Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[trunkmonk]

so old it was before SM the snake, oiled down the SPSA to suit himself, even after he violated an executive order to release them.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1236

[Robert from yahoo bd]

"But if Chevron really supports the result below,
then it is no longer sufficient for this Court to ignore
Chevron. Whatever theoretical benefits might have
been perceived with Chevron when it was decided,
decades of practice have exposed its many flaws. To
begin with, Chevron “wrests from Courts the ultimate
interpretative authority to ‘say what the law is’” and
places it in the executive’s hands. Michigan, 576 U.S.
at 761 (Thomas, J., concurring). When a law is truly
unambiguous, there is little need for statutory
construction. The whole business of statutory
construction concerns statutory text that at least one
of the litigants perceives to be ambiguous. Thus, a
doctrine that defers to the executive at the first sign of
ambiguity is nothing short of an “abdication of the
judicial duty.” Gutierrez-Brizuela, 834 F.3d at 1152
(Gorsuch, J., concurring).
Moreover, precisely because the judiciary is
weakened under Chevron, the doctrine also
encourages the executive branch’s aggrandizement at
the expense of the judiciary, Congress, and the citizenry. It is no accident that the Code of Federal
Regulation has burgeoned during the Chevron era. It
is far easier to gin up ambiguity in a statute than it is
to run the gauntlet of bicameralism and presentment.
Compare Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1413
(2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part) (“Both by
design and as a matter of fact, enacting new
legislation is difficult.”), with Kent Barnett &
Christopher J. Walker, Chevron in the Circuit Courts,
116 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 33-34 (2017) (sampling over 1,000
cases and concluding that courts of appeals find
ambiguity at Chevron step one 70% of the time).
Worse still, it is far harder for Congress to enact new
legislation when one party or the other can rely on
their friends in the executive branch to fix the problem
without the hassle and accountability that comes with
actually legislating."

[NeoSunTzu]

I am 100% with you, but the main problem I see with your reading of the laws, rules, regs, provisions - however we characterize them - is that we are dealing with gangsters who have no regard for laws, and they make up their own numbers, economics, and financial concepts as they go which is why this country's finances and banking system are the fattest of lipsticked pigs.

[Wise Man]

DeMarco's beliefs are evidence of the Separate Account plan, along with the fact that the UST chose a Privatized System for the "recommendations on ending the Conservatorships, no later than January 31, 2011", at the request of the Dodd-Frank Law.
What matters is that he was known for the strict compliance with the law as it's written.

So, he showed "wind-down", but every action had other side that upheld the law, in what is known as a Separate Account plan.
He didn't believe in congressionally-chartered private corporations with a Public Mission and a UST backup of the enterprises embedded, where the shareholders benefit from it as well, as holders of economic interests in them, and he embarked on a plan of deception thinking that, in a political negotiation, his beliefs will prevail, as opposed to the Law, saving him from the felony of stock price manipulation.
It doesn't matter how deep the fabricated losses were, if FnF just had to tap the UST for funds. That's the Charter's dynamics.
DeMarco was a bureaucrat who wanted to change the will of Congress.
It should be investigated whether he also wanted to make up for the losses in the $30B RefCorp obligation bought by the UST in 1989, when he was involved at GAO and the UST, along with Sandra Thompson at the FDIC.
15 years into the Conservatorship, he will succeed in a Housing Finance System revamp, but the UST backup of FnF and that the shareholders benefit from it as a result, with a Charter considered very generous with the shareholders, can't be changed retroactively. It's written in stone.
The attempts of portraying DeMarco as brainless and an outlaw, is what is crazy.
Every action coincides with a capital distribution as set forth in its statutory definition (FHEFSSA)
So, they've come up with the most outrageous things you can think of during a Conservatorship: initial $1B SPS for free, 10% dividend, NWS dividend and SPS increased as compensation to UST. So, it's not just a theme of DeMarco. Calabria - Mnuchin and the FHFA Deputy Director back then, Sandra Thompson, approved the SPS increased for free in the same amount as the Net Worth increase in December 2017 and as of September 2019. As crazy as the NWS dividend because it's the same Common Equity Sweep (Now, instead of leaving FnF with $0 Net Worth, it's $103B, but it's $103B worth of SPS that currently are missing on their Balance Sheets)
They will always find someone promoting their "wind-down" rhetoric (David Fiderer)

"Abolishing them by way of reform"

According to the Law, these capital distributions are restricted. Then, we apply them towards the exceptions, in order to make them legal:
-Reduce the SPS.
-Recapitalization.
Quit posting quotes that have no legal validity. You are trying to substitute the law, for what someone said one day, just what the litigants are doing in court.

