Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAI) Cotización

https://x.com/MarkCalabria/status/1881878580155826635

One of the more disappointing aspects of Fannie/Freddie conservatorships is the degree to which so many DC insiders believe agencies outright ignoring the law is a completely normal and fine outcome #Lawless


For me preparation for the release and deletion of the SPS will be that more and more people close to Trump are doing the machinations around the Fannie and Freddie case. This creates deliberate artificial pressure in order to have arguments.

I like the process more and more every day.

Exactly, Guido,

that's what I mean - and hopefully what I wrote.
But refunding the overpayment? Not sure about that. That would be great, just like removing the warrants. But that will probably only happen if Trump releases the 11,000 secret documents...

I read compensation for past support as payment of principal plus 10% dividend. He can deal with the matter by zeroing the SPS and refunding the overpayment. If he does this he wouldn’t contradict a single word of his response.

Keyword “past”

Hello folks,

I want to point you to a specific word that Bessent gave in his written response to the pre-submitted questions from the US Senate Committee on Finance as part of his confirmation hearing.
Here is the question posed and the answer provided:

Question 80: Because of the federal government’s bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the federal government owns senior preferred shares in the GSEs. Should American taxpayers be compensated for any reduction in their senior preferred shares?
Answer: Treasury should be compensated for its past support of the GSEs, and if confirmed I look forward to exploring options for potentially dealing with this matter.

When I first read this, I jumped to thinking about the senior preferred stock liquidation preference. As I'm sure you know, this has been growing at the same proportion that Fannie and Freddie have been retaining earnings since the Fourth Amendment ended the Net Worth Sweep - on the balance sheet.
The word “past” initially made me think that Bessent might forgo this increase in liquidation preference.
But something inside me told me that's not it. On the one hand, it would make perfect sense for Bessent to refer to the liquidation preference because in the foreseeable future it would be higher than the companies are worth, and therefore he would be forced to give up a portion anyway. But why would he go into such specific detail? After all, the other answers were also formulated in very general terms.

And then I realized: this is a fundamental paradigm shift in the Treasury Department:
Perhaps you remember how Mnuchin was once asked by “little Bob” Corker whether the shareholders were entitled to any value at all, since the companies were bankrupt, and he replied that the companies were only making profits because the government had saved them and was providing them ongoing financial support - thereby suggesting that shareholders had no claims.

Against this background, I now see the word “past” in a different light. Bessent disagrees with Mnuchin's narrative. And as I understand it, this means nothing other than that the shareholders are also entitled to the profits that the companies make during conservatorship. Otherwise the word “past” would make no sense at all.

Consequently, one can assume that Bessent will waive the value of the senior preferred shares entirely. Otherwise he would be contradicting himself, because if he insisted on monetizing both the SPS and the warrants, he would dilute the shareholders to such an extent that they would have nothing of the retained earnings of the companies.

Sometimes a single word can say more than hours of questioning.

GLTA 🙂

I thought for a minute the Anti GSE KTCarneyCorkerClown Circus crowd had a new member. Hate is an infectious disease.

as usual that article is missing so many facts it was hard to make sense of it, was it written by the fantasy island receivership Cato Crew???

https://x.com/guidoperei/status/1882321289727422521?s=46&t=2Y42DPZFgRdwTBHj5W8jMQ

Could it be Rick’s whale horn?

https://x.com/mia95629998/status/1882265862465569070?s=46&t=2Y42DPZFgRdwTBHj5W8jMQ

Remember biased
Shelley

Voted against me and I have been in ihub prison for almost a year

I will be contacting her supervisors and getting this stopped

It’s not a democracy here

It’s her way or the high way

Bye bye Shelley coming soon

He never gets skeered after reading Ackman’s posts. It’s only after reading articles by ACKERMAN, Carney and Light that he is skeered.

His name is not Ackerman, Its BILL ACKMAN. Stop mis spelling his name.
Dude!

He wants to hold hands with Ackerman, Carney and Light to see him through the dark hours. Unfortunately, he only has two hands.

Just look at who this newbie is engaging - with quite a bit of enthusiasm 😃

Any guesses who this clown might be??

