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

[orthopa]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-release-housing-finance-reform-184405526.html

 

Apparently Trump (Paulson?) doesn't like Corkers bill either.

[SnarkyPuppy]

I suspect the views' of corker and the message board consensus on the meaning of 'fair' aren't similar.

 

since the bankers are desperate (crapo led off the whole FSOC meeting talking about GSE reform!), there is some chance the shareholders are bribed to try to pass a bill.

 

but in that scenario, the bribe wouldn't likely be inserted until later in the process.

 

i do agree that it's nice for a Senator to recognize shareholders, thank you Senator Corker for that hopefully fresh start on finding a balanced solution for all parties.

 

Yes, that is what it would take. The existence of the lawsuits is proving to be rather important, I think.

 

There are many forms the bribe could take:

• Shares in the post-receivership FnF (if they even exist)
  
• Payouts to all shareholders, common and junior pref
  
• Payouts to only junior pref holders
  
• Payouts to only series of junior prefs owned by plaintiffs
  
• Payouts to only shares owned by plaintiffs
  

 

I guess the second to last is the only scenario where it matters what series you own.

 

I've highlighted this before and was called crazy.  I'm very worried about a private check being written (settlement) to litigating shareholders.  I understand the counter argument that such a check would be a material proportion to paying out total shareholders, but that gives me little comfort. 

 

Ackman isn't in litigation right?  So they can also say that private settlements didn't take care of all hedge funds.  Would surprise me that Mnuchin would stab paulson in the back when not doing so would be easy, but we do not have full details into their relationship or mnuchins mindset.  Maybe Mnuchin helps make the PR debt whole for paulson instead.

[orthopa]

So what side of his mouth is Corker talking out of? He says he sees a fair solution but puts out a receivership bill? Then full out asks Mnuchin if he would put the companies in recievership just to see if the shit he is throwing sticks.

 

It seems as if he is just throwing out some crazy shit knowing full well it wont fly so he can go back to those he represents and says sorry I did my best. Not my problem. He questioning of mnuchin regarding administrative action tells me he himself sees it coming and knows the bill is too extreme. His bill is one thing but his senate testimony seems like an olive branch from someone who sees defeat on the horizon.

[HalfMeasure]

I suspect the views' of corker and the message board consensus on the meaning of 'fair' aren't similar.

 

since the bankers are desperate (crapo led off the whole FSOC meeting talking about GSE reform!), there is some chance the shareholders are bribed to try to pass a bill.

 

but in that scenario, the bribe wouldn't likely be inserted until later in the process.

 

i do agree that it's nice for a Senator to recognize shareholders, thank you Senator Corker for that hopefully fresh start on finding a balanced solution for all parties.

 

Yes, that is what it would take. The existence of the lawsuits is proving to be rather important, I think.

 

There are many forms the bribe could take:

• Shares in the post-receivership FnF (if they even exist)
  
• Payouts to all shareholders, common and junior pref
  
• Payouts to only junior pref holders
  
• Payouts to only series of junior prefs owned by plaintiffs
  
• Payouts to only shares owned by plaintiffs
  

 

I guess the second to last is the only scenario where it matters what series you own.

 

I've highlighted this before and was called crazy.  I'm very worried about a private check being written (settlement) to litigating shareholders.  I understand the counter argument that such a check would be a material proportion to paying out total shareholders, but that gives me little comfort. 

 

Ackman isn't in litigation right?  So they can also say that private settlements didn't take care of all hedge funds.  Would surprise me that Mnuchin would stab paulson in the back when not doing so would be easy, but we do not have full details into their relationship or mnuchins mindset.  Maybe Mnuchin helps make the PR debt whole for paulson instead.

 

That would be a half-measure that doesn't quite make sense. If they want to clean up the litigation, I believe it would be a comprehensive clean-up, not sub-divided. Why pay most of the money to solve part of the problem?

[rros]

I suspect the views' of corker and the message board consensus on the meaning of 'fair' aren't similar.

 

since the bankers are desperate (crapo led off the whole FSOC meeting talking about GSE reform!), there is some chance the shareholders are bribed to try to pass a bill.

 

but in that scenario, the bribe wouldn't likely be inserted until later in the process.