[Rodney5]

The report you posted is dated 2020!

TODAY the LP has grown beyond the Net Worth of the company’s value!

OLD NEWS!

We are all wiped out!

Better pray the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS.

[bradford86]

from the government report:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-08/56496-GSE.pdf

"If, however, the Treasury wanted to raise capital through the sale of new common shares without resorting to receivership for the GSEs, the claims of junior preferred shareholders would have to be addressed. In this analysis, those shareholders are paid the full $35 billion face value of their shares from the proceeds of the common-stock sale, if possible, thus retiring their claims on the assets and income of the recapitalized GSEs."

"Junior preferred shareholders are in line to receive the dividends associated with their shares before holders of new or existing common shares. Thus, they might refuse to allow the GSEs to retire their claims on the GSEs’ assets and income at less than the face value of their shares in the lead-up to a sale of new common stock. That refusal would reduce the value of the new common shares, making recapitalization more difficult. Even though the Treasury’s preferred shares have seniority over the preconservatorship preferred shares owned by investors, the Treasury would have an incentive to make an arrangement that took into account its ownership stake in the GSEs’ common stock."

[Rodney5]

familymang, gave you the calculation!

Quote: “ Today UST's Fannie LP is $185b, JPS LP is $19b. - Fannie is worth approx $175b today (17.5b net income x 10 P/E).” End of Quote

Treasury’s Liquidation Preference calculated value that he gave is more valuable RIGHT NOW than the calculated value of the entire business! Both JPS and Common are wiped out!

Unless the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS your JPS and my common stock are history.

Again, kindly explain to me why the Treasury would voluntarily take a so called haircut saving the JPS and cram down the common into oblivion??

[bradford86]

Its not that we are pushing it. We are just explaining to the fools on this board what is going to happen in an attempt to help a brother and sister out before it is too late. We pity the fool.

[Guido2]

Thanks MRJ25. I believe Judge Sweeney released the bulk of those records. I think it's somewhere around 63 documents left that are still hidden under Executive Privilege.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Liberty and Freedom from Government Overreach occasionally wins and is allegedly baked in the US Constitution, from pg. 22 of the GRANTED Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., Writ of Certerrori (I added bold): "Just so here, especially given that the lack of
agency funding to actually enforce the ever-
burgeoning content of the Code of Federal Regulations
is one of the few practical constraints on
overregulation. The prospect of an agency that lacks
this practical constraint is not just ahistorical but
frightening. It is bad enough that the corpus of federal
regulations is so extensive that virtually everyone is
in non-compliance with something. But if the agencies
can saddle each of us with personal monitors that we
pay and house at our expense, then there is no
practical constraint on the administrative state
remaining."

[navycmdr]

.....

[navycmdr]

I'm old enough to remember when DeMarco pursued his fantasy of abolishing them by way of "reform."https://t.co/TSPgoTxXCN

— David Fiderer (@Ny1david) May 17, 2023

DeMarco Redefined GSE 'Failure' and 'Conservatorship'

By David Fiderer - published December 16, 2014, 1:12 p.m. EST

In his speech at the Richmond Fed last May, Edward DeMarco declared these truths to be self-evident:

"Restoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not the solution.

They failed and their business model failed.

Going backwards to an obviously failed model cannot be dressed up with some promise of higher capital
or explicit rather than implicit guarantees."

Have any doubts? Don't, says the former acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

"There should be no doubt that this set of events leading to conservatorship of the GSEs
and the billions of dollars in subsequent losses meant that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had failed,"

said DeMarco. In fact,

"there was broad consensus at that time that not only had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed,
but the GSE model had failed."