Oh Noooo...
Fight Fight Fight

dumbass

Remember the JURY verdict against the criminal gangsters.

Based on?

Lol of course he picks the most poorly written article on the subject I’ve seen. Cuz yeah Ackman has been building this position. Definitely didn’t open the full position literally over a decade ago or anything. Just bought it recently!

I’d rather read the national enquirer

I just realized that John Carney wrote
this article - I ain't Skeeerd anymore

What are you more skeerd of tampons out of men’s bathrooms or the article, be honest.

$6.85-$0.0100(-0.15%)
After hours: 5:00:03 PM ET, 01/22/2025
$6.86-$0.1500(-2.14%)
At close: 4:00:00 PM ET, 01/22/2025
Bid
$6.80
Ask
$7.00

Now I'm Highly Skeeerd - Fear and Trembling Setting In - Oh Noooooo

Breitbart Business Digest: Investors Will Likely Be Disappointed with Bets on Fannie and Freddie’s Release
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/01/22/breitbart-business-digest-investors-will-likely-be-disappointed-with-bets-on-fannie-and-freddies-release/

Nah. Not a hit piece at all. The current pps is absolutely irrational exuberance unless followed up by action.

Carmey strikes again 
https://x.com/carney/status/1882236116075737300?s=46&t=L_hszGlrG7Qfo9Ksmln_mQ

Berkovitz jettisoned his preferreds at roughly 1/5th of where they trade today. Don’t think his ghost is really a ghost. Probably a zombie if he’s buying preferreds again and planning for conversion just as the commons are getting to overtake the preferreds. If ZombieBerkovitz wants commons, he should just buy commons.

The Ratings Are In;
The Two Best Stocks to Buy for 2025
1. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
2. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FMCC)
FNMA
8 Days above $5
Date - PPS - Volume
Jan 22 - $6.85 18,576,012
Jan 21 - 7.01 35,380,100
Jan 17 - 6.91 36,487,200
Jan 16 - 5.40 41,137,700
Jan 15 - 6.21 46,566,200
Jan 14 - 7.04 53,693,000
Jan 13 - 5.49 16,501,000
Jan 10- 5.26 24,269,000
FMCC has also been 8 days above $5

Sure would like to see that occur Glenn

Ackman’s model surely has been fully vetted with incoming Trump team at $34 per share.

Please stop the nonsense another 1 hour ild account again...

Ackman has dinner with Trump and will know how this plays out...

Good try though

And you're going to be saying the same thing in two weeks when this is $15 a share.......

He didnt explicitly say he would but given he purposely avoided being in the major ones so far one could say hes been saving the possibility for this case .... agree with your reasoning that Ackman's multiples claims dont have much merit (I think people really only care if the companies are making money)

If his multiples argument falls through, do you think a lawsuit or precedence is going to stop Gov from converting Senior in partial or full? Does converting Senior affect the probability of a Junior conversion to common vs being left as is?

Congratulations NAVYCMDR!!! I am very happy for my fellow longs. We have held on for years knowing one day our patience will pay off. I plan on laughing all the way to the bank... as the saying goes... I feel this is just the start of more days like that to come. Once release happens you hold a double-barrel shotgun. One barrel is share price appreciation, the second barrel is dividends... They go hand in hand!!! Have a great week everyone!!!
EXO

"that's easy for him for someone else to file a lawsuit" are you for real? Why does he have to wait for someone else to file a lawsuit when he's the biggest common shareholder and a multi-billionaire....... You remind me of new scum out here in California both con men and bullshitters

.@SenatorTimScott led the ROAD to Housing Act because he knows the importance of reforming our failed federal housing policies.
With Scott Turner @HUDgov, Chairman Scott will work to cut bureaucratic red tape and advance commonsense, bipartisan housing solutions.

https://x.com/bankinggop/status/1882146986193014971?s=46&t=L_hszGlrG7Qfo9Ksmln_mQ

She now and forever says she proved it, without real proof, so thats it, she wins. always right no matter what, the Truth is what she says it is.....😂🤣🚀🚀💥

It will be a green machine, selling one share at a time to buy much more then the old 3 shares per cup of coffee, lets say one share buys a bag of Petes coffee beans or 3 cases of water. times, they are a changin.