 

i do agree that it's nice for a Senator to recognize shareholders, thank you Senator Corker for that hopefully fresh start on finding a balanced solution for all parties.

 

Yes, that is what it would take. The existence of the lawsuits is proving to be rather important, I think.

 

There are many forms the bribe could take:

• Shares in the post-receivership FnF (if they even exist)
  
• Payouts to all shareholders, common and junior pref
  
• Payouts to only junior pref holders
  
• Payouts to only series of junior prefs owned by plaintiffs
  
• Payouts to only shares owned by plaintiffs
  

 

I guess the second to last is the only scenario where it matters what series you own.

 

I've highlighted this before and was called crazy.  I'm very worried about a private check being written (settlement) to litigating shareholders.  I understand the counter argument that such a check would be a material proportion to paying out total shareholders, but that gives me little comfort. 

 

Ackman isn't in litigation right?  So they can also say that private settlements didn't take care of all hedge funds.  Would surprise me that Mnuchin would stab paulson in the back when not doing so would be easy, but we do not have full details into their relationship or mnuchins mindset.  Maybe Mnuchin helps make the PR debt whole for paulson instead.

In the past, I could not see your somewhat pessimistic (you would say realistic) point of view as clearly as today. Honestly, I don't know what side is up or down anymore and I question the reality I see. Are we being fooled by Corker and C.Philips into thinking things might be ok for us while the stern reality is that there is a bill out there that may zero us? And that -behind the scenes- there maybe some maneuvering to appease democrats and big shareholders to make this bill get to Trump's desk? I do not trust my own reading of things anymore.

 

The fact that Jumpstart is in this bill does not look good from the perspective of a friendly resolution like getting shares in any new company or even a few bones to keep famous names investors smiling. Jumpstart is very aggressive. Its goal is to keep the lid on Jrs.

 

I can't understand why preferreds went up today.

[Eye4Valu]

Perhaps the market realizes that the bill is unlikely to pass in its current form, and Corker sounds amenable to reworking it to something that will pass and benefit the jrs.

[Guest cherzeca]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-release-housing-finance-reform-184405526.html

 

Apparently Trump (Paulson?) doesn't like Corkers bill either.

 

i doubt that what was released would get toomey's support.  how bipartisan is this draft?  it would appear to have been written by MBA for committee staff without a whole lot of adult supervision.  this may prove embarrassing for CW, much in the way the govt shutdown was a dumbo move for schumer

[Midas79]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-release-housing-finance-reform-184405526.html

 

Apparently Trump (Paulson?) doesn't like Corkers bill either.

 

i doubt that what was released would get toomey's support.  how bipartisan is this draft?  it would appear to have been written by MBA for committee staff without a whole lot of adult supervision.  this may prove embarrassing for CW, much in the way the govt shutdown was a dumbo move for schumer

 

Giving Corker and Warner the benefit of the doubt, we can view this draft as their first offering in a negotiation and that they know they will have to give way on some things to get what they ultimately want.

 

The problem is that what they ultimately want might be to finally kill Fannie and Freddie. I don't think an olive branch to shareholders will matter if the Ds object to that.

 

The compromise seems to be a utility model that somehow caps Fannie and Freddie's market share. Existing shareholders get a piece of those new companies, they (and other market participants) keep affordable housing goals, and the big banks get a slice of the market. The very definition of compromise.

 

What we need now is catchy names for the successor companies to Fannie and Freddie. I would have suggested names starting with G but I don't want to group them with Ginnie Mae. Let's try Helga: HLGA (Home Loan Guaranty Association) and Hubert: HUBR (Homeowners' Underwriting Board for Realty).

 

The "ritual sacrifice" foaming-at-the-mouth Rs that just want Fannie and Freddie gone might be appeased by a name change and a charter repeal. Especially if they can be made to see that Helga and Hubert (Fannie and Freddie as they exist now plus some handicaps) are far different than the 2007 actual Fannie and Freddie that their hate is directed towards.

[rros]

Would Mnuchin stick to his script too?  I say yes.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-breakingviews/breakingviews-trump-policy-agenda-starts-to-stick-to-the-script-idUSKBN1FK0EL

 

It appears that legislative solution is dead after seeing the 29th iteration  of  the  bill. I can’t wait to see millionth iteration of this bill and find that still no one can understand. Tim Howard has some great comments on it.

