kinda does. No financial in his top 10 so we're talking $10~m. Pretty insignificant. He's not a fan of FnF so i wouldn't be surprised if he is exiting post-ruling.

 

[Flynnstone5]

Last I read was Paulson had about 3% of one fund so the under $10M makes sense. So Paulson's stake is irrelevant and no one knows if Icahn still holds or he doesn't (I doubt it from 2014). Someone made the point not too long ago that this whole investment is beginning to shake out to Mnuchin knows Berk from Sears.....lol

 

I think the commons are toast, but I'm curious of how many are beginning to think that the prfd's could wind up getting screwed too? I think the dems would be fine and quite happy if every shareholder winds up with nothing if they had their way. On the rep side, I don't see what Corker/Crapo expect to get out of reform as their plan will not work effectively and Mnuchin for his perceived flaws thus far is not going to restructure in a flawed way just to help Wells Fargo and co.

 

The scary part though is I watched the Corker/Watt exchange again and it just feels like Corker thought he had a plan with Mnuchin, but Watt is suddenly going rogue and is going to fuck everything up by retaining capital. Then yesterday, you get the same feeling that Mnuchin/Corker have "an understanding". Wayne recently made the comment about trusting Mnuchin and I'm really starting to question that myself.

 

 

[Williams406]

I know next to nothing about Paulson's operation but is this Merger Arbitrage Fund his only fund?

[Gregmal]

I know next to nothing about Paulson's operation but is this Merger Arbitrage Fund his only fund?

 

No. Paulson has a fund for just about everything. The Paulson Fund, The Paulson Advantage Fund, The Paulson Super Advantage Fund, The Super Duper Advantage Fund, The Paulson Gold Fund, The Paulson Merger/Arb Fund. The guy is quite the salesman. I remember reading a piece where he was asked about it and he said it's all just marketing and all he has to do is create a new product and people line up for it. Was fairly interesting.

[Desert_Rat]

Last I read was Paulson had about 3% of one fund so the under $10M makes sense. So Paulson's stake is irrelevant and no one knows if Icahn still holds or he doesn't (I doubt it from 2014). Someone made the point not too long ago that this whole investment is beginning to shake out to Mnuchin knows Berk from Sears.....lol

 

I think the commons are toast, but I'm curious of how many are beginning to think that the prfd's could wind up getting screwed too? I think the dems would be fine and quite happy if every shareholder winds up with nothing if they had their way. On the rep side, I don't see what Corker/Crapo expect to get out of reform as their plan will not work effectively and Mnuchin for his perceived flaws thus far is not going to restructure in a flawed way just to help Wells Fargo and co.

 

The scary part though is I watched the Corker/Watt exchange again and it just feels like Corker thought he had a plan with Mnuchin, but Watt is suddenly going rogue and is going to fuck everything up by retaining capital. Then yesterday, you get the same feeling that Mnuchin/Corker have "an understanding". Wayne recently made the comment about trusting Mnuchin and I'm really starting to question that myself.

 

So Watt/Corker communicate a number of times before hearing and Watt is insistent that dividends will be withheld as capital buffer; Corker is assured by Mnuchin that he expects dividends; At hearing, Corker is surprised Watt has stuck to his guns.

 

Pretty good. I buy that.

 

Yesterday Corker is all buddy-buddy with Mnuchin, regardless of Watt's decision. What does that mean if Watt doesn't back down, which I doubt he does? It may mean that Mnuchin is more in Corker's corner than we'd want, and Corker wants us to burn in hell.

 

But, two things: 1) Corker is not shorting FnF, and doesn't care about our fortunes, or lack thereof. As stated, he's afraid that building capital cushion kicks the can down the road. Mnuchin has assured him it won't. Corker is happy. 2) At worst, any substantial change to FnF structures will be shot down by Congress so it doesn't even matter if Mnuchin has something more devious in mind.

 

[Guest cherzeca]

you guys are fools trying to estimate what paulson holds in an unlisted security (which he need not report in sec filings) like fmcc...which he has stated his funds are the largest holder of.  this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness.  which i have been accused of from time to time...

[hardincap]

this board has degenerated into abject mindlessness. 

 

+1. as trump would say, sad!