TwoCitiesCapital Posted May 22 Posted May 22 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Sunrider said: Indeed - what a slow burn. Just wondered whether there's anything new in terms of admin action or courts which I missed? I seem to recall that there was a plan to release once they build enough capital - was that ever formalised? How far away would the companies be from that? C. They're still not able to really build capital. Every $ of retained earnings is offset by a liability of $ owed to the Treasury via liquidation preference. They get the benefit of having access to that liquidity, but any return it generates is still owned by the Treasury and not shareholders. The only real benefit of "reforms" made by the Trump admin is it put an extra layer of trouble for the Treasury in accessing those funds that they technically own - basically made a current asset a deferred asset. Shareholders do not benefit from this arrangement though - it seems more designed to punish the next administration then improve anything for the stockholders. People have argued it was set up to incentivize additional negotiations between the two parties to come to an agreement in the middle, but here we are 4-years later with 0 progress made there. It was a hard argument to make as a positive twist then and significantly harder argument to make today with the benefits of hindsight. Edited May 22 by TwoCitiesCapital
sholland Posted May 22 Posted May 22 7 hours ago, Sunrider said: Indeed - what a slow burn. Just wondered whether there's anything new in terms of admin action or courts which I missed? I seem to recall that there was a plan to release once they build enough capital - was that ever formalised? How far away would the companies be from that? C. It’s a Trump trade. Share prices going up lately because Trump’s poll numbers have gone up. Trump floated the idea of John Paulson being the treasury secretary. Paulson was a backer of the Moelis Plan to recap and release.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted May 22 Posted May 22 23 minutes ago, sholland said: It’s a Trump trade. Share prices going up lately because Trump’s poll numbers have gone up. Trump floated the idea of John Paulson being the treasury secretary. Paulson was a backer of the Moelis Plan to recap and release. If Trump really wanted to help them, couldn't he have forfeited the Treasuries' defense in court and admitted that the institutions were stolen from shareholders, and pillaged, at the direction of the Treasury and the prior administration? He didn't.
Sunrider Posted May 23 Posted May 23 Thank you. If there is one thing I’m sure about is that Trump as President or ex will only do what benefits him.
Sweet Posted May 23 Posted May 23 I don't believe that Trump could not have gotten these companies released had it truly been a priority.
gfp Posted May 23 Posted May 23 I don't follow any of this FNMA/Freddie stuff closely, but I will just point out that Trump was completely checked out once COVID messed up the pretty picture he was trying to paint. Mnuchin was basically running Treasury without much input from Trump and Mnuchin was busy micromanaging the COVID response with Jay Powell.
Mephistopheles Posted May 24 Posted May 24 Mnuchin went on cnbc before Trump was even sworn in, and said he wanted to release the companies. He should have had it done long before Covid. As two cities mentioned, why the fuck did he keep fighting Fairholme et al in court?? How hard is it to drop a case, to settle if you’re the Sec of Treasury. Is the bureaucracy really that bad?
ValueMaven Posted July 2 Posted July 2 Shocked this board has been dead - despite Trump clearly pulling ahead vs. Biden. Shows you a decade plus of investor fatigue
sleepydragon Posted July 2 Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, ValueMaven said: Shocked this board has been dead - despite Trump clearly pulling ahead vs. Biden. Shows you a decade plus of investor fatigue I did bought FNMAS. Up 25%. But tiny position though.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 5 Posted July 5 (edited) On 7/2/2024 at 2:45 PM, ValueMaven said: Shocked this board has been dead - despite Trump clearly pulling ahead vs. Biden. Shows you a decade plus of investor fatigue Shows us how little faith anyone on the board has that Trump is going to do any more for this his second time around. He had every opportunity to get something done the first time and opted not to. Edited July 5 by TwoCitiesCapital
sholland Posted July 6 Posted July 6 As it says below Mark Calabria’s picture in the 11/19/2019 issue of the WSJ, the plan was to do an IPO in 2021 or 2022. In a recent interview Mark Calabria said w/o the pandemic the GSEs would be out of Conservatorship. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-06-11/calabria-on-fannie-freddie-conservatorships-votes-and-verdicts
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 6 Posted July 6 5 hours ago, sholland said: As it says below Mark Calabria’s picture in the 11/19/2019 issue of the WSJ, the plan was to do an IPO in 2021 or 2022. In a recent interview Mark Calabria said w/o the pandemic the GSEs would be out of Conservatorship. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-06-11/calabria-on-fannie-freddie-conservatorships-votes-and-verdicts It's all words. They had the opportunity, and didn't. They could've dropped the lawsuits. They didn't. The could've ended the net worth sweep. They didn't. They simply hamstrung the next administration from accessing the profits that Trump was more than happy to spend his 4 years. I don't judge their words - I judge their actions.