He redefined failure in a very specific way. By excluding the standard criteria — such as loan performance,
the flow of funds, impact toward stabilizing the mortgage market and other data used by business executives

— DeMarco's claim, that the GSE model had failed, may not seem implausible. By redefining "failure," he

framed FHFA policy to preempt any discussion about restoration of the GSEs.

[Jxx]

please put this on Twitter, Navy, so more ppl can see and share. thanks.

[Wise Man]

Where the hell you see "ambiguity in the statutory provisions requiring deference to the agency", in my last post that explains every controversial action in detail?
None statutory provision has been misinterpreted. There's been outright racketeering activity under the guise of "interpretations", which isn't the same.
For instance, Justice Alito omitting "authorized by this section" written in the same sentence he based his opinion on.
Other courts with "soundness equals to return to profitability", when it's RETAINED earnings (core capital) for capital levels.
Or, like the private law firm representing the FHFA in court, stating that the SPS dividend is "mandatory" which doesn't exist anywhere in the world for any dividend, instead of cumulative (upon being suspended), restricted in undercapitalized enterprises as it's considered a capital distribution and, third, paid only "out of legally available funds for distribution", according to the SPS certificate, which were none with a negative Retained Earnings account (a dividend is a distribution of earnings, but from a company with a picture as seen on its balance sheet at a determined date. The annual earnings shown on the Income Statements reflect the result from operations during a period, and it's used to calculate the dollar amount of payout, but it isn't a picture of the company to see whether the earnings can be distributed to the Equity holders, for it you must watch the Balance Sheets after compliance with capital adequacy levels and, added up in the Capital Rule, the Table 8: Payouts. By the way, a Table that is also applied to the SPS)

Please, leave your "Chevrolet doctrine" and other off-topic judiciary verbosity, for a different message board, or for Mr. Crow's luxury retreat with its "one day with Justice Thomas" seminaries.
Have you ever attended one of these seminaries?

[nagoya1]

The courts are precluded from taking any action that affects the conservatorships (12 U.S. Code §4617(f)), because they don't understand the financial concepts and…

[Wise Man]

Familymang shows lack of knowledge of financial concepts. He doesn't know that the capital distributions are restricted in undercapitalized enterprises to begin with. Which is one of the statutory provision that the corrupt litigants have covered up in court as well. Coincidence?
Yesterday, I commented that all the UST's actions are capital distributions (initial $1B gifted SPS reduced Paid-In Capital, the Warrant, 10% dividend, NWS dividend and today's gifted SPS in the absence of dividend) that took their common equity away and more, because the 10% dividend prompted negative Net Worth and the need of more draws from UST and subsequent SPS (death spiral)

The courts are precluded from taking any action that affects the conservatorships (12 U.S. Code §4617(f)), because they don't understand the financial concepts and are subject to political interference, as it's been proven.
So, all the court rulings are tossed to the garbage bin.
With the 6th and 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals stating that "may put FnF in a sound condition" (the conservator's power or mandate) was achieved with "the return to profitability, despite that later the profits are sent to the Treasury's coffers", and the 6th Circuit also about "may put FnF in a solvent condition", met with the UST's funding commitment, when it's related to FnF becoming solvent on their own, not with the UST's assistance.

"'May' is permissive" said another courts, when "may" is mandatory once the capital is built, because the quarterly earnings must be retained in the balance sheets, to be recorded in the Core Capital (the Retained Earnings account is Core Capital) necessary to meet the capital requirements.

Then, the corrupt litigants needed constitutional issues like the constitutionality of the FHFA director, to attach statutory provisions, otherwise the Supreme Court couldn't be activated by the hedge funds through a petition of writ of certiorary.
The Supreme Court targeted what was left, the conservator's Incidental Power,

stating that the NWS dividend was "beneficial to the Agency", but it refused to indicate as to what for, because the law states "in the best interests of the Agency", nothing about monetary gain. Justice Alito switched it for "beneficial" to transmit the idea of monetary benefit, which isn't what "best interests" is about. The fact that he omitted in the same sentence he based his opinion on, that any action must be "authorized by this section", is evidence that he didn't want to highlight that the law restricts the actions to the enumerated powers of the conservator, as judge Willett explained in his en-banc hearing ruling in the Collins case. This is humiliating for the Supreme Court, because the Collins case was the very case in the Supreme Court, so the Justices read judge Willett's explanation of the Incidental Power.

