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.
Absolutely! The overall trajectory is good for us shareholders and I totally am in agreement with you on that. :)
I don't mean to sound like a pessimist at all and I know getting something at all is better than nothing. However, given all the information that's come to light, it would be a huge letdown and disappointment if the warrants were to be exercised and the dilution were to happen on top of everything else that's happend to the profits which were unjustly stolen. For some reason, thinking about that would likely drain all the happiness that would come even though the outcome would in either case be beneficial for us shareholders.
Like it has nothing to do with the money aspect but a lot more to do with fairness, justice and doing what's right concerning the company as a whole.
If the companies were robbed and looted and no justice given to them and then you have shareholders waiting 8-10 years in the hopes that they'd prevail but the end result is so damn minimal is there really any point to being happy?
It's kind of like playing a video game and one side keeps raping the other over and over and then after they get tired they just let the little guy win and stop playing?
I don't see the positives in the RNC letter or either one of them.
The RNC proposal still mentions the warrants....will they be exercised?
Yet it also mentions the shareholders and property rights....well which is it?
What's the likely resolution?
So far this week we have had:
1.) The IMF news story about the GSEs and the $200 billion dollar capital reserves.
2.) Congress or the Banking Committee Canceled a hearing regarding the GSEs
and hasn't given a date or time or even explanation of why the hearing was canceled.
3.) Ironically the hearing was cancelled right after of before Trump agreed to the debt ceiling increase...
4.) Then there was Corker and retirement talk and the Warmer admitting they screwed up with Obamacare.
5.) Then there was Craig Phillips and the apparent endorsement of the NAFCUs housing reform proposal.
6.) Then today certain democrats endorsing the GSEs to retain capital for buffers and the RNC blueprint...
It does seem a recap is on track given the trend of news but what form will the recap take is still up in the air?
Will it be the Moelis plan which dilutes the commons to being worthless and also exercises the warrants?
Will there be a settlement in court to successfully resolve the lawsuits in favor of the plaintiffs? It should be noted that in two of the lawsuits the plaintiffs attorney is the same person who prepared the head of the defendants or DOJ (Charles Cooper-Jeff Sessions), Cooper is also sessions personal attorney...Possible quid pro quo which would benefit Coopers law firm? You can be the judge of that lol.
So what is the NAFCU plan or proposal that was endorsed? I read their blue print. Apparently they want to rebuild the capital buffers over a period of several years? How would that work?
Does their proposal include dilution of the common stock? What about the exercising of the warrants?
100-200 Billion dollar settlement of the lawsuits with the GSES, NWS void and Conservatorship over?
Would that count as Recap and Release though?
Define it as you wish.
If Recap and Release isn't under consideration than the only other way to recap would be to come to a settlement with the plantiffs in the takings cases?
Also if they were to go the way of Moelis blueprint they likely would have done so already as they didn't have any obstacles preventing them from doing so.
In the same piece they said 200 Billion dollars in capital was being looked at?
Tell me, how would they have 200 Billion in Capital without recap and release? Lol....
So I figured it out finally that the money if any from settlements would come from a judgement fund in the treasury department which they have as an indefinite appropriated expense.
Maybe they needed to raise the debt ceiling for this?
Does anyone know the process if the Trump Adminstration or DOJ wanted to settle the lawsuits?
If there was a settlement with the Government and GSEs were awarded an amount of money, would congress have to approve this funding or appropriate the funds giving the Adminstration the authority?
Would congress need to be involved at all?
Just curious. Thanks! :)
Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity:
Senior preferred stock, 1,000,000 shares issued and outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,149 117,149
Preferred stock, 700,000,000 shares are authorized— 555,374,922 shares issued and outstanding. . . . 19,130 19,130
Common stock, no par value, no maximum authorization—1,308,762,703 shares issued and
1,158,082,750 shares outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687 687
Accumulated deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (124,253) (126,942)
Accumulated other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 1,407
Treasury stock, at cost, 150,679,953 shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7,401) (7,401)
Total Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,071 4,030
Noncontrolling interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 29
Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity:
Senior preferred stock, 1,000,000 shares issued and outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,149 117,149
"Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity:".......
That is saying that it is equity not liability?
Link me to where they are stated as Liabilities? :)
Dude that 187.5 Billion isn't listed as a Liability though lol? That is listed as Shareholders Equity?
Also regarding this recent Debt Ceiling Increase, does this give the treasury power to dole out more money or would they still need permission from congress if they wanted to settle the fannie and freddie lawsuits?
