Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAG) News

DCBill has an axe to grind against Trump

This is supposed to be a non political board.

kthomp19 works for the GOVT

Kthomp is a full-fledged Troll, here for no other reasons than
to irritate and agitate. That's how he gets his kicks.

With my employment history, despite that I've been gone for over 20 years, I believe I understand how the GSE game is played. I never would engage in those stock hijinks and I resent the suggestion.
I stated my political opinion and I thought I made that clear. Whether you buy or sell, either company, that's your call not mine.
If you can find my previous IH posts, from past years, going back to when I published a blog (with similar thoughts there as well), you'll see similar statements.

What really bothers me is that this article came out on Sunday yet today Monday we closed in the red.

If the government decides to put a road through my yard and I take them to court, will the road get reversed or taken out? No, because that action is not illegal. However, I will get monetary damages.

That would be a classic example of a taking. All of the NWS takings cases are completely dead, so your example contradicts the point you're trying to make rather than confirming it.

Did the NWS result in monetary damages granted to Shareholders? YEP.

For reasons entirely unrelated to takings.



(from another post)

Treasury may win. There may be no additional lawsuit wins. But that has nothing to do with the SCOTUS "blessing" the NWS.

The Collins opinion has already had an effect on potential future lawsuit wins: it has prevented at least two major lawsuits (which would have been funded by major junior pref shareholders) from even being filed due to how difficult it is now perceived to get a win against Treasury.

That is not what happened. If it had, the Lamberth jury decision would be overturned.

If the NWS, which directly contradicted FHFA's duty to preserve and conserve assets and maintaining adequate capital, was not ultra vires it's hard to imagine something they could realistically do in the future that is. Certainly not something as simple (and helpful to the companies!) as the LP ratchet.

In consideration for keeping $1, you will owe us $1 in liquidation preference, and you will pay us 10% dividend on it at a time we determine, and until we say otherwise.

I think you are underestimating the value that being able to keep their earnings has to FnF. It drastically reduces (or even virtually eliminates, according to the stress tests) the possibility that FnF will have to draw on Treasury's funding commitment and potentially exhaust it, triggering mandatory receivership.

Does that not sound like a breach of good faith and fair dealing?

No, because the cash NWS removed all economic value from the junior pref and common shares. It isn't possible for any future deal to remove more value than that, therefore a further breach isn't really possible.

Sounds AWEFULLY similar to the last breach which was you make a $1 you owe us $1....

The companies have already been found to have violated the implied covenant by signing an agreement (the NWS) that removed all economic value from the privately held shares. That breach was fully compensated for by the jury's verdict. Ordering the companies to pay even more for (at worst!) merely continuing that same breach sounds AWFULLY like double jeopardy.

There was no contract remedy, which means the language in the shareholder contract was not updated as a result of the Lamberth ruling. All expectations on both sides of the shareholder agreement remain intact.

Wrong. Investor expectations as of the day before the NWS only included the original SPSPAs and the first two amendments (which only increased the funding commitment size). Before the cash NWS, FnF had a clear path to building capital: earn more per year than the 10% cash dividend on the LP. The timing of the cash NWS was in response to this very thing being about to occur in 2012.

Investor expectations as of the day before the LP ratchet included the NWS itself as the then-status quo. That's a world of difference. The cash NWS made it impossible for FnF to ever build capital and escape conservatorship; this was one of the purposes behind it.

Lamberth said that investor expectations are not set at the time of original contracting but instead are updated with every relevant updates, which he specifically said includes the SPSPAs and amendments to them. An investor who held shares just before any the LP ratchet letter agreement had their expectations in part informed by the existence of the cash NWS.

How does the USA government explain the investors around the world that JURY has called the treasury a thief?

The jury didn't say anything at all about Treasury because Treasury was not a defendant in the case.

It was Fannie and Freddie that were found to have violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as directed by the FHFA.

In that case, why hasn't the commitment fee ever been decided or implemented?

From 2008 to 2012 FnF were paying 10% cash dividends, and from 2012 to 2019 they were paying total net worth cash dividends. There was no need for a commitment fee because FnF were already forking over boatloads of cash.

The whole purpose of the SPS dividends is to circumvent the restriction on fees. Make it look like something else, so it can't be challenged as a fee. I'm not going to post a link to the Charter Act, I'm sure you are familiar enough to know better.

This is a direct reference to Barron's legal analysis. He has already refused to file his own lawsuit (evidence of his own hypocrisy) and nobody else has chosen to file one on this basis either, so I see no reason to continue arguing over how many angels fit on the head of that particular pin. If FHFA really did violate the terms of the Charter Act with the original SPSPAs and/or NWS, but nobody ever challenges it in court, then it's legal by your own admission.

Treasury, nor any representation of Treasury has officially made any such claim

Again this is about probabilities, not possibilities. Given all the evidence we have, including the reporting we have from Calabria, what are the chances Treasury converts the SPS compared to a writedown?