Therefore, the NWS dividend might be in the best interests of the Agency, but the funds must be applied towards the recapitalization (soundness: capital levels) or reduction of the obligations SPS (solvency), which are also exactly the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions in the FHEFSSA (to reduce the SPS) and the CFR 1237.12 (for recapitalization). That is, the common equity is held in escrow, in the best interests of the Agency or as Justice Alito claimed "beneficial to the Agency", the benefit of lying so that Fairholme can seek back dividends and call for a conversion Preferreds to Common Stocks.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals again, refusing to count the 210 days in the Time Limitation of Acting Directors, July 20, 2011, because it coincides with the effective date of the CFR 1237.12 that enabled the 3rd amendment in question, in order to pave the way for the attorney for Fairholme, the omnipresent almighty David Thompson now in the Rop case (also Bhatti case and Robinson case), to seek damages, as a way to get back dividends on its noncumulative dividend JPS.
So, the Judiciary is a sad spectacle and humiliating, beginning with the corrupt litigants that embarked on a conspiracy that covers up many statutory provisions (crime of Making False Statements) and FHFA/UST's actions remain unchallenged to use them as a negotiation with the Govt, like the Warrant, the 10% dividend, and today's gifted SPS ("the Govt has to come to me" said D.Thompson in a conference call hosted by Pagliara. The internet link to the audio no longer works), in their chase for back dividends, now only based on constitutional issues after depriving of meaning all the laws pertaining to FnF (the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act) using the Department of Justice as counterparty of their Government theft story, which just shows how powerful some politicians are, all day mulling on new conspiracies.
Because the law and the financial concepts say otherwise: the Separate Account plan.
There's been already a "restructuring". It's called Conservatorship. The idea that the conservator can take all the Common Equity away of the conservatees, is racketeering activity in collusion with the Treasury Department, leaving FnF with $-193 billion of core capital, when a Conservatorship is, precisely, for Critically Undercapitalized enterprises, and it's required that there must be corrective actions to restore capital levels, that is, they have to build capital. Every action, with the objective that a bunch of hedge funds, which includes the Treasury Department, can call for a restructuring 15 years later, while others bottom-fish the stocks in a clear case of stock price manipulation, by misrepresenting their financial condition and using Financial Statement fraud ($103B worth of SPS are missing on the balance sheets) and Accounting fraud ($0 EPS, when gifted SPS are Equity transactions) to that end. Trampling their congressional Charters, which are a fortress against Government abuses, with a clause called "PROHIBITION of United States", says it all.
The DOJ's response: "PROHIBITION... Lol. Nice going!"
The SCOTUS-appointed amicus, Professor Nielson, slammed the DOJ:

Please, stick to your worthless court scheduling table.

[bradford86]

Well, you have the correct summary notes. Dont let the 20x in jps hit you on the way out. Forget about the insecure commons

[FuturesTrader006]

We get it... blah blah blah commons worthless... capital structure.. pfrd shares are awesome blah blah haha

[MRJ25]

Hiding 11000 documents.

[bradford86]

that's not true; only common

pfd survive and thrive with spspa conversion

learn your place in the capital structure... in this capital structure, it's basically nothing.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Could the overturning of the Chevron Defence Doctrine allow a challenge to the outrageous Capital Ratio?

From the GRANTED Petition for a Writ of Certerrori in Loper Bright Enterprises (I added bold):

"This Court has
shied away from giving agencies deference under
Chevron in recent years for good reason. While the
doctrine may have made sense in theory on the
assumption that faithful application of principles of
statutory interpretation would make step-one cases
the rule and step-two cases the exception, Chevron has
been a disaster in practice. Lower courts see
ambiguity everywhere and have abdicated the core
judicial responsibility of statutory construction to
executive-branch agencies. The exponential growth of
the Code of Federal Regulations and overregulation by
unaccountable agencies has been the direct result."

[Robert from yahoo bd]

It looks like the SCOTUS will finally decide the following question perhaps as early as next term, IF they decide to finally overrule Chevron it should be beneficial in reining in the 4th Branch of government:

"2. Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning
controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted
elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an
ambiguity requiring deference to the agency."