Sweet Posted July 7 Posted July 7 (edited) 14 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said: It's all words. They had the opportunity, and didn't. They could've dropped the lawsuits. They didn't. The could've ended the net worth sweep. They didn't. They simply hamstrung the next administration from accessing the profits that Trump was more than happy to spend his 4 years. I don't judge their words - I judge their actions. Agree with this. There was so much talk about getting they out, getting them IPO’d, all bs. No reason to think any different. Edited July 7 by Sweet
Wiggins Posted July 8 Posted July 8 On 5/24/2024 at 9:09 AM, Mephistopheles said: Mnuchin went on cnbc before Trump was even sworn in, and said he wanted to release the companies. He should have had it done long before Covid. As two cities mentioned, why the fuck did he keep fighting Fairholme et al in court?? How hard is it to drop a case, to settle if you’re the Sec of Treasury. Is the bureaucracy really that bad? I think the answer is basically yes. We need to differentiate between Mnuchin and Trump. Mnuchin was clearly a liar on the GSEs saga for precisely the reasons you cite. He kept up the hideous legal attack and then passed the hideous 4th amendment. Moreover, it was Treasury's defense (i.e. Mnuchin) who blabbered on an on about "windfall" for investors, which was a disgusting comment given the losses investors had suffered for years and years. Contrast that with the Trump letter quote: "...they allowed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to steal the retirement savings of hard working Americans who had invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." So, not only did Trump say he would release the GSEs but he spoke very supportively and directly about the cause of investors who got screwed. That's huge, and it's a first from any president. Now, is it for real or is it just Trump BS? Well, it's actually a physical letter written to Rand Paul that can and will be brought up in a 2nd administration by people like Bartiromo. I see him as generally following through on policy statements he makes. And this time everyone knows this is the last chance (i.e., only one term) in contrast to his prior administration.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 9 Posted July 9 I still don't buy it. Trump could've directed Mnuchin what to do if this was a priority for him. It wasn't. I still hold my preferreds as a lottery ticket, but y'all need to stop buying into the hype that Trump will do a 180 from the last time he had influence/power to get it done. Trump only cares about himself. If he announced a personal stake in the companies, I might actually believe he'd attempt to get something done.
Wiggins Posted July 10 Posted July 10 I appreciate the discussion and feel the frustration, but if you really feel Trump will not do anything and this is a "lottery ticket" you might want to consider unwinding the investment because that's not a great investment strategy. Anyone wondering about the power of the "administrative state" in the face of a president getting things done, may I suggest the book Confidence Men by Ron Suskind? The history of FHFA conservatorship is replete with administrative perfidy. Hank Paulson started it with conservatorship itself, that was supposed to be a "temporary time out." Insiders then lied to get the NWS passed. And back when Calabria was at FHFA he even mentioned the difficulty of getting access to the "11,000 documents" as they were stored at the national archives and there was a lot of administrative hassle accessing them. Presently, look at the current example of Biden who is clearly not in charge. The corporate lawyers write the laws and peddle influence. For a politician who actually wants to get something done, their primary weapon is to shed light on the issue and then get popular support. And that's why the Trump letter is so important. Even regardless of how Trump actually feels, the letter's optics are incredibly powerful. It refers to Fannie and Freddie as "great American companies." Where have you heard that, and from a President, no less? I'm still a believer in this investment for quite a few reasons. I do believe Trump the businessman will see the value in unlocking ~$100 billion by exercising the warrants and selling common stock. That money is unallocated off budget, very powerful stuff for an administration. I do believe there's a sizable faction that want them released, some of them own JPS, and many of them have influence with Trump.There's also the overhang of lawsuits, principally Cacciapalle. On appeal there's the possibility the awarded damages could go far higher than the current $612.4 million (plus interest). So there we have the carrot and the stick. And in the meantime, the entities are too important to unwind.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 10 Posted July 10 3 hours ago, Wiggins said: I appreciate the discussion and feel the frustration, but if you really feel Trump will not do anything and this is a "lottery ticket" you might want to consider unwinding the investment because that's not a great investment strategy. Counting on Trump last time, and the courts before that, also proved to be poor strategies. At this point I'm simply holding it because it can still make a significant impact on my returns if par is returned at any point in the next 10 years, but is small enough relative to the rest of the portfolio that there isn't much performance drag from continuing to hold it.
