Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Obi ,, you are posting a lot these days,,, putting in tons of research and input,, great theories based on fact and law!!!
The posting increase is due to the appearance of a set of turning points and conditions in this saga. As far as tons go, there really is not a lot of research since much of the research was done years ago and has merely accumulated. The exception is that which is current and this is easily manageable. Also, not many theories or hypotheticals are offered.
Unfortunately MC and SM don’t play by fact and law,,, They will do what they do based on the whatever the heck they feel like theory! Laws be damned ,,,, But again thanks for your extensive research ,, I hope one day it matters
If one wittles away the speculative notions, innuendo, hyperbole and other imaginative mental products, it becomes clear what is actually done by known public figures, at least factually. What is in the mind of the public figures and the details of the inside bureaucratic and other workings are not open to view (hence speculations, etc.) but the publicly stated goals and purposes can be tracked with a fair amount accuracy on the ground through a variety of obtainable original interviews, statements, reports, plans, documents, outcomes, etc. Media, other than direct evidence (an interview) is eschewed. No need to entertain second hand information and opinion when the primary source is readily available. See for example, https://libguides.seminolestate.edu/researchfoundations/primarysecondarytertiary or https://bit.ly/2LLvE3k
The wisdom and class of the older one but definitely you’re young at heart!
Michael
It is a mystery.
Obi
Obit,
Isnt it true, however, that FNMA's market cap is higher than that, considering the market value of the preferreds?
Dont the preferred shares need to be factored in to the market cap, considering FNMAS, for example, and FNMA are both Fannie Mae?
No. The standard market cap formula does not include preferred shares. The reason for this is that preferred shares are a hybrid of both equity and debt. The debt aspect of preferred shares lowers the equity value of the common shareholders by the amounts owed to preferred shareholders. Preferred shareholders are, in one sense debtholders or bondholders entitled to an annual interest payment. That interest payment equals the par value of the preferred shares multiplied by a preferred dividend percentage that is stated when the preferred shares were issued.
For example, when one initially holds Series S preferred shares ( December 11, 2007 to but excluding December 31, 2010) of Fannie Mae (FNMAS) with a par value of $25.00 per share with an 8.25% non-cumulative annual cash dividend, then the purchaser is entitled to $2.0625 per share per annum from Fannie Mae.
So, since preferred shares are not included in the standard market cap calculation, Bank of America's (BAC) market cap is approximately $264 billion. It is calculated using the standard market cap formula.
Market Cap = current price per share x number of outstanding shares
264,076,486,206.32 = $28.37 per share x 9,308,300,536 outstanding (common) shares.
Check any currently updated stock quote site and that market cap amount (usually to the second decimal place or rounded) will be found listed for 10/04/2019.
*Outstanding shares taken from BAC's 2nd Qtr 2019 10-Q
Source:
BAC 3rd 2nd Qtr 10-Q
http://investor.bankofamerica.com/static-files/71620a93-361c-499a-8a92-1d9d2bd94e37
Series S Certificate of Designation - see Dividends
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052213000065/fanniemae201210kex415certo.htm
Sallie, GSE once was?
?
Able to file B. on one, not the other?
?
Would or would not difference Fannie Mae from Sallie Mae?
?
Mortgage/Student
Federal Charter/Federal Charter
Collateral!
Collateral?
"Privatization of the Housing GSEs"
Obi,
FnF and SLM are fundamentally different in many aspects.
FnF loans are based on Physical properties whose prices varies over a period of time. In case of SLM there is no such thing to compare even though repayment depends on good employment market in both the cases.
Home owners can wipe out their loans through bankruptcy but not students.
FnF end consumers are much diverse and much more in numbers compared to SLM market. FnF consumers need to have good credit history but students have hardly any credit history.
So applying SLM real privatization experience may be simplifying to much to apply to FnF.
bcde,
Frankly, the differences mentioned above are not directly relevant to the federal charters and recommend legislation issues raised in the post.