 

It is shameful to put a bankrupcty proposal on companies that made 20 billion dollar last year and helped bring economy to life again. It is also shameful that this was put on bankrupt.com . Sad.

 

http://bankrupt.com/CRL_FMCC_013018_182330.pdf

As he said, Corker may have strong suspicions this effort will still go nowhere. Again. That doesn't make Corker less dangerous. I don't like his digging into possible receivership by administrative action. This tells me he hasn't given up into zeroing us and he may try a new form of jumpstart to fuck us up after he is gone.

 

I do not see adding jumpstart -tying Treasury's hands- to this bill as a negotiating mechanism but as something simply dangerous to this investment. If he doesn't get what he wants out of a negotiation, what will his next step be? Corker has been and appears to continue to be bad news.

[Eye4Valu]

No joke, some of these pols can't step down fast enough!

[Guest cherzeca]

How much taxpayer money was wasted in this 29th revision of a piece of crap? 

 

 

first time i have agreed with ms warren about anything

[merkhet]

Ive asked before and will ask again. Any reason to not go all in on preferred at least? This sounds narrow minded but only downside I really see left is that % return on agreed compensation/reinstatement etc of preferred is undesirable, ie 40% of par after waiting a couple more years and no div.

 

I think you've identified the main risk being that what seems "fair" to us (par or close to it) may not be what's "fair" to others (CW, Mnuchin, etc.). In general, despite my sense that we are likely due for a favorable result in the near future (post-CW bill failure & Mnuchin taking action), I would be hesitant to push in all my chips here.

[Midas79]

Ive asked before and will ask again. Any reason to not go all in on preferred at least? This sounds narrow minded but only downside I really see left is that % return on agreed compensation/reinstatement etc of preferred is undesirable, ie 40% of par after waiting a couple more years and no div.

 

I think you've identified the main risk being that what seems "fair" to us (par or close to it) may not be what's "fair" to others (CW, Mnuchin, etc.). In general, despite my sense that we are likely due for a favorable result in the near future (post-CW bill failure & Mnuchin taking action), I would be hesitant to push in all my chips here.

 

We could easily have said the same thing a year ago and then got hit with that inexplicable Perry appeal opinion.

 

Do you think there's still a chance of a partial or complete loss of principal, or is it a matter of having alternate non-correlated investment options and being diversified?

[hardincap]

also delaware case. what if trump gets impeached? north korea war breaks out? macro economy shock? let alone we dont even know what mnuchin & co are thinking, other than a few vague statements that people interpret to their liking. theres alot of epistemic arrogance on this thread. the ultimate epistemic arrogance is going all in on any stock.

[rros]

also delaware case. what if trump gets impeached? north korea war breaks out? macro economy shock? let alone we dont even know what mnuchin & co are thinking, other than a few vague statements that people interpret to their liking. theres alot of epistemic arrogance on this thread. the ultimate epistemic arrogance is going all in on any stock.

You can admit you don't know just fine. But humility will not make you rich if it keeps you away from taking a risk. At some point knowing, not knowing or not knowing you don't know makes no difference. You position-size and either take the risk or not.

 

Not just on this play but in any play. You can never know enough and black swans are just around the corner. I got hit by corrupted ceo's playing the backdating option game, fda approved drugs that killed people as soon as they hit the market -drugs retrieved, companies out of business-. Any play can come with a little unexpected, unforeseen black eye. This particular play has a myriad as history has shown. In the end, it is how much risk one can take. Different answers for different people under continuously changing circumstances.

 

Luckily for us, some common sense from actors that matter (December letter of agreement Watt-Mnuchin) may give some reprieve to this investment.

[merkhet]

Do you think there's still a chance of a partial or complete loss of principal, or is it a matter of having alternate non-correlated investment options and being diversified?

 

Sure. hardincap listed a few scenarios. There are probably others. Even if I find them to be low-probability events, I still wouldn't advise going all-in here, and this is coming from someone who has a pretty decent allocation. I may not believe in excessive diversification, but I surely believe in some diversification.

[Guest cherzeca]

there really is no investment option that is correlated to a GSE investment. 

[SnarkyPuppy]

Is Ackman involved in any of the litigation?  I thought not.

