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.
So far the main thing against gses I see is HR 4560.
Jones victory seems to make that bill harder to pass.
Same thing was said about Repealing Obamacare....That first its healthcare then tax reform....
When they couldn't get Healthcare done they moved onto tax reform etc.
I think that its at the very last another barrier to prevent bills such as HR 4560 from moving forward. Tax reform and the spending bill just got harder to pass I think. So HR 4560 can't be attached etc.
"This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for final
preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of other
matters before the Court."
"Counsel for petitioners does not object to this further extension of time. "
Settlement language?
https://twitter.com/DoNotLose/status/940735144478085120
@gerardtbaker: "Conservative economists have said the GSEs are fundamentally market distorters and they should be done away with. Would you go that far?" Mnuchin: NO. I wouldn't. #FannieGate $FNMA #WSJCEOCouncil
— GSE Trade - Nov. '24 (@Fanniegate101) November 14, 2017
Sweeney court settlement lol
Mnuchin said the GSEs aren't going anywhere. Lol.
What were the terms for their 250 Billion plus in Treasury Line of Credit? If they draw on it, what would be the terms under which they would have to pay it back? Or is that free money? lol
So I just reread the gse jumpstart language and it says that a court ruling can override the current gse jumpstart in place. This got me thinking and asking myself, does the current bill mean a court ruling in the sense that a case goes to trial and a judge makes a decision or is a settlement also included in this? If my thinking is correct they can't have any settlement until jumpstart expires because a settlement isn't a court ruling? Or am I wrong?
Shall we conclude anything if the dividends end up being paid end of december/january?
What incentive would Corker have to preserve the GSEs, much less help the preferred? He's retiring as well and not up for reelection lol. This is the same guy who said he wouldn't help hedge funds and his animosity to them was one of the reasons he wouldn't be in favor of recap and release.
There's no bill. Nothing's under discussion. Congress leaves in less than two weeks. I call BS.
Plus you're talking about a March deadline at most.
Preferred shares are also non cumulative meaning GSEs can pay out dividends when they choose too.
Preferred stock most of it is not transferable either.
Choose wisely.
This conflicts with Lorraines tweets about some shareholders who were wiped out being made whole eventually.
Wiped out shareholders generally refers to commons.
Both aren't reporters I'd trust lol.
What's whole for commons?
If it's 75pps then I'll gladly take 20-30pps.
Is the "some shareholders" referring to those who owned stock in the company before conservatorship or pre 2008?
Not at all. There is multiple reasons why I don't mind seeing the preferred stocks down. Its not at all that I wish both going to zero.
1.) I don't wish to see commons diluted under something such as Moelis, even though Moelis is preferable to being totally wiped out in rship. But as a common holder of course seeing the preferred on a downward trajectory gives increasing hope that Moelis isn't the solution. I could of course be wrong but if it were, you'd think with a month to go, it would be heading on an upward slope so as to give some signal. So that is one reason.
2.) Second reason is if preferred are going on a downward trajectory, recievership is unlikely for the same reasons as outlined in the above paragraph. The more the odds and chances of recievership or moelis plan being implemented the more the chances are of preferred heading towards an upward trajectory. As of now, the 5 day and monthly charts don't reflect that.
I don't mind that commons are down for the day. As long as preferred are down same or more.
Privatize Ginnie Mae lol
They can exercise the warrants anytime until they expire in 2028 I believe. Unless they are voided.
So you are the GOP and you have this situation with the GSES.
You already have the Dems and Mainstream Media screaming about the Tax Bill and how it benefits only the wealthy and blaming the GOP...
If they GSES run out of capital and draw on treasury the Dems and Media would capitalize on that and as mentioned scream Bailout! Bailout!....
At the same time assuming you pass the tax bill and the corporate tax rate is reduced in 2019...
So you're the GOP what do you do?
You can't let them run out of capital and draw because that would be basically political suicidal...
1.) You can let them retain capital as a start towards what could be a moelis like plan or let them build up capital to a point which they have enough to exit conservatorship...
