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.
I hear he's a really nice guy when you get to know him. He even goes to church every week still with his family and led the rosary prayers several nights for his father-in-law after he passed away from a freak ladder fall incident a couple months ago.
Tons of other really good people with their own struggles supposedly own this stock too. But don't ask the media about that, as they have us pegged as a bunch of paid opportunistic hedge fund groupies because the average citizen doesn't know how to read the internet and buy a stock on an electronic stock exchange.
Please expand the "Mid/Small Cap" section. Didn't work when I tried...
Thanks N4N. That chance meeting you had with Jimbo Parrott in the steam room a couple years ago really paid off and put you on the right track.
Nope. Its agency MBS he owns. This has been hashed over before. It was in his disclosures. Fixed income MBS.
No, rerunning history is silly. Just restating it.
Dead horse beaten. Done.
Nope, we are done with what ifs. That $187B never happened.
Fannie gets their $36 B back as capital. Freddie gets their $28 B back too.
Now the rubber hits the road and we move forward.
It's either bankruptcy or profitability from here on out.
I'm sure that the Urban Institute will pick up the slack with their master plan of plans if Fannie doesn't produce.
Time to stop hiding behind coulda, woulda, shouldas. It's been 8 years of that bs.
I'm game...
I'm with you on this Yank.
Let's just cancel out the whole $187 investment and pretend it never happened. I'd like to see what Fannie and Freddie can do now without that support.
I say we put em back out there, give em back their overpayment and see what they can do without the Treasury backstop.
Time for them to sink or swim. Put up or shut up Fannie. Let's see what they're really made of.
Time to stop protecting them and let destiny fulfill its course.
You make way too much sense. Something must be done about you. This type of talk cannot be tolerated. Look for your message to be appealed and struck down by the the FHFA.
This fits well into your theory that there's nothing of value in any of these docs and it's all an exercise in chasing ghosts. I'm sure that's what you bring Babe Ruth in for. To defend the pointless.
Haha. Yep, I was actually given the topic 5 days ago and had time to fine tune my post amongst my advisors...
I guess kudos goes to the government for breaking all sorts of laws and covenants of finance just to assure no hedge fund capitalizes on their mistake. The fact that they are rewarding the banks in the process just baffles me though. Meanwhile they are trampling on thousands of shareholders who predicted a market recovery and put their money into Fannie Mae instead of all the other 6-baggers that the rest of America capitalized on. I don't think any taxpayer asked them to do all this on their behalf. The Robin Hood of high finance they are not. There's an entirely different story to this they refuse to see and their blindness to it is pathetic and taking them down a rat hole to the depths of hell.
This whole they deserved it thing because they should have known that the crisis was supposed to zero out their investment, but it actually didn't, but the government made it zero out because they wanted it to and then by some perfect storm, congress wan't able to kill them, everything came back and the entire thing was paid off in spades, but then the government wouldn't let it pay back and recapitalize EVER, so you should of known bit is old and tired to me.
There are a lot of people that entered or exited in between, that's how investing works. Fighting for full value of your shares had all the shenigans not taken place should not be castigated at all.
Yank, You are misreading that excitement you smell in the air.
This whole thing was supposed to be swept under the rug. Not become this huge looming spectacle that it now is. A scandal of this proportion was going to have its moment like this. It is now here and it will only get bigger and messier.
The government was not supposed to be writing a thesis about the art of covering up massive fraud and its 11,000 damning documents. This is clearly not what was in the game plan. Now is the time for them to face the music.
Grab your popcorn and enjoy the show.
This is clearly a battle of evil and corruption vs truth. A simple ethical breakdown of all the players involved confirms this.
Unfortunately, we are no longer a nation that trusts in God. Most politicians and elites believe they are too smart to believe in the poor man's crutch and it's much more convenient for them to only believe in their own egos. They can pretend and pay lip service, but only actions validate beliefs. I know because I have at times battled my own faith and have seen the other side.
I just tragically lost someone who's the most ethical and selfless person I have ever known.
I know right now he's up there fighting for righteousness. If this country has any appreciable trust in God, then the time to show it is now.