All you are arguing is that Calabria's reporting can't lead to a 100% chance on a conversion. I agree there. Our disagreement comes from the weight we put on Calabria's reporting. I think it is highly credible and relevant while you refuse to believe that it is either of those.

And the evidentiary standard you are applying here is ridiculous when extended to everything else. For example, do you demand official word from every source that is ever mentioned in a news article before believing it? If so, how are you able to stay informed at all? If not, why apply this standard to Treasury and not everyone?

You and I both know the logical fallacy you are making.

Since you claim to "know" this, you shouldn't have a hard time picking it out from this list.

Did the SCOTUS also say that there is no repercussions?

Indirectly I suppose, because they denied cert on the CAFC's dismissal of all NWS takings claims.

If so, the Lamberth verdict is in jeopardy.

Maybe if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. They have already made one incomprehensible ruling (that the NWS was not ultra vires) and declined to review another (by the CAFC, that FnF have no right to exclude the government from their net worth and thus the NWS wasn't a taking) so the range of possibility is uncomfortably wide.

Lamberth already specifically ruled that the Collins opinion wouldn't stop the implied covenant claim from going forward. The defendants have tried that argument at least three times and have lost every time, though they recently tried it yet again.

This depends greatly on what happens later. If Treasury gets 10% dividend on the LP for an unknown amount of time, and they later get to redeem the original $1, then clearly they are getting more than the $1 in cash.

Redemption of the LP can only happen upon liquidation, so discounting that value is difficult because you have to take probability of redemption (liquidation), timing, and discount rate into account.

Liquidation preference absolutely has value (to the market) outside of liquidation, as evidenced by Treasury's own valuation of the LP and the fact that different div rates did not totally determine the prices of the juniors before conservatorship.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who keeps saying this is a unique situation.

You said "Trust us - we're from the Government... We'll let you keep a dollar if you owe us a dollar in the future. Brilliant! Let's just do that with every American company and watch our National Debt melt away like magic!" as if it would be possible for the government to do what they did to FnF to any other company. That isn't possible because the conservatorships and "self-dealing" SPSPAs/amendments were only allowed by the GSE Act and HERA, which only apply to FnF.

I'm not the one comparing it to AIG or Citi

While the specific situation FnF are in is unique, the resolution of it doesn't have to be. That's the difference. Citi and AIG went through restructurings, and a restructuring of the SPS is necessary for FnF to hit their regulatory capital requirements before roughly 2040.

KT was one of a few that ridiculed me.

I ridicule you because you have repeatedly shown that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and continue to make counterproductive social media statements that sound like a petulant child whining. One would thing that being blocked by your own representative in Congress would be instructive, but some old dogs really can't learn new tricks.

Did you mention your failure to move your commons back into prefs when the ratio hit 2.2:1 a few months ago? One hit does not make you a genius.

Let's get to 5:0+ so Kthomp will join us in Common!

Why would that help you? I'm still bearish in the long term on the commons versus the juniors at these prices. The only purpose of rotating some juniors into commons would be to rotate back once the FNMAS:FNMA ratio goes back under its normal average of around 3.5:1.

If divvys are resumed, I will be in the 90-100% dividend yield range (vs cost basis) and will hold them for that reason.

I would hold them for the same reason, though I would take some off the table for diversification purposes. My cash-on-cash dividend yield would be somewhat higher (around 15%) but that's more a reflection of my cost basis.

Winning is relative to what else I could be doing with my money. My goal is to double my money every 4 years (18%), minimum performance expectation is 7 years (10.5%).

Your goals are far more reasonable and pragmatic than just about any common (and several preferred) shareholder I have seen on this board. Kudos.

I have found that there is a lot of overlap between the common shareholder base on this board and other classic bagholder traps like MMTLP and LEHNQ. I'm glad I never got caught in those.

I originally got into FNMA in 2013, but exited that same year as I didn't like my forecasts. Decided to come back in 2018 as I thought release was more imminent. Clearly it wasn't.

You managed to avoid two of the three big legal landmines that have cratered the stock prices: Lamberth's original dismissal in October 2014, the appeals court upholding nearly every part of that dismissal in February 2017, and the Supreme Court's Collins opinion in June 2021.

It’s all Ob the man behind curtain

D's position on GSE has been well documented. Do nothing or cause damage, as in Obama under the heading affordable housing

R's approach on housing is Do nothing while in power but talk post term on what I would have done... If....

So are u stating some kinda inside fact? Cause all other evidence points towards n the up direction. Are u trying to buy low?

Repeating my political opinion, don't look for Trump/GOP GSE help.
Too many opponents on the other side.
Have no opinion, yet, on what D's might do. Their opposition comes from Yellen.

Given how the litigation has gone so far, good luck

Preferred

Just the last of the selling pressure drying up.