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo

Here's a nice audio blog from Professor Richard Epstein:

https://audioboom.com/posts/8302132-scotus-editing-the-administrative-state-richard-epstein-hoover-institution

https://www.hoover.org/profiles/richard-epstein

[Rodney5]

Quote “ sell your commons and buy preferred” End of Quote

Why?? We’re all wiped out unless the Treasury writes down the LP and declares the SPS cancelled. The LP number is worth more the the net worth of the entire business. Oh yeah, and why would the Treasury voluntarily take a haircut??

[bradford86]

sell your commons and buy preferred

[bradford86]

that was cool until mnuchin and calabria turned the nws to pik to drown out the whines of ackman -- which is now up another $100B of liquidation preference (the now net worth of the gses).

by the way that's a great quote from him thanks for sharing.

[FireMechanic]

Another 4 trillion dollars the government put together but no effort to shore up the housing market. They are asking for 08 times 50 idiots in Washington don't get it our economy is going like POTUS matter of time for the really big fall

[Rodney5]

Quote: “And junior preferred shares are simply the safest and most attractive way to participate in any upcoming restructuring (if there even is one).” End of Quote

If the Treasury will not write down the LP and declare the SPS paid in full the only restructuring will be to wipe out your JPS and my Common Stock.

familymang, your calculation!

Quote: “ Today UST's Fannie LP is $185b, JPS LP is $19b.
- Fannie is worth approx $175b today (17.5b net income x 10 P/E).” End of Quote

Treasury’s Liquidation Preference calculated value that you gave is more valuable RIGHT NOW than your calculated value of the entire business! Both JPS and Common are wiped out!

The Senior Preferred Liquidation Preference of both Fannie and Freddie at $290 billion and GROWING, both JPS Shareholders as well as the Common, both will be wiped out? We're running out of time... The longer the Snakes at the FHFA / Treasury can push this out into time the more claims on monies can be stolen!

All monies go to the Treasury. This will wipe out both common and the JPS??

If the Treasury’s LP continues to grow the regulator is authorized or required to place the companies into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Money received goes into the dark hole of the Treasury! Which pays off the LP by confiscation of our companies.

Risk Factors Summary
GSE and Conservatorship Risk

Quote: "Our business activities are significantly affected by the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Amounts recovered by our receiver may not be sufficient to pay claims outstanding against us, repay the liquidation preference of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders." End of Quote Page 33

Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/media/46276/display

"In the event the assets legally available for distribution to stockholders are insufficient to pay the liquidation preference of all Preferred Stock in full, the assets available for distribution will be divided among all holders of Preferred Stock on a pro rata basis, based on the value of the liquidation preference of each series of Preferred Stock." Page 5

Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052220000121/descriptionofsecuritie.htm

[MoneyRobot]

Getting ready for da trial. Mez been slowly buying back in. 50s are cheap. Everything is Cheap.....lets go Hamesh....round 2.....go figure...

[JOoa0ky]

His past experience with GCP is what keeps him tethered to the commons. That trade happened to turn out good for him even though he was on the "other side" of the trade.

This scenario is a totally different beast but he doesn't see it...

Here's a quote from him:
"But I expect — and actually why is that relevant? It’s relevant because one of the remaining risks for common stockholders is dilution from an IPO. And one of the — part of the bear thesis is that the stock’s going to get issued at something approximating the current share price. And therefore, there’ll be massive dilution.

What’s interesting about that is it’s incredibly reminiscent of the commentary around if you go back and look, call it 10 or 11 years ago, circa 2010 — actually nine years ago, when general growth was making its way through the bankruptcy process, which reminds me very much of the conservatorship process and the bear case. And someone actually shorted the stock and put out a public presentation.

We had fun defending the company in that circumstance. But the bare case was the company was going to do a massive equity issuance at a very low share price. And the point we made is that as we made then and that applies here is that, as each of these sort of hurdles are addressed and achieved, so for example, the capital rule was finalized, we expect the stock prices to move significantly up on that development.

More materially, the preferred stock purchase agreements, when that gets resolved, we expect the stock prices of both companies to go up significantly. When — we have an expected date for an IPO. At a certain point in time, the government will be in the best interest. I would say we’re getting very close to that time now.