Great Points! Their pristine book of business will set them up nicely for some time to come.
"assertion ignores fundamental difference in business models"
https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2016/09/07/a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/
FHFA is in a perfect position to take the lead on this initiative, by running an honest stress test of the companies’ business by risk category. But to date Treasury has not permitted FHFA to do that, I believe because it knows that if Fannie and Freddie were given an updated and legitimate risk-based capital standard, Treasury and others would lose the ability to pretend that the companies need so much capital to operate safely that it is in everyone’s best interest to replace them.
This issue is so important to opponents of Fannie and Freddie that new attempts to muddle their capital situation continue to crop up. Most recent is the claim that because banks with more than $50 billion in assets must hold capital equal to 5 percent of their risk-weighted assets (about 3.5 percent of their total assets) after having absorbed losses from their Dodd-Frank stress test, Fannie and Freddie should be required to hold an equally large capital cushion after their stress tests have been run. But this assertion ignores a fundamental difference in the business models of banks versus Fannie and Freddie, as well as the experience of both sets of parties during the financial crisis.
What caused the near-failure of the banking system in 2008 was not that banks’ credit losses exceeded the amount of capital they had; it was the fact that at some banks—particularly the larger ones—losses rose so much so quickly that borrowers withdrew non-insured deposits and many investors refused to roll over short-term funds placed in those banks. Without the trillions of dollars made available by the Fed and the Treasury (on very favorable terms), the affected banks would have been forced to sell large amounts of assets at depressed prices, and that would have wiped out their capital. Banks are highly leveraged institutions, and in addition to non-insured deposits a typical bank has between 10 and 15 percent of its assets in short-term purchased funds. Both can flee quickly in times of stress. It is precisely to retain the confidence of non-insured depositors and investors who provide “hot” money that the Fed requires the banks it subjects to the Dodd-Frank stress tests to pass them with such a considerable margin of safety.
Credit guarantors such as Fannie or Freddie are in a completely different position. They have neither deposits nor hot money on their balance sheets subject to runs. (The short-term debt Fannie and Freddie have is associated with their portfolio businesses, which have had and should continue to have capital requirements different and separate from the credit guaranty business). And when large numbers of their mortgages do fail, it happens relatively slowly. Unlike a bank, if a credit guarantor has enough capital to cover its losses during a stress environment, it can stay in business. We saw that during the financial crisis, when Fannie and Freddie were able to remain profitable on an operating basis (that is, excluding the non-cash expenses added by FHFA) even after the spikes in their credit losses.
In contrast to the arguments for excessive Fannie and Freddie capital requirements, the problems with the credit box are real. They are based on economics, and their resolution will depend on politics. Advocates for replacing Fannie and Freddie with mechanisms they favor will continue to cite stress tests padded with non-cash expenses, and liquidity cushions with no rationale in practice, as the basis for capital requirements that make the companies’ credit guarantees noncompetitive. Yet if policymakers fall prey to these ploys—and either replace Fannie and Freddie with a less efficient secondary market mechanism or force them to hold capital unrelated to the risks of mortgages they guarantee—we won’t solve our credit box problem. Instead, we’ll end up with a “reformed” mortgage system in which some financial institutions are more profitable, but large segments of the home-buying population remain underserved, and all segments pay more for their loans than they should. It’s a simple choice: we can solve the real mortgage problem, or one that’s been made up.
Very nice brandemarcus. Keep these notes handy. You'll be asked to repeat them.
The other side just can't see over the wall of BS that they have built up and cannot retain any facts that don't fit into their wall.
I admit. I am mostly a preferred holder. However, you are underestimating the human element here. Anyone who has researched this from an unbiased standpoint has all seen the same thing. You can't help but see it all. Most of us knew squat about the entities before we stumbled upon this. But the fraud is as clear as day here. There's absolutely no question about it. We've all become attached to the situation and it's almost like seeing your own child come upon a hardship. We are all fighting for the right thing and we all know what it is beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's the right thing to do and the good people with good intentions all know it.