The business differences are not at issue in the comparison of Sallie Mae and the GSEs. "The issue raised is the about the federal charters, terminating charters and/or re-chartering as undergone in fact in Sallie Mae's history and as given in the Treasury Housing Reform Plan's recommendations for the repeal of federal charters and re-chartering by FHFA." See post: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151539388
Treasury recommends the repeal of the GSEs federal charters (a legislative act) to have Congress grant chartering powers to the FHFA (a legislative act), and for the FHFA to re-charter the GSEs and to charter other companies in the same manner as the FHFA re-charters the GSEs (a statutory and regulatory act). As the Treasury plan states, this is done to increase competition in the secondary mortgage market.
So, the comparison to be made is not business differences. The comparison to be made is about past actions done to achieve the termination of a federal charter of a GSE (Sallie Mae) and what may happen in the future to the GSEs federal charters and FHFA's re-chartering of the GSEs and chartering of other companies recommended by Treasury. By applying the lessons learned of the past to present and future circumstances and conditions, we can be better informed.
Read the exec summary of the Sallie Mae doc re: what can be learned. Sallie, Fannie, and Freddie are all GSEs, quasi-private entities with shareholders that includes an inherent conflict of interest between mission charter and increasing shareholder value - check. These GSEs all make loans - check. They all issue/d ABS/MBS - check.
Yes.
At a conceptually high level there is overlap between sallie and fnf. Sallie even dabbled in property loans. But that is where commonalities end. FnF are in the housing market which is materially more complex due to the industry value = trillions. Sallie was in the business of student loans = less impact on the global economy - yes, global economy.
This complexity is not at issue in the comparison for lessons to be learned. The issue raised is the about the federal charters, terminating charters and/or re-chartering as undergone in fact in Sallie Mae's history and as given in the Treasury Housing Reform Plan's recommendations for the repeal of federal charters and re-chartering by FHFA.
Reading the exec summary to me only illustrates the difficulty of passing legislation that would definitively privatize FnF.
It took from 1992 to 1996 to pass legislation (SLMA Reorganization Act - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1087%E2%80%933) that terminated the charters and established the path to final privatization in 2004. see: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js2173.aspx
And given the current political environment which I believe is significantly different from the mid-90s, passing any significant legislation today is quite difficult.
Yes. That is so. There is a deep and hostile political party and congress divide that militates against legislative action. And these conditions are what serious long term investors consider.
I still believe FnF can exit conservatorship without Sallie Mae-like legislation being needed.
Yes. There is no need to wait for legislation of any kind. The conservatorships can end with two signatures, Mnuchin and Calabria, on an amended SPSPA providing Treasury's consent to end the conservatorships and then Calabria's order to end it all.
Waiting to privatize FnF legislatively while still protecting tax payers by raising sufficient capital by a post-conservatorship FnF is certainly possible.
Indeed.
There are a plethora of ways to get it done.
Yes. And if Trump wins the election, there will be more than enough time to do it all.
Thanks for the formulas on market cap .
You are welcome.
They already had a cap of about 3.5 billion my question is this last money that wasn't swept not in the market cap.
The market cap changes with every change in share price that is different from the day before.
The $3.365 billion that was not swept 0n 9/30/2019 is not related to market capitalization and so there is no change in the current market cap provided to you until Monday. See Table 2.
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/Table_2.pdf
If the money was swept it should have about doubled to about 7 billion or so
Perhaps you are thinking of the capital reserve amount/net worth. The capital reserve amount increased to $6.4 billion. That is, the amount is composed of the $3 billion that was reserved on June 30, 2019 plus $3.365 billion that was not swept on 9/30/2019 because of the 9/27/2019 letter agreement. The number has been rounded up by Fannie Mae.
In the recent Fannie Mae 8-K it is clearly stated:
When the GSE got to keep thier money shouldn't it reflect in the market cap.....
Standard market capitalization (market cap or MCAP) is the total value of a publicly-traded enterprise's outstanding common shares.
To calculate the standard market cap, this formula is used:
Current Standard Market Cap = current market price per share x number of outstanding common shares
For example, Fannie Mae's current standard market cap is $4,122,791,738.52
Fannie Mae Market Cap
$4,122,791,738.52 = $3.56 per share x 1,158,087,567 outstanding shares
You are welcome Lotto65.
OBi...
We should call you Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars!
You are a true Jedi Master!
Which age fits best?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2019/10/4/yktuxobi-won_kenobi.jpg
Wow...lots of effort on your part...thank you so much for sharing this with our community and myself!