Just a monday

Vincent Daniel recommended specifically Fannie Mae PFDs.
A super-sized Final Trade! @VD718, @Seawolfcap, @dmoses34, @timseymour, @RiskReversal and @GuyAdami go around the horn. $FNMA $PCT $GENI $GM $CME $GOLD pic.twitter.com/VM3H8PII7A— CNBC's Fast Money (@CNBCFastMoney) July 22, 2024

Fannie Mae was recommended on CNBC today

Because they don't even qualify for damages.
Plunder fannie mae all you want as there are no consequences for doing so.
At least touching freddie gets you a slap on the wrist.

Stocks that make up the Trump trade

Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae have long been Trump’s targets for privatization. The Two back roughly half of all mortgages in US.

‘There's gonna be a push to get Fannie & Freddie out of conservatorship.https://t.co/OLlTl0O8Ue— Cmdr Ron Luhmann (@usnavycmdr) July 22, 2024
Fannie Mae shares have risen 34% since the start of the year and more than 7% over the past month.— Cmdr Ron Luhmann (@usnavycmdr) July 22, 2024

I don’t understand why the price dropped today.

Great find. Thanks for sharing.

"Great day. Sun is shining, skies are blue."

And Fannie Mae was locked away in a deep, dark basement and will not be out to play!

Anyone have the full article? I’d be interested to see what it says. Always need to listen to the contrarian views to make sure the echo chamber isn’t overriding common sense.

Yah... that. I really wish the lawyers would get their heads out of their arse. This should be a layup for FNMA now.

What might happen under the next POTUS in the next 4 years!
Yahoo article.
Quote:
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae (FNM.SG) and Freddie Mac (FHL.SG) have long been Trump’s targets for privatization. The two companies back roughly half of all mortgages in the US.

‘There's going to be a pronounced push to get Fannie and Freddie the mortgage signs out of conservatorship. That's something that you have seen not only Donald Trump focus on, but really the entire Republican party,” BTIG's Boltansky told Yahoo Finance recently in a live interview.

Year to date, Freddie Mac is up more than 60%. Shares have risen more than 6% over the past month. Fannie Mae shares have risen 34% since the start of the year and more than 7% over the past month.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stocks-that-make-up-the-trump-trade-130017653.html

CBS Marketwatch: "Don’t listen to those promoting a ‘Trump trade’ on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac stock: analyst"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-listen-to-unscrupulous-dealers-promoting-this-trump-trade-analyst-says-8a022e0d

FNMA - FMCC
Load Up on these Bad Boys before someone else grabs 'em
Strong Buy

LOL.

Shitty Day

All i meant to say is sit back, relax because everything is going to be just fine. Been a shareholder since 2009 and added to my stack whenever a good opportunity presented itself. The future has never been more bright for fannie and freddie. Never been so close to release. So indeed....it is a great day and the skies are really blue out here. So ho out, have a drink and enjoy yourself. It's coming...and the long time holders will be extatic.

Always thought there was nothing lower than a village idiot. Now I know.

You have been down in the Crapper since open. Cheer up, smile, life is good!

That is not true- fnma does not 0. They were not included in the lawsuit. Even the village idiot knows that about the GSE. People have no shame posting lies.
Fnma

Oh wow. Another four cents down the crapper.

Whatever clown.

Ignored. I hope everyone does the same

correct. in lamberth trial, they replied with the intention of paying nothing by saying post nws investors don't deserve anything as their auditors know none exist from pre nws. otherwise they would have put out the compensation for at least the pre nws. they offered no solution. this would never resolve it appears. just so you know this stock is trading in negative with 16 years time value of money, almost -$2100.00 . but no one can do anything. 300 billion and they keep taking.

can someone post how much did they pay for 79.9% of the company in warrants? less than $1000 for one of the largest private company? this figure needs to be publicized as it shows the injustice.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174769174

JOoa0ky Quote: “ The decision from SCOTUS was that plaintiffs were entitled to something, which is why it got punted back to Lamberth” End of Quote

This came up in discussion sometime ago I asked the Question, The lawsuit that came before the Supreme Court ‘Collin's’ is this the same lawsuit that was sent back to Lamberths court? 8-0 Jury Verdict

Barron, “ No. The 8-0 Jury was from the very first case. The Perry case. That was when Lamberth told the lawyers that they were bringing the wrong case. Lamberth was always correct. Had the Plaintiffs challenged NWS based on violating the laws on the books, they probably would have won back in 2013. But they only challenged the actions of the conservator and tried to get an ultravires ruling. That of course has gone nowhere for a decade now. Still not one case has been filed challenging the violations of charter act etc.
I think the lawyers did this on purpose. Controlled opposition maybe. But doesnt matter the Jury verdict has killed the SPSPA. Just noone realizes it.” End of Quote

Great day. Sun is shining, skies are blue.

"Did the NWS result in monetary damages granted to Shareholders? YEP."

Ask a Fannie Mae common shareholder.

LOL you took the words right out of my mouth.

"Perfect 4 months for Biden to do something, now that he doesn't care about winning a term or legacy or coming back.
By Biden I mean, whoever is driving the housing reform, they can take a bold decision"

I asked him that very question and he wanted to know if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were some of my family members. I believe we are in trouble!