 

Ackman publicly praising C&W legislation in his last conference call may help us understand what is happening:

- Ackman, too, truly believes that C&W legislation is so far removed from reality and its failure will be the impetus for admin action (moelis)

- Ackman knows that shareholders will be compensated as part of an actual C&W implementation if passed

- Ackman is party to litigation and will receive a check as part of a private settlement

[orthopa]

Is Ackman involved in any of the litigation?  I thought not.

 

Ackman publicly praising C&W legislation in his last conference call may help us understand what is happening:

- Ackman, too, truly believes that C&W legislation is so far removed from reality and its failure will be the impetus for admin action (moelis)

- Ackman knows that shareholders will be compensated as part of an actual C&W implementation if passed

- Ackman is party to litigation and will receive a check as part of a private settlement

 

Would have to ask the legal guys but wouldnt it be documented somewhere if he or pershing square was party to a lawsuit?

 

I certainly was fooled by Corkers comments during the hearing to then read a draft of his bill a couple of hours late. My probably biased interpretation of watching it over is that Corker knows legislation has little chance of going though by asking Mnuchin what adminstrative options the treasury has and bouncing recievership off of him. Its back to in Mnuchin we trust. We are either going to live or die by him.  I know its healthy to have a leery approach and trust no one but I have not seen to date any action or comment by Mnuchin that would lead me to believe shareholders cant trust him. That remains to be seen of course.

 

 

[SnarkyPuppy]

Wouldn't be surprised if it was as simple as Corker trying to mess with shareholders.  Say something positive during a public hearing at noon and then leak a very negative document around 3pm same day. 

 

You have to understand he has been personally attacked almost viciously by shareholders over the last few years.  Very few people forget about coordinated personal attacks. 

[rros]

Is Ackman involved in any of the litigation?  I thought not.

 

Ackman publicly praising C&W legislation in his last conference call may help us understand what is happening:

- Ackman, too, truly believes that C&W legislation is so far removed from reality and its failure will be the impetus for admin action (moelis)

- Ackman knows that shareholders will be compensated as part of an actual C&W implementation if passed

- Ackman is party to litigation and will receive a check as part of a private settlement

 

Would have to ask the legal guys but wouldnt it be documented somewhere if he or pershing square was party to a lawsuit?

 

I certainly was fooled by Corkers comments during the hearing to then read a draft of his bill a couple of hours late. My probably biased interpretation of watching it over is that Corker knows legislation has little chance of going though by asking Mnuchin what adminstrative options the treasury has and bouncing recievership off of him. Its back to in Mnuchin we trust. We are either going to live or die by him.  I know its healthy to have a leery approach and trust no one but I have not seen to date any action or comment by Mnuchin that would lead me to believe shareholders cant trust him. That remains to be seen of course.

Corker is not your friend. Neither is Senator Warren. She was outspoken about greedy hedge funds in the past. So far, the only thing we have is common sense (Dec. letter of agreement). If Corker can be neutralized perhaps common sense may prevail?

[hardincap]

I know its healthy to have a leery approach and trust no one but I have not seen to date any action or comment by Mnuchin that would lead me to believe shareholders cant trust him. That remains to be seen of course.

 

Phillips' comments put him closer to mba plan than moelis, according to tim howard. philips said if c+w fails he will give it another chance after aug, and gave zero indication that he would consider administrative action.

 

still want to go all in?

[hardincap]

fairholme downsized f&f position

 

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2017Annual.pdf

[Guest cherzeca]

fairholme downsized f&f position

 

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2017Annual.pdf

 

if you squint, fairx is a GSE and JOE fund, with a fair holding of cash.  seems like berkowitz, while not being "all in", is still heavily invested in GSEs

 

there is alot of kabuki theater and palace intrigue going at senate banking committee and trump administration re GSE reform.  personalities compete with policy for attention.  while i still dont know pathway or outcome, i will note that it is quite positive that fhfa released its perspectives, that warren dumped on the CW#29 draft and that mnuchin tells corker in open session that he has administrative options.

 

given the polarity of dems/repubs and that corker is a ticking lame duck, i think time is our friend except for purposes of IRR 

[Midas79]

fairholme downsized f&f position

 

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2017Annual.pdf

 

They sold 22M shares of FMCKM. Those multiple 1M share blocks over the last few months must have been Fairholme.