The government owns warrants on both companies. And in order — the other development which we did not mention is that the government has an RFP out for a financial adviser with a target date of hiring them sometime in the relative short term mid-November I think.
Anthony Massaro
Yes, by the end of November.

William Ackman
End of November. So you’re going to have an investment bank and adviser, whose objective is to raise the required — help the government raise the required capital that’s I think the first priority but also to do it in a way that’s least dilutive to the government that owns 79.9% of both of these companies.

So you now have the government working alongside a financial adviser that has an obligation on behalf of their clients to maximize the outcome and then what we expect to be a series of positive developments as each of these hurdles get chipped away. And so what’s fascinating is about the company, both companies is the higher the stock prices go the more the businesses are worth.

What I mean by that is, since there’s a large equity offering that will get done here and we don’t — $100 billion is not the number but something in the order of we think $25 billion, $30 million, $35 billion IPO. It’s still potentially quite dilutive that as the stock prices go up, the amount of the company that remains owned by the current shareholders increases, which again makes the company more valuable, which increases the profitability of the stock going up. And you get into this sort of upward virtuous cycle. And it’s worthwhile to take a look at the experience we have with general growth, which had a very analogous situation where there was a large equity backstop that got funded once the companies emerged from Chapter 11.
So the emergence from conservatorship will be yet another catalyst. And a listing ultimately on New York Stock Exchange or a major exchange, I think will allow the securities to be owned by a much broader array of investors.

The last point I would make is what’s interesting in the last period is that the preferred stock has been actually somewhat weak. And I think what’s going on is many of the investors that own preferred are now finally realizing that the common stock is if you will the fulcrum security.
So many distressed investors always lean toward owning kind of senior securities, I think have begun recognized that the upside here all the residual benefit will inure to the benefit of the common stockholders. And we believe that some of the very large holders of preferred have now been buying common and may even be selling off some of their preferred stock in order to acquire the common, which we think offers a more attractive risk-reward and better outcome in almost every circumstance."

5 cents seems like a fair valuation. I am curious how low they shake out. I, like you, see no material upside. What still confuses me is that Ackman still owns them. Is he an idiot? Why hasnt he cut his exposure to them? He should fire someone because of this. Someone on his team should have restructuring experience. The fact he is on the wrong side post 2021 PIK common wipedown plan is fascinating to me — but he does only have a 1% position. But even that is too much of a security that has no security especially after dropping his litigation

[trunkmonk]

that is the angle of Preferreds, gain by harming commons, that was all the did and do starting with years of Receivership talk and its still happening today through other laser focused failures.

[Huntbeachwhale]

Neo: Need to understand the govt will
Never distribute cash to JPS holders. They will ONLY offer a conversion to common.


It is political suicide to hand over $25 or $50 to JPS shareholder when stock is $1-$2 bucks.

Do you understand that concept ?? If you don’t, please sell your shares NOW!

[FOFreddie]

To be fair most - many people give the cases a 1 pct chance of succeeding - I say I hope Hamish Hume gets very very rich!

[FOFreddie]

Here is a big thank you to Tim Pagliara!! Read his book - seems like a good guy who has done a lot of good charity work.

[FOFreddie]

Ackman probably continues to own them for standing in a new suit when the cramdown is announced - why sell common or JPS at these prices?

[stvupdate]

Two years ago it was announced, that documents recovery is finished. Agreed by both teams.

[bradford86]

his angle is just to talk the truth, if you don't like it, tough

[stockanalyze]

"What still confuses me is that Ackman still owns them"
hey guys, let's all ask ackman to make this hero his mentor, ackman can use some guidance.

[stockanalyze]

those shark lawyers are going to get 30% of the proceeds? they better have a meeting.

[stockanalyze]

so they paid 2% interest to bondholders and got 10% dividend from mom and pop plus 80% of the company plus 100% of its net worth from fannie mae and freddie mac?

the national debt going from 10 trillion to 33 trillion within conservatorship period is of huge significance: shows they are fiscally irresponsible and that keeping fannie and freddie hostage is purely political and has nothing to do with finances or that returning 300 billion is a big deal.

both fannie and freddie are making money hand and fist and treasury hasn’t paid even 2% dividend to mom and pop shareholders like they did to bondholders but rather looted it all.

how do you thing this gets resolved?