Lastly, in the post by Navycmdr, it was mentioned that the hearing for GSEs which were supposed to take place next week, on September 12th, were suddenly postponed and a reason wasn't given. I can't help but think that the hearings being cancelled/postponed and the debt ceiling increase are connected? Does anyone else share this view?
I'm curious to know, I was reading the 2016 balance sheet of Fannie Mae and it said they had 92 billion dollars in capital reserves, can someone please explain this? I'm not an accountant hence was wondering what the 92 billion number would represent?
Also is there really hidden capital in the liabilities section where if they marked it as paid in full it would have an affect on the capital reserves?
Basically is there anyway they can have billions in their capital reserves besides R&R or the moelis proposal? Someone did say that they could have 187.5 Billion if the senior preferred payments were paid in full?
If they pay off the 187.5B plus the 10%, then wouldn't they have to adjust their balance sheets accordingly? Removing the unpaid liability? Some argue this alone would cause an increase in their capital reserves?
regarding this also, Fannie and Freddie are two different companies as well. So when the government bailed out FnF with 187.5 Billion and you say its a liability on their balance sheets, would that amount be split between the two companies? I was thinking about this and cannot seem to understand this specific detail properly.
The 187.5 Billion dollars is a liability on Fannies and Freddies balance sheets, I get that.
Now if the NWS were to be canceled and this amount marked as paid in full, where would this 187.5 Billion dollars go exactly? Would it be evenly split within the two companies? Does this amount even exist or is this just an accounting numbers game and the money doesn't have to actually be there or exist?
Please help me to understand this more clearly. So you are basically saying that $187.5B is already in Fannie Maes Reserves? Meaning the cash is actually sitting there? Otherwise how would all of this work. Please help explain if you can. Thank you.
Paulson is supporting Moelis.
Ackman is supporting Corker and Warners proposal and says thy should soon put out a resolution LOL.
Berkowitz is suggesting there will be a settlement and they won't have to goto the Supreme Court.
Three totally different outcomes LOL.
I have absolutely no idea what's going on. ??
Hi,
Please see the most recent report in the Fairholmes lawsuit with Judge Sweeney where they go over whats happend so far etc.
Its mentioned in the report that the plantiffs in the case wanted to see the remaining 38 documents which the government was keeping under various privilege claims. It then goes on to mention how the government provided plantiffs with 22 of the 38 documents which were requested.
After this it mentions the government provided an extra 17 documents as a good faith gesture to the plantiffs. This was not asked by the plantiffs it wasn't requested by them.
I understand all the view points of those who think that such outcome may occur, however, why would the government release more documents, some even voluntarily lol, if its intention was to never give anything to the plaintiffs or anyone who's a shareholder? Why not just keep delaying or offer to settle and not release anything?
Point being, in a court case, be it the government or anyone else, if the defendants intention is to win the case and they're certain they will because they're rigging it, why would the defendants in such a situation voluntarily release evidence to the plaintiffs when they dont have too? Why create more criticism and doubt for their own?
Also it's not mentioned but, why are both the plaintiffs and governments on good terms with the same attorney? Lol this makes no sense.
If I was fighting a case and I hired a law firm, and the government who I was going to court with hired the same law firm or the head of It for different purpose lol? Isn't that conflict of interest?
In this context Jeff Sessions personal lawyer is the same person representing plaintiffs who are taking the defendants led by Jeff sessions to court?
Someone please kindly correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following things I mention below. :)
So a government bails out a company by providing it $187 Billion Dollars.
-In return the company issues the government senior preferred stock and warrants(79.9%) as collateral.
-Four years after agreeing to this deal, this government amends the terms so that it can take all of this company's profits.
-In addition to taking all of this company's profits, the government as part of this amended deal, takes all of the settlement money this company received from banks who committed fraud against it.
-This company has paid nearly $100 billion dollars extra back to this government on top of the loan they originally received.
As some of you can tell, there is many details I neglected to mention. I was being very generous in the above.
Knowing all of that however, why the heck would someone like Berkowitz or Ackman or even Paulson be so stupid enough to go with the moelis proposal which would:
1.) Not have the government pay back a single penny.
2.) Have additional capital raises and dilute the shares of common even more.
3.) Have the government exercise the warrants further giving profits to themselves while diluting the common shareholders even more.
4.) Not eliminating the senior preferred?
Lastly why in the world would berkowitz of fairholme come out with a statement saying their confident the government would settle and the case won't have to goto the Supreme Court if the above was the "blueprint"? If that's the blueprint why not take it to the Supreme Court?
Nobody in their right mind, neither commons nor preferred would ever settle for that plan. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If the preferred hedge funds plan is to make the maximum profit possible they sure as heck wouldn't go for that plan.