You are welcome. However, just a little bit of effort was made since Sallie Mae was researched some time ago. New efforts were made mostly in a review of chartering in the Treasury Housing Reform Plan.
I’m looking forward to go through it...
Michael
Enjoy!
Obit
Privatization of the Housing GSEs
Privatization is a topic that has not been considered in any depth or discussed in an informed manner. Instead of grounded information that can inform future outcomes for the GSEs and shareholders, there are hypothetical financial models and speculative scenarios about future recapitalization based on the words of two men even though the FHFA capital rule has not been established.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not privatized and are not wholly private companies. The GSEs are federally-chartered corporations that are privately owned. To privatize the GSEs requires that all federal ties to the GSEs are eliminated, including their charters.
There is an example of how a federally chartered GSE cut all ties with the federal government, recapitalized and become a wholly private company. Sallie Mae.
In the Treasury Housing Reform plan what is stated about the privatization of the GSEs, that is, the cutting of legal ties with and control by the federal government through the GSE congressional charters?
The summary of all mentions of future charters, chartering and re-chartering in the Treasury Housing Reform Plan lies in how to make the secondary mortgage market competitive through a legislative fix. The Treasury report states:
who was it that said $3.50 was a wall?
Claytrader
https://claytrader.com/stock_chart/FNMA/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=ihub&utm_campaign=chart
Listen at 0:41 to 1:31
Message: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151516791
You are welcome Rk3.
I guess we may know, soon. I know I do not have to tell you the unpredictability of handicapping any Supreme Court decision. Anything can, and sometimes does happen.
Yes. Whatever happens, happens and then we can know with certainty.
My suspicion is that a reasonable person or Justice might conclude that HERA was only a marginally flawed law and only requires a marginal "fix" to cure the Constitutional defect.
HERA's constitutional defect can be fixed by severing the removal for cause statutory provision. This has been done in the lower court in Collins. Also, the CFPB Director has acquiesced to the claim that the single-director structure of CFPB is unconstitutional and that the writ of certiorari should be granted to Seila Law. see pp. 20-21 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/116040/20190917144324154_19-7%20Seila%20Law.pdf
Thanks, as always, obi. It will be interesting to see if Kagan and Kavanaugh enter into the Auer issue. Both have strong opinions and could actually forge a "strange bedfellows" partnership somewhat like Roberts and Ginsberg on earlier matters before the panel.
The arguments for and against Auer deference has not been definitively resolved in SCOTUS. Auer deference has been recently affirmed in the SCOTUS but with limitations. SCOTUS is still divided over Auer deference: the constitutional separation of powers and power to the courts to interpret and decide statutory law and agency regulations vs the power to interpret and decide laws and agency regulations going to federal agencies and the executive adminstrative state.
But that aside, how would Auer deference be invoked by SCOTUS in these cases, as individual cases or consolidated/or combined cases? Where in these cases is judicial deference applicable and relevant.
You are welcome RCChristian.
"Compare Questions Presented to SCOTUS:"
Obi,
Can SCOTUS combine all these law suits and hear them together?
Yes, two or more cases can be consolidated/combined and heard by SCOTUS (Rule 27.3).
On Oct 11 will scotus provide not only which case they will consider, but a date or time line for when it will be heard?
On October 11, 2019, SCOTUS justices will conference about only one case, that is, to decide whether or not to grant certiorari to Seila Law LLC. Collins and All American are not included in this conference for cert.
A report on the conference decision to grant or deny certiorari made will come later. Time to report varies.
If not can a knowledgeable assumption be made on timing, doesn’t scotus rule within a year , by policy or procedure. I’m just trying to figure out how much more time we’ll be waiting.
See this message for timing. Not this refers to Collins only: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151405022
I do understand they could not accept any of The writs, which would bring a whole different can of worms(questions).
Yes.
Thanking you in advance,
You are welcome Dax1.
Thanks, Obit. Your summary was much more precise and informed than mine, but I think mine wasnt all that bad, considering Im neither an attorney nor a judge.
My summary surely would not pass muster for an attorney. But, it got the job done for a lay opinion from the perspective of shareholders.