[stockanalyze]

i will vote for a president only once I have an idea that treasury secretary is not a gs alum like paulson and mnuchin

[The Man With No Name]

His ego is too big to admit he made a mistake. Simple as that. Even still, he will get the news before the plebs on this board, so he will liquidate ahead of the curve....probably crushing any "ignorance bounce". It's called insider information and insider trading....happens all the time.

[bradford86]

So why do you own commons if thats not going to happen?

[bradford86]

5 cents seems like a fair valuation. I am curious how low they shake out. I, like you, see no material upside. What still confuses me is that Ackman still owns them. Is he an idiot? Why hasnt he cut his exposure to them? He should fire someone because of this. Someone on his team should have restructuring experience. The fact he is on the wrong side post 2021 PIK common wipedown plan is fascinating to me — but he does only have a 1% position. But even that is too much of a security that has no security especially after dropping his litigation

[Donotunderstand]

write down

I think its say one in three - that in the right time - ? - the GOV can and will say that they put in 180-190 B and got back out 300B and as such they write the SP or LP down to zero or half or something

That i the bet of owning common

[Donotunderstand]

How does the debt --- money borrowed and paid back with interest to bond holders

?

suck money out of mom and pop savings here at home

Did you mean via the Conservatorship --- I agree ---- but that illegal act (IMO) has nothing to do with deficit - debt - or war

[Donotunderstand]

seems to me this --- the full paragraph you posted - not just the next sentence says what WAS MEANT by Calabria at that time (bold added by me)


Mnuchin was open to placing all the equity holders, including Treasury, in a similar spot. That is, he was willing to see treasury's senior preferred shares given the same seniority as the existing junior preferred." - In this scenario, now all the equity holders (sps,jps, and common) all own the same equity class, common. The only different is the % ownership. UST prob owns 90-95% of the common, JPS owns 5-10%, and common owns close to 0.01%.

[bradford86]

For me it is simpler. Commons have no security and their lawsuits have been shredded by the courts and so the only path left forward is spspa conversion. Commons are screwed. Sad to say. That is what the facts say. If you are mad, fine. But being mad wont change it. Come to grips with reality and plan accordingly.

And i am being nice to anyone who owns commons by giving them a heads up. Hey guys you are in for nothing amazing, but if you switch to jps, there is 20x. Get on the right side of history.

[navycmdr]

there is absolutely NOTHING in U.S. History that compares

to the 15yr GSE GOVT SWIPE SWINDLE ... either will be the

resolution of the Conservatorship ... Every prediction made

has been totally WRONG - OVER and OVER for YEARS

in the meantime - Fannie & Freddie now have $103.1 BILLION net worth

and could be Consent Decree RELEASED tomorrow with ZERO mkt IMPACT

STRESS TESTS have ALREADY SHOWN the GSEs can handle ANY STORM

they BOTH have been VERY PROFITABLE thru a GLOBAL PANDEMIC

and the more than DOUBLING of MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES - STILL PROFITABLE

[Guido2]

Read follow up tweet too.

After NCLA’s recent #SCOTUS win in SEC v. Cochran, SEC has dropped 42 cases, including 3 where NCLA has been appellate counsel.

— New Civil Liberties Alliance (@NCLAlegal) June 3, 2023

“I think that is the intent of the SEC, to try to make these cases go away & avoid having its operations declared unconstitutional,” said NCLA’s Mark Chenoweth. @WSJ: https://t.co/nxsB0A0gMy

— New Civil Liberties Alliance (@NCLAlegal) June 3, 2023

[NeoSunTzu]

Pagliara's angle is talk up and get a solution for conversion where his junior preferred shares get all the upside appreciation of the common shares in a future company that he could NEVER get with his current jps - at the expense of current common shareholders. And he could get that by, as Wise Man puts it ... political negotiation

DeMarco and Pagliara want it to end in a political negotiation by two guys seated at a table, Pelosi/Mnuchin-style, with the dressing of "it'll be in a responsible way", "in a manner acceptable to both parties"

I agree wholeheartedly; he wants to subvert time, law, and finance for a politically negotiated conversion solution to grab the future share price appreciation upside while he can.