How would the pps of preferred shares be calculated? What would be the formula and how would the numbers differ from the common? Besides the dividends? Would their prices be identical in the event of a win in courts or an admin recap? How would they differ from common?
“There is a proven blueprint to succeed, and we hope to successfully resolve this matter before reaching the Supreme Court of the United States,” the company told investors.
Please someone tell me that the proven blueprint being referred too isn't the moelis plan? I don't think that can be true because both are contradictory.
Why would the moelis plan hold any weight when it goes contradictory to the case at hand? I hope that whats being referred too isn't the moelis blueprint.
The guy bought the shares in 2012 for 30.00pps how exactly did he benefit? The price is only 17.00pps...
Its a fake story.
This is a good thing right?
Anyone know if Carl Icahn still owns the common stock?
Fannie Mae has signed a 15 year lease for their new headquarters in DC. They also have an early out clause in that contract in 10 years. So if they are ended or terminated in less than a year why would they keep paying or sign up for such a long lease? LOL
Then why would they be asking just for the 1500 and nothing more? Lol
How 8000? I'm lost.
So only 1500 documents to go? Does this mean that the government released most of the 11K documents in question?
Anyone have any idea what the PPS of preferred shares would be in the event of the Moelis plan being implemented? Before conservatorship preferred were trading for 25/pps...so just curious what the plan does for preferred? It would be similar to common share price no?
I thought I read somewhere online that congress is considering proposals to pay the subsidies for Obamacare itself versus leaving it to the White House?
Are the warrants dead? What are the odds of them
Being exercised? Lol
What gives you hope that the government will release the remaining documents? :)
Just curious sir.
Also, do you think the warrants will likely be exercised? What are the odds?
What evidence did the first motion produce?
Also, assuming this second motion to compel doesn't work, what would be the options for shareholders?
Lastly, Trump needs a reason to end the subsidies since now the democrat states AGs are defending that house lawsuit which he could've used to justify the cutting of subsidies.
My thinking would be maybe something in those 11K documents would have info connecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Maybe Trump can release those and use that to get out of the subsidies? Idk.
But unilaterally doing it, it would be political suicide because most don't know.
Any idea of how the settlements would look like? Let's take the assumption that the courts won't give us anything. What would happen with the warrants in that case? Would the gses get partial amount back of what was taken from them?
Problem with the logic is that Watt, while he can end or suspend the sweep.
But the overwhelming majority public doesn't knwo the link between the gses and ACA. So, even if Watt ended or suspended the sweep, Trump would still be blamed in the media etc.
Or am I missing something?
Given the negative mainstream media attention towards Trump and the fact that liberals will take anything of dirt they can find, I doubt Trump would use the GSES for his own administrations purposes. The only reason the liberals and mainstream press aren't saying anything on the gses right now is because they know it funds the subsidies and they'd be caught and it would be bad for them. But if ACA subsidies are ended or there's a resolution on health care, and Trump admin keeps taking, the liberals and mainstream press would have a field day. Of course Obama admin stole too but they will come up with some excuse with Trump as they have done many times.
Besides this, you also have the whole issue with the warrants, why would the government put mega profitable companies into receivership and create new ones to replace them rather than recapitalize and also benefit from the warrants they have on the existing ones? It makes absolutely no sense and there's no benefit at all to the government in sending the gses into receivership. Also I didn't mention the gains for the treasury from taxes as investors realize their gains.
How would they be awarded hundreds of billions of dollars if the case goes to trial? Correct me if I am mistaken but this case specifically isn't challenged the whole conservatorship, as that's only Washington federal case. At most wouldn't they only get back the amount taken from them since the nws? Even then wouldn't it probably go back to the original 10% dividend?
What could be the possible outcomes if the case goes to trial?
Quick question, someone mentioned something about how gses cannot be released or taken out of conservatorship until all the lawsuit cases are settled. So what would be the likely outcome of all the cases which are still in play?
Is there a good chance we may see a settlement regarding the NWS challenging lawsuit? A longer shot is the suits against conservatorship. But yes what would be the likely settlement if the NWS challenging suits are settled? Will gses get their billions which were stolen by illegal NWS? Are the warrants dead?
Question is will we see the rest of them? Has the court ruled that government has to turn over more documents?
But are there more documents though? Or are these the only ones? Do the plaintiffs or their attorneys have more documents which are kept only to themselves? Do we know if the government has to provide us more? The whole document thing is confusing. First they were supposed to hand over 11K then they handed over 3500 and said that was it. Then now I'm hearing there's a lot more documents Government has to hand over? Frankly I'm a bit confused lool. ;)