I'm going to continue to fight for preferred, common, Fannie, Freddie, Fairholme, Perry, Ackman, the middle class, the under-served. Try to rip us apart and belittle all you want. You may say we are searching for cosmic justice and write us off. Whatever. Don't let your hubris mislead you on what everyone is fighting for. I guarantee you there's a lot more than money to it for so many of the parties. We're human beings for chrissakes. Don't ever underestimate that. There are ways to make money and protect your investment while caring about society. It does happen. And this is the ideal scenario to give a shit about something for once in your life.
I would be careful. If I were him and I saw that complete fraud was going to be proven in court against the government, I would fight for future dividends too on my preferred. He's gone this far, may as well finish it up. You never know, he might take something like this personally.
AT. Just because you know somebody that knows somebody that knows Jim Parrott and he says that the shares are going to zero doesn't make it true.
I find it odd that you read HERA ages ago, but did not start commenting on this FNMA board until 2015. Surprised you didn't get involved much earlier in this. Not sure it means anything, just noting it.
One thing I don't understand is why you root against these cases if you are a preferred holder. Your odds go down dramatically if they are lost. I guess I don't have as much faith as you in our government following future laws if they are let off the hook for breaking laws in the past. It just doesn't make sense to me why you are so excited to be right to the extent of possibly losing a lot of money being right.
I'm sure you will get lots of good feedback on this. Here is some feedback from someone who resembles John Carney's opinions, but is not actually John Carney himself.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124479039
In my opinion, this is a look at the bear case. I'm obviously more bullish on this myself.
hahaha
RV (Redemption Value) of FNMAH is $25
It is a lower variable interest rate though. That's why it is cheaper than the other $25 preferreds.
can't argue with you on that.
Nice. This was good piece of work big-yank. I see it making the rounds on Twitter already.
I have a couple pointed questions that I don't think I've seen answered from you directly. They can basically be answered by taking this small 3 part survey and expanding upon your reasoning if you’re so inclined.
What are your percentage odds of the following happening?
1. Fannie/Freddie being released in the next few years with Common shares maintaining a meaningful ownership of the company. Most likely a Common share price getting above $25
2. At minimum, Common shares getting heavily diluted but at least being compensated somehow in a restructured housing finance system. Most likely getting to a price above $8
3. Preferred shares getting back to at least 60% of their redemption value in the next few years
Bob Corker Mark Warner in The Big Short
Go retweet this. Pic is funny as hell.
@SenBobCorker & @MarkWarner were in same ABACUS deal as Eisman #thebigshort https://t.co/KNbcUL4uMG pic.twitter.com/Ok0p0t7CzD
— Hooded Pepe (@ckc12_rb) July 1, 2016
Great article Jack!
Things changed after you left us NfN. The rest of us aren't in it for the dividend checks. Something changes in a man when he's seen the elites joyfully trample on the oppressed. Good luck shorting the poor. You do it well.
Hey BY, 2012 called. It said the Treasury wanted their kill Fannie talking points back.
Even when negotiating with political extremists, neither human nor corporate sacrifices are legal. There will be no justifiable reason for the sweep in the hidden docs, other than them actually believing it was a death spiral. And that is not justifiable either really. They are hiding them for a reason.
There are many things that can derail justice here, but this hypothesis is just not even close to being one of them.
AND1
John Hempton stated in one of his posts that he would receive full redemption value for his preferred's in the event of a liquidation. Just had to hold on long enough for a housing recovery and DTA reversal.
So did Millstein:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11888674/2/obama-aig-fix-it-man-bets-on-fannie-and-freddie-turnaround.html?startIndex=0
A billion people knew all the risks:
http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2009/09/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-closing.html
What's your point?
What, we're supposed to predict an illegal government expropriation on top of all the other risks we had to navigate?
Thanks, that is a really good article.
I searched it up, it is from March 14, 2016:
http://www.breakingviews.com/watchdogs-mortgage-spat-stems-from-bigger-dc-fail/21239157.article
But still great article none the less. I missed it somehow.
Just my mental health and my family, but who's counting.
GETTING CORKERED - Read the Original Getting Corkered. It's been going on for a while now.
http://fidererongses.blogspot.com/2015/12/congressional-record-on-january-2-2018.html?showComment=1450912505614#c7539798712417428937