Or
2.) You can hand over all the discovery documents to the plantiffs in the court cases and pretend to be fighting the cases but in the end settle, void the warrants and write a check. This would be like a bailout except that the Dems and Mainstream media would not be able to say it was a bailout or blank check because it was a settlement in a court case.
The problem with the first option and moelis or retaining capital is both reqiure multiple years. With those options you have to cling to the hope that by the end of 2018, Gses would have enough retained earnings to pay the DTA's which would come due. I don't know the timeline of Moelis but I doubt they would be able to do the whole thing or raise equity that fast but then again, I don't know. Same issue applies to retained earnings. You have the DTA's.
Option 2 and settling with the plantiffs would be the least politically resistant and there would be less risk of a draw etc.
Why is it that when I lookup the quote for FNMA on google and click max, it shows me the maximum historical value dating back to 1985, but when I search for the FNMAS quote, and click Max, it only shows me starting from 2015 or 2016?
I remember when I checked the same quote for FNMAS and clicked max about a year ago it went back to the year 2007 or 2008?
Whats up with that?
I don't think the Adminstration is desperate for money so much that they'd take the 100B in warrants. Why do that when there's several other ways to raise more without getting into lawsuits?
Would Moelis make the preferred whole? Or would they have to take a haircut as well?
How high can the share price get for the commons before the equity raises? I assume the raises occur after multiple quarters of retained earnings? So it should go up quite a bit before coming down?
Didn't Mnuchin say something about Ginnie Mae also?
So are you saying Corker is for the Average Joe Plan or can give us a better solution legislatively? For some reason I doubt that lol. But we shall see.
What does Moelis have to do with Corker and how do they both relate? I'm as Anti Moelis Blueprint as anyone as well as Anti Corker given his animosity towards the GSEs but I don't see how they both relate?
They can make hundreds of Billions by privatizing Ginnie Mae.
There's no need for the warrants.
The calculation which should be made should be, what will the DTA's of GSES be with the 20% corporate tax in 2019? Would they be enough that the GSEs would have to take a draw? Regardless of how much retained earnings they end up holding until then?
Dude why don't they just privatize Ginnie Mae and make 500B from there? Warrants should be canceled.
I haven't heard anything about corker demanding anything about GSEs into the current bill which would affect them, but could it be maybe there is good news for GSEs hidden in the tax bill? Unlikely but what are the odds? Has anyone read it to check? It's 500 pages but maybe there's something gse related in one of those pages idk. Just thinking why would Corker otherwise vote no?
So if the GSEs are allowed to retain their earnings for the next 2-3 quarters wouldn't the stock price shoot up? Even if it is ultimately part of some Moelis proposal? My assumption is before conducting equity raises they'd let them retain their earnings for 3 quarters or a year and maybe suspend the nws? Then after that do the equity raises and exercise the warrants? Would allow some time to cash in which the common price goes to 30-40 pps no?
Regardless of whether its 2018 or 2019, If the Tax Reform bill passes, wouldn't the GSES have to take a draw from the treasury line of credit? Regardless of if they retain their earnings or not? Because a 15B-20B DTA would maybe be more than they earn on an yearly basis? I don't think even the Moelis plan if implemented, would be able to do anything about the DTA?
One thing to remember is that the author of the Bloomberg piece is Joe Light. A staunch critic of the GSEs. Shouldn't come as a surprise if there's some anonymous source saying that the Adminstration is pushing back etc.
I mean Mnuchin did say that he wouldn't consider doing away with the GSEs, so at the very minimum there should be some form of recapitalization even if it's Moelis? Or could there be something worse?
I've never really had very high expectations but yeah.
Trump didn't mention anything regarding the GSES or Housing Finance reform when he was speaking about after tax cuts and reform. Could it be a sign that the administration already has a solution regarding the GSES?
FNMAS down .15 in after hours trading? 5.50.
What's behind the other two doors? Hmm Draw or Bailout?
Would a settlement count as a Draw or a Bailout?
Nobodys answered the question of who's going to buy 50-60 Billion dollars worth of a diluted common stock? Especially considering all that the previous investors had gone through. Where is the demand going to come from?
How on earth would they get 6% return on an IPOed stock offering where the stock is totally diluted?