The summary was a little rough and some terms were not legal ones, but it was generally accurate and usable.
Im pleased, however, you corrected me for the legal beagles, and for those who are particular over the details.
It is a pleasure to assist.
My assessment may have been too optimistic, hoping for a quick Supreme Court guidance which results in a favorable shareholder outcome, even tho that is possible. There is no guarantee.
Yes. That is so. SCOTUS will decide as it does, and those decisions may turn out to uphold hope or to dissolve hope in the case.
I think shareholders will eventually prevail, based purely upon "common sense" and my interpretation of the US constitution. I served our country promising to defend that constitution, and risked my life doing so.
Thank you for your service.
I think there is a "legal theory" which may be called the "common man" (aka "reasonable man") theory.
It goes something like this. If a man shovels his sidewalk, of course, it can snow again virtually right away, and, of course the snow and ice can melt from others.
So, if he shovels his walk, and someone slips on it, he has done his job and may not be liable.
But, if he does nothing, and someone slips, they may apply the common man or common sense rule.
Would it make sense this man shoveled his walks properly? "The weather" can cause a fall. But the man probably did not cause the fall provided that, he took reasonable care to ensure his property was safe. A common man would not be expected to remove every snowflake every second it comes down. He would, however, be expected to shovel the walks in the morning after a snowstorm, and be provided a reasonable time to accomplish that task.
I applied the "common man" interpretation to the US Supreme Court.
The question is whether or not the Net worth Swipe was an unconstitutional taking.
I suggest that the common man view, supports the position that the government "took" property from shareholders, and this is prohibited by the constituition.
That bolded conclusion is correct as both a view of the common man and as a view of constitutional jurisprudence.
Thanks, obi. As always, a thorough, comprehensive analysis with links for further investigation. Much appreciated.
You are welcome YanksGhost. My pleasure.
A question on backward-looking remedies. Collins, as I understand it, sought recission of the Third Amendment. They did not seek to overturn every action undertaken by FHFA since its inception in 2008. All-American, who was the defendant in their case, sought to have a CFPB action against them vacated because, in their view, the illegal structure served to void every action CFPB took since its creation under Dodd-Frank in 2012.
All American et al. does not argue or seek to void all CFPB actions or to conceive that all CFPB actions are void if the single-director structure of the CFPB is declared unconstitutional.
As evidenced in the petition, the question presented seeks redress for an enforcement action, not all actions. The arguments in the lower courts and the petition to SCOTUS center on a remedy for a CFPB enforcement action. For example:
You are welcome north007.
Yes. On Oct. 11, there is a hearing (US SUPREME COURT) involving CFPB. Cooper and Kirk (our attorneys) have "joined" and are arguing that the En Banc decision is relevant, and that we are appealing even tho it sounded favorable, really the net worth swipe didnt end.
So, the legality of the FHFA which is similar to CFPB, needs the Supreme court to decide a remedy for the constitutional illegality of these 2 agencies.
Cooper and Kirk will be arguing that shareholders deserve a remedy when FHFA (unconstitutionally structured) enforced the net worth swipe. Simply being able to remove the director wont make fannie shareholders whole, we need a "real remedy".
Now, do I have that summary about right, Obit???
Some refinements and additions will help.
The Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau petition for a writ of certiorari was submitted on June 28, 2019
Selia Law
Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-7.html
Petition
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/104482/20190628140628272_18-_PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf
After all, preliminaries were satisfied, the petition was distributed for conference on September 18, 2019.
Distributed for conference is not a hearing. Distributed for conference generally means that a petition is distributed to a cert pool of law clerks. The petition is read by a law clerk. The law clerk submits a reasoned memo to each justice that indicates an acceptance or denial of the petition. The justices read these memos and, perhaps the petition itself, if thought necessary to so do. This process of writing and reading is done over a period of 23-24 days. Then the justices meet in conference to decide if a specific petition will be granted or denied. Four of nine justices must agree to grant the petition.
On October 11, 2019, a conference of justices will be held to decide the Seila Law, LLC petition. The conference also is not a hearing.
This conference will occur in advance of two other cases whose attorneys also petitioning for writs of certiorari.
The two cases are Collins et al. v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, et al (Cooper and Kirk) and All American Check Cashing v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher).
