Jump to content

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


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

cv-00109 is Robinson v. FHFA,et al. This is a relatively new case, 10/23.

 

Claims

FHFA’s conduct exceeded its statutory authority as conservator. Treasury’s conduct exceeded its statutory authority. Treasury’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious. Blah blah blah.....

 

 

Just do a search for 00109. This seems to get updated fairly regularly and is a pretty good resource to keep track(because you know...there are so many lawsuits out there that it needs to be tracked).

/http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201510.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent filing in Perry case: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1581672.pdf

 

Christian Herzeca's take on it:

the order states:  "The parties may refer to the lodged supplement to the appellate record in their remaining briefs, but they must identify it as such."

 

so really, in all practical effect, the court granted the motion for judicial notice of the supplement to the record (the fairholme discovery material) insofar as the appeals court will be looking at this material in addition to the district court record. 

 

usually on appeal, parties are constricted solely to the record, which in the case with lamberth, plaintiffs are alleging is materially misleading and in certain respects false.  so the plaintiffs can make their arguments based upon the fairholme discovery materials as well, and the appeals court can either find it persuasive or not, just like anything else that is submitted.....but getting it submitted for review is what plaintiffs were looking for and it is what they got

 

Also interesting is the WSJ article about Corker's potentially shady trades: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-bob-corker-profits-on-quick-stock-trades-1446596135?alg=y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent filing in Perry case: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1581672.pdf

 

Christian Herzeca's take on it:

the order states:  "The parties may refer to the lodged supplement to the appellate record in their remaining briefs, but they must identify it as such."

 

so really, in all practical effect, the court granted the motion for judicial notice of the supplement to the record (the fairholme discovery material) insofar as the appeals court will be looking at this material in addition to the district court record. 

 

usually on appeal, parties are constricted solely to the record, which in the case with lamberth, plaintiffs are alleging is materially misleading and in certain respects false.  so the plaintiffs can make their arguments based upon the fairholme discovery materials as well, and the appeals court can either find it persuasive or not, just like anything else that is submitted.....but getting it submitted for review is what plaintiffs were looking for and it is what they got

 

Also interesting is the WSJ article about Corker's potentially shady trades: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-bob-corker-profits-on-quick-stock-trades-1446596135?alg=y

 

The Perry filing is a pretty big win for shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which lodged supplement are they referring to?

 

 

Corker bought or sold 45 times. I'm actually a little surprised he did so well according to that chart in the WSJ.

 

He "watched the trading range on his hometown stock" and "found that especially during times of market volatility it trades within ranges." "I've bought it heavily when it is at the low end of that range and then i hold it unitl there is upwad movement, when I sell." ...wow...just wow. How does he have time to govern?

 

Hah..

U.S. Senator, or Day Trader?

http://investorsunite.org/u-s-senator-or-day-trader/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which lodged supplement are they referring to?

 

It's the supplemental information that Fairholme lodged with the appeals court in the Perry case. Basically all those depositions showing that the trial court was possibly misled by the partial record provided by the government.

 

 

That's a nice amount of progress. I doubt the bill survives, but we'll see if this kicks anything up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC?  Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government).

 

Seems to me like that's a potential opportunity and not a real risk, am i right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC?  Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government).

 

Seth Klarman has a discussion about this and I agree with him.  In other words, no I am not worried even if Ackman does have to sell his stake and the share price plummets.

9:08-10:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0kXOy8LFU8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC?  Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government).

 

Not really. Too bad they don't own any preferred (AFAIK). Would be nice to pick up some more on the cheap. The risk to the common is massive dilution, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. Perry Capital’s request is now timely, as the Court of Appeals has permitted the merits briefing in that Court to include discussion of Protected Information. The parties may now refer to Protected Information in the merits briefing—which is proceeding promptly—even though the merits panel will make the ultimate determination on whether to take judicial notice of the materials. It is therefore necessary that Perry Capital’s counsel—Applicants here—have access to the Protected Information. Without access to the Protected Information, Perry Capital is significantly prejudiced in the prosecution of its appeal.

 

As it stands, Perry Capital is in the untenable position of litigating in the D.C. Circuit without actually being able to see portions of the briefs that will be filed. Without access to the Protected Information, it will be unworkable for the appeal to move forward as a single, consolidated appeal with Perry Capital participating fully.

 

This is good...

Among other obstacles, if the government makes reference to any Protected Information in its brief, Perry Capital will simply be unable to respond. Further, Perry Capital and Fairholme will be unable to file a joint reply brief, because Fairholme will refer to Protected Information in its reply, but Perry Capital cannot view that same information. The current arrangement will also make oral argument unadministrable. If the Court of Appeals or the parties wish to address Protected Information during oral argument, the Court of Appeals would ostensibly have to close the courtroom to Perry Capital while that discussion occurs.

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0254.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW from the recapitalization pdf page 7...

 

"To test this recapitalization proposal, we conducted a standard valuation analysis. It

showed that Fannie and Freddie should have Tier 1 capital of at least $180 billion by 2020, equal

to 4.0% of their projected assets in that year: In addition to the $100 billion the enterprises would

raise through new stock offerings, they could retain $80 billion from their earnings in 2016 to

2020. The analysis also estimated that the price of Fannie and Freddie stock would rise from about

$2.20 per share today, a level badly depressed by the Treasury’s sweep of their annual profits, to

$10.34 per share in 2016, $12.51 per share in 2018 and $15.14 per share in 2020. This strategy,

therefore, can reestablish Fannie and Freddie as independent enterprises actively and profitably

promoting broad homeownership. Variations of the approach should produce similar results, so

long as they retain the basic elements described above."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From page 29 FWIW

 

Those estimates also rest on projections of the value of Fannie and Freddie common stock,

once the Treasury stops sweeping or claiming all of their profits. Under current conditions with

that profit sweep, the 20.1 % of their stock held by private investors is valued at about $2.20 per

share. Once Fannie and Freddie can retain their profits and return to normal operations, the value

per share is projected to rise to $10.34 (2016), $11.38 (2017), $12.51 (2018), $13.76 (2019) and

$15.14 (2020). The new stock offerings also will reduce the ownership stake of those current

investors, from their 20% stake today to 16% in 2017), 13% in 2018, 12% in 2019, and 10% in

2020.125 Finally, private investors who held preferred shares before the conservatorship, now

designated as junior preferred stock, would retain those shares; and their dividends would resume

when the recapitalization is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The co author of this paper was an adviser for both Clinton and Obama. Not sure how much influence he still has but I wonder if this was what political alpha was referring to a couple of weeks ago as opinion maybe changing within the white house.

 

Chances of a release sooner then later seem higher then ever. 2 years ago no one wanted to see FnF released. Now a former adviser to the current administration is releasing papers on a release.

 

The pressure continues to build...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...