Wiggins Posted July 10 Posted July 10 16 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said: "At this point I'm simply holding it because it can still make a significant impact on my returns if par is returned at any point in the next 10 years, but is small enough relative to the rest of the portfolio that there isn't much performance drag from continuing to hold it. " OK. Why not buy a lottery ticket? That'll impact your portfolio a lot more.
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 11 Posted July 11 (edited) 22 hours ago, Wiggins said: OK. Why not buy a lottery ticket? That'll impact your portfolio a lot more. Can't buy lottery tickets in my IRA... Also, I think the odds here are just a hair higher than the odds in an actual lottery ticket Edited July 11 by TwoCitiesCapital
Wiggins Posted July 12 Posted July 12 On 7/6/2024 at 9:37 AM, sholland said: As it says below Mark Calabria’s picture in the 11/19/2019 issue of the WSJ, the plan was to do an IPO in 2021 or 2022. In a recent interview Mark Calabria said w/o the pandemic the GSEs would be out of Conservatorship. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-06-11/calabria-on-fannie-freddie-conservatorships-votes-and-verdicts I awoke with this exact thought today but hadn't seen sholland's comment about it from last Saturday until this morning. Covid was a huge disruptor. It's hard to imagine getting this done during that time when everything was shut down for months on end. If you read Trump's letter to Rand Paul, it really lays out his thinking from a business perspective, with two points being that investors were screwed and the government can make billions of dollars off of their investments. Trump may not be a good businessman, but he is a businessman. I think this will carry the day. The great impetus for the administration to prioritize this is to unlock the $100 billion dollars or more going in to the coffers of his administration's Treasury.
Mephistopheles Posted July 12 Posted July 12 On 7/6/2024 at 9:37 AM, sholland said: As it says below Mark Calabria’s picture in the 11/19/2019 issue of the WSJ, the plan was to do an IPO in 2021 or 2022. In a recent interview Mark Calabria said w/o the pandemic the GSEs would be out of Conservatorship. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-06-11/calabria-on-fannie-freddie-conservatorships-votes-and-verdicts I just listened to this. Learned stuff I hadn’t known. It seemed hopeful until it got to the part where he discussed the end of the NWS and how the lawyers at Treasury wanted to increase the liquidation preference in exchange. He stated he doesn’t agree with this and said it would be something to watch for in a second Trump term. Seems like we had a well meaning FHFA and Secretary of Treasury, but the career lawyers at Treasury got their way….
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 12 Posted July 12 1 hour ago, Mephistopheles said: I just listened to this. Learned stuff I hadn’t known. It seemed hopeful until it got to the part where he discussed the end of the NWS and how the lawyers at Treasury wanted to increase the liquidation preference in exchange. He stated he doesn’t agree with this and said it would be something to watch for in a second Trump term. Seems like we had a well meaning FHFA and Secretary of Treasury, but the career lawyers at Treasury got their way…. You're telling me the head of the Treasury has no control over the lawyers he employs?
Mephistopheles Posted July 12 Posted July 12 3 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said: You're telling me the head of the Treasury has no control over the lawyers he employs? Apparently Mnuchin did not push back, even though Calabria didn’t like the idea.
Wiggins Posted July 13 Posted July 13 Key article. According to this WSJ article out today, there is indeed an "administrative state", and the Project 2025 transition team even has a class for prospective administrative candidates called "..."Conservative Governance 101" that teach potential appointees about the "dangers of the administrative state"..." Most of the article talks about Trump disavowing much of Project 2025 and his history of tossing out well-laid plans in the past and doing his own thing, which may come as comfort to those worried about the plans for the GSEs in Project 2025, although in reality it's plan is incoherent and contradictory. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/project-2025-donald-trump-election-2024-b89ed4dd?mod=hp_lead_pos7
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