Collins was docketed on September 30, 2019
All American was docketed on October 2, 2019
(Notice in Seila Law the date of filing and the date of conference and the amount of time in between - 3 months, 14 days).
Collins et al. v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\19-422.html
Petition
https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20190926/fhfacertpetition.pdf
All American Check Cashing et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-432.html
Petition
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-432/117515/20190930164159593_CFPB%20Petition%20TO%20FILE.pdf
All three cases are concerned with the constitutionality of a single-director structure found in two independent federal agencies: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
However, Collins et al. is competing and arguing (see pp. 19-23) that its case should be the main case used by SCOTUS to decide both the constitutionality of a single-director structure of an independent federal agency and that the type of remedy that should apply if the single-director structure of an independent federal agency is declared unconstitutional. Collins seeks a backward-looking remedy (retrospective) as the just remedy.
All American et al.'s petition also is competing and arguing (see pp .27-34) to be the main case over the others or as a companion case to Seila Law. All American et al. presents nearly the same questions as Collins et al. to SCOTUS for decisions. All American et al. also seeks a backward-looking remedy.
Seila Law, unlike Collins (Treasury and FHFA) and All American (CFPB), does not present a question for a retrospective remedy or any remedy to injurious actions enacted by an unconstitutionally structured agency.
________________________________________
Compare Questions Presented to SCOTUS:
Seila Law
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers.
Collins
The questions presented are:
1. Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and
2. Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.
All American
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violates the separation of powers.
2. Whether a successful separation-of-powers challenger who is subject to an enforcement action by an unconstitutionally structured agency is entitled to meaningful relief, such as dismissal of the action, due to the agency’s constitutional defect.
________________________________________
So as it stands now, there is a petition competition or showdown between these cases, especially between Collins et al. and All American et al. who present basically the same questions but for different single-director structured federal agencies (FHFA and CFPB).
Seila Law's petition lacks concern about retrospective remedies, which are deemed necessary by Collins and All American in order to indemnify harm and injuries sustained by the action of an unconstitutionally structured federal agency (Net Worth Sweep).
The lower courts have issued conflicting and harmful opinions on both questions and so the attorneys for Collins et al. and All American et al. seek SCOTUS decisions that will declare single-director structured federal agencies (FHFA and CFPB) unconstitutional and provide retrospective relief as the only just remedy. The SCOTUS decisions made will then set precedent for these type of cases and will end the conflict and contradiction in the lower courts on these two issues.
I expect to see one at some point my friend. The GSE's/Housing are an extremely important as the choir here already recognizes.
And his twitter account is where he speaks to the people.
Indeed.
Hi Obi...
Just a quick thank you for all you have done for this community and me..
I continue to learn from you each day....
Looking forward to thank you in person one day...
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the appreciation. It is my pleasure to serve.
Obit
Mnuchin had TV interview 1 day before senate hearing on housing reform
That interview was tweeted by the President Trump. In September- FOX or CNBC
Got it! The current image via screenshot.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2019/10/1/ufyawTrump-Tweet-Mnuchin.PNG
A tweetstorm from President Trump....that would help.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151082055
Here is the current image on President's Trump's Twitter Account.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2019/10/1/ufyawTrump-Tweet-Mnuchin.PNG
Thank you, obiterdictum,
My pleasure Fully Diluted.
then we have to wait for the District Court to rule on Count 1.
Yes.
And if the Supreme Court grants the Collins petition, is it theoretically possible that not only the NWS, but the entire SPSPA will be dissolved?
Good question. The answer depends on how SCOTUS will rule on the constitutional issue, and if the single-director structure of the FHFA is declared unconstitutional, will SCOTUS rule for a retrospective (backward-looking) or prospective (forward-looking) remedy. Collins et al. have not sought dissolution of the SPSPAs. So, there is some wonder if part of an amendment is ruled vacated, will the rest of the agreement be vacated as well? How far and deep into HERA and into FHFA actions should a retrospective remedy and relief reach?
That would be great: Good bye warrants, good bye all the 10% dividend, hello recap money money money and good bye conservatorship.
