TightCoil
12 hours ago
I say modestly, remember it was The TightCoil who posted several times, that the real purpose(s) behind the C-Ship, may have been to shield certain board members and directors from a derivative suit against them (in the name of F and F) by Shareholders, for a multitude of wong-doings, which we now know caused financial devastation to those Fannie and Freddie Shareholders It served the purpose of shielding those guys for wong-doings in the past, as well as now protects them for the future. That is until SuperCoil comes to town.
DCBill
13 hours ago
Here's a bundle of that! (A response to NEO on the other board.)
Sunday, February 16, 2025 6:46:44 PM
I just listened to the YouTube clip it, NEO, and YOU ARE RIGHT. It destroys the current arguments the MI's, Zandi, the MBA, the Urban Institute, and others are making who oppose ending Fannie and Freddie C-Ship.
The more who understand efforts to maintain their opposition, the better for shareholders.
u]www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnZzwzew7Sc
TightCoil
13 hours ago
My next door neighbor is a Fannie/Freddie Basher for Cash
and just sent me the following
I asked ChatGPT... Is Fannie Mae headed for the NYSE relisting?
Answer: As of February 16, 2025, there is no official confirmation that Fannie Mae (FNMA) is set to relist on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In January 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced a framework for the "orderly" release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship, indicating potential privatization. However, this does not guarantee an immediate relisting on the NYSE.
reuters.com
Investor Bill Ackman has speculated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could exit conservatorship within the next two years, with possible public listings around 2026.
While these developments suggest a potential path toward privatization and relisting, no definitive timeline has been established. The process involves complex regulatory and legislative steps, and any decision to relist would require approval from the relevant authorities.
His name is Clark.
Fully Diluted
13 hours ago
You’re welcome,
As I think of it - going back 25 years (as I started Career #2) the explicit guarantee v not explicit was part of the study course for my Series 7 license.
And yet you've told your clients that while Fannie's MBS don't have an explicit guarantee, they will still be paid out by the government? 😁 You weren't and aren't the only one. This is still the case. The beginning of the moral hazard chain. 🤔
Calabria wanted to counter moral hazard with extremely high capital requirements. But I don't think you can get this way of thinking out of the heads of those involved as long as Fannie has its charter and is “government sponsored”. There is nothing wrong with lowering the capital rule.
Re SP I call it an obligation as it is EQUITY not debt - but I think the GOV can call it or convert it or ? --- so its not like normal equity ?
You can call it an obligation to fulfill the mandate.
SPS is normal equity as shown in the shareholder‘s equity. Depending on their certificate redeeming or converting is a viable option.
Yes - I do hope that the new head of FHFA lowers those (statutory) a ton.
I am sure you meant (regulatory).
I also think the JPS count differently towards Statutory v Regulatory for reasons well beyond me
Regarding statutory, perpetual non-cumulative preferred shares are one component alongside retained earnings, paid-in capital and common shares.
With regard to regulatory, the situation has been different since Calabria's Capital Rule. This is because Calabria introduced bank-like capital requirements, such as CET1. This does not include preferred shares. Calabria followed the trend after the financial crisis, which sought to prove with several studies that the higher the proportion of common shares and retained earnings, the more securely positioned companies are. But when I look at Fannie's capital structure and the conditions for conservatorship and receivership, I think this introduction of CET1 is nonsense. But who am I to decide such things.
In any case, this CET1 increases the likelihood that the JPS will be converted into commons so that their value also counts towards CET1. However, it is interesting that Calabria provided a value for the JPS in his capital rule that pretty much reflects the current value of the JPS. Conversion is therefore not strictly necessary.