Well, the conservatorship and the SPSPAs are not directly linked. Those are two separate matters. The GSEs were officially first placed in the conservatorships under HERA by the first FHFA Director: James B. Lockhart III. This is one act. The SPSPAs were then made as agreements between Treasury and FHFA. These were a second act.
GLTY
Ditto
Trump tweeted Mnuchin's interview about GSE
It was Mnuchin's interview on Fox where he talked only about GSE. I was little surprise to get that tweet from Trump.
Any memory of the date for that tweet?
Yes, but if the SPS will eventually go away o e way or another. The GSEs are not getting liquidated any time soon, that much is certain.
Yes. That is so. And liquidation is highly unlikely.
However, for some investors (not traders), especially risk-averse, fixed-income seeking type investors, both retail and institutional, a high liquidation preference above their shares is "unattractive."
Hi obiterdictum,
I have a question to ask you: Collins recently asked the Supreme Court to take over the case. This is about Count 4. Is it possible that if the case is accepted, Count 1 can also be heard? I think that both the plaintiffs and the defendants have a strong interest in it.
Hi Fully Diluted
The Collins et al. petition has two questions and two only that originate in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc.
I personally cannot envision the Trump administration, if it were to lose in 2020, allowing a democrat administration to define FnF going forward considering it is within the implied powers of the executive branch (Treasury & FHFA - at least currently) to release FnF from conservatorship without congressional approval. QED
Trump will not leave an elected Democrat the opportunity to continue the NWS/SPS/Warrants under the guise of taxpayer protection to fund the donkey party’s administrative goals. Trump would certainly be spiteful if he lost and it would be well within his power to instruct Mnuchin to nullify the SPS, Warrants, and NWS to resolve one of the longest outstanding governmental issues of our time.
Missing anything?
Frankly, there are no recent verbal, behavioral, or textual sources that reveal what President Trump feels, thinks, desires and believes about Housing Finance Reform and the GSEs. There is a blank.
There are White House, executive, independent agency, and out-spoken Republicans legislators that have stated views and opinions on the subject and are working on housing finance reform. These officials will work to carry out administrative reforms at some speed according to the Treasury and HUD plans, regardless of what the legislative branch does or does not do. This refers to Mnuchin, Calabria, Carson, Mulvaney, Stephen Miller, Crapo, etc.
If the court battles heat up, especially that having to do with SCOTUS and there is sustained media attention on housing finance reform and the GSEs as a public issue and not an esoteric background problem, President Trump may notice it, give attention to it and then begin a tweetstorm about it. If the tweetstorms raise political hackles and drives attention and support of the President, he will begin to apply pressure to get things done.
Last two stoopid $FNMA~question. Will the Q3 10k then reflect 2 Qs worth of retained earnings since none were actually retained for Q2 until today?
Yes.
It will be on a 10-Q, a quarterly report (10-K is an annual report).
For example, As of June 30, 2019, Fannie had about $6.4 billion in net worth. This amount was composed of $3.365 billion in comprehensive income earned in the 2nd Qtr and $3 billion in retained capital reserves allowed through the 2017 Watt/Mnuchin letter agreement. $3.365 billion was going to be sent to Treasury as a dividend payment on 9/30/2019.
Because of the 2019 Calabria//Mnuchin letter agreement. The entire $6.4 billion will now be retained capital reserve.
Since all of the 3rd Qtr (July-September) comprehensive income will not exceed $22 billion dollars, whatever amount it is it will be retained and added to the existing $6.4 retained capital reserve.
This process will continue until retained capital reserves $22 billion.
And when might Q3 10K be released?
November 2, 2019 or so.
Are those funds from Q2 or Q3? Seems to soon to know precisely what the Q3 net profit is one day after the Q ends.
The amounts are from Qtr 2 2019.
Supplemental
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151459436
The Daily Treasury Statement (DTS) September 30, 2019 that updated with no GSE Dividends posted.
https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/files/19093000.pdf
Compare to June 28, 2019 DTS
https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/files/19062800.pdf see Deposits - Other Deposits.
$FNMA~ DO WEEEEEE KNOW HOW MUCH WE KEPT?
Due to the letter agreement and modification of the Applicable Capital Reserve, $5.191 billion was not sent to Treasury.
Freddie - $1.826 billion
Fannie - $3.365 billion.