I think that Pulte will get rid of the CET1 requirement.
greybo
17 hours ago
Ackman Peshimv square update- FNMA 2/11/25
Fannie Mae ("FNMA") and Freddie Mac ("FMCC")
A FannieMae
•Macdie
Fannie and Freddie appreciated sharply in 2024 as President Trump's victory increased their probability of exiting conservatorship
President Trump has publicly committed to privatizing Fannie and Freddie
• Meaningful progress was made during President Trump's first term
• Net worth sweep suspended by Secretary Mnuchin in January 2021
• The GSEs now have a combined net worth of $147bn, up from effectively zero prior to President Trump, due to earnings retention facilitated by this suspension
• We believe there is a clear path for Fannie and Freddie to become fully recapitalized and exit conservatorship within the next two years
Recent appointees likely support releasing the GSEs from conservatorship
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent believes conservatorship should be temporary
• Privatizing the GSEs is one of HUD Secretary Scott Turner's priorities
• FHFA Director nominee Bill Pulte to focus on executing the President's agenda Craig Phillips, former counselor to Secretary Mnuchin and advocate for releasing the GSEs, hired by Freddie as EVP of Corporate Strategy and External Affairs
As discussed in our January 16th presentation, "The Art of the Deal", we believe the likely privatization path will result in 5x to 6x upside for FNMA and FMCC shares in two to three years
Source: Company filings. This slide contains Pershing Square's own views and opinions, based on publicly available information, to illustrate Pershing
EternalPatience
17 hours ago
I had a hour long drive today and decided to listen to the old Craig Philips interview from 2021 with Tim Rood in detail.. A few observations he shared was little surprising .. Quoting him near verbatim to the closest possible extent
- Mnuchin told him the weekend of taking that job, if you and me cannot get them out of exit, nobody can
- Mnuchin was also of the same opinion that they badly need to retain capital and the sweep has to stop
- Mel watt was also on the same page with them, in terms of sweep to end and how they can retain capital
- Did not have too much on Calabria, since there was not an overlap of major sorts,
- Was even offering some suggestions to Obama team during transition and the recommendations were, its political, but we will take the heat (May be it was to Biden team i forgot, and its a non political impact to them)
- Had they did the sweep stop in year 1, they would have surely released them in year 4 with few offerings.. golden chance missed..
Many such interesting facts that he shared... He did say, few things got in the way... Tax was the highest priority (just like this time), Covid, Mid terms, Jan 6th. And lot of good insights..
I think Freddie getting him was a super smart move
Fully Diluted
19 hours ago
Hi Donotunderstand,
what you described is exactly the meaning of an „implicit government guarantee“:
… telling clients it was not guaranteed DIRECTLY but IMO GOV would not let them fail.
Ginnie Mae securities are fully backed by the government - exactly how you described it.
But, btw, their securities are a type of mortgage backed securities (MBS).
Let me answer your previous question:
Question
That 94.7B reserves ----- how does it treat the 200B that Treasury says F and F owes them ?
VERY serious question
Fannie and Freddie do not owe the Treasury any money. The 200 billion dollars refers to the value of the SPS. These are on Fannie's and Freddie's books under shareholder's equity. Therefore, they are included in net worth. So the net worth of Fannie is 94.7 billion dollars including the SPS.
However, the SPS are not included in core capital as they are cumulative. Cumulative preferred shares are entitled to receive defaulted dividends at a later date once the companies have sufficient capital. Due to this feature, it is generally standard practice not to include these shares in core capital. However, core capital is crucial for compliance with capital requirements.
This is the reason why Fannie has a positive net worth, but at the same time a negative core capital. In order for the SPS to count as core capital, they must either be modified to non-cumulative, converted to common stock, or simply canceled so that their value is transferred to retained earnings, which count as core capital.
As long as none of that happens, Fannie is not about 20 billion dollars short of meeting its statutory minimum capital requirements, but about 140 billion dollars.
But there are also the regulatory capital requirements that the FHFA has set: once under Watt, and most recently under Calabria. These are significantly higher and must also be met by Fannie. But there is good reason to hope that the new head of the FHFA will lower these requirements significantly and bring them close to the statutory requirements.