Regardless of additional lawsuits (Ackman seems to imply he will initiate a lawsuit if Senior is converted)

His presentation didn't say that he would file a lawsuit. Did the audio version say that?

It's easy for him to threaten for someone else to file a lawsuit.

what are your thoughts about Ackman pointing out a lower valuation for the companies if a conversion were to take place?

I think it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ackman's idea is that new investors will look at a senior conversion as mistreatment of (then-current) shareholders and will place a lower value on the shares because of it. But Treasury greatly mistreated shareholders in 2008 (original punitive SPSPAs) and 2012 (NWS), and those events cannot be undone. If those events aren't enough to dissuade putative buyers of Treasury's common shares then a senior-to-common conversion won't be either. And if they are, FnF will never get out of conservatorship because Treasury won't be able to sell any common shares it obtains, whether by warrant exercise or senior conversion.

And even if Treasury does write down the seniors, new investors shouldn't be encouraged by it because these new investors will be stepping into the shoes of pre-conservatorship shareholders, not those in 2025. All they have a reason to care about is how much of the company's equity they get for their money; how the portion they don't get is split among Treasury/junior prefs/legacy common won't impact them at all.

f dollar amount is indeed a motivator for their release, a Senior writedown would make sense (assuming Ackman is correct in his statement).

If Ackman is correct, perhaps. He also didn't consider a senior-to-common conversion that gives the legacy common something between 0% (full conversion) and 18% (full writedown). Such a partial conversion could both give the legacy common enough to where they wouldn't sue (maybe $5-10 per share) while still having Treasury make more total money than a full writedown would.

Ok genius, show me the evidence that the unnamed Treasury person was sharing the opinion of someone from the DOJ.

Look, we have been talking past each other on this for a long time. You ask for evidence, I tell you that I already provided it, and you refuse to accept it as evidence. That refusal is not my problem.

You also keep insisting on full and perfect information when it just isn't available. If you want to totally discount Calabria's reporting then you have a right to your opinion. I stand by my assertions and arguments on that front.

For someone who expects impeccable trails of evidence from others, why can't you hold yourself to the same standard?

Wrong. I do not "expect impeccable trails of evidence from others". For example, I use quotes from Calabria's book, which is less than impeccable evidence (though I do view it as strong enough to inform my estimates).

It is you that have insisted on "impeccable trails of evidence" by asking for direct quotes and statutes from Treasury/DOJ. Again, your accusations are more appropriate if you point at a mirror instead of me.

"Should be compensated" does not mean "further compensation" - those would be different words

"Should be compensated" does directly imply that Treasury has not already been fully compensated. If he thought Treasury had already been compensated then his use of that phrase would make no sense.

Then there is the potential for current/future compensation in the form of the LP redemption, and/or warrant redemption. Those would not be in the past because they haven't happened yet.

If it wasn't for the question asking specifically about the senior prefs and a reduction in value you might have an argument. But his answer was given in the context of the question.

What those options are, neither you nor I know with any certainty.

A vacuously true statement. My other post said that I will take his remark into account when updating my estimate of a senior conversion. Certainty is not necessary to make estimates.

I think his comments point more towards senior conversion than writedown. I never said that they imply a 100% chance of a conversion. If I did, I wouldn't have said that I'm still estimating the chances of a conversion at 85%.

I'm not ignoring it. It doesn't' apply. I'm asking if they are reading your words and interpreting them the same way I am.

Laughable. The majority of posters here will vote against me no matter who is on the other side or what was actually said. I have enough years of experience here to see that pattern. No amount of other people agreeing with you will make you right. That's exactly what argumentum ad populum means.

And it's usually the offender that is the only one who can't see what they are doing wrong.

Which explains why you keep committing logical fallacies.

I think your disconnect is that if there is pressure to get this done quickly, any lawsuit would be seen as a negative. Maybe "fear" is too strong a word, but lawsuits are something to avoid. What would be the logical course for the new Exec Branch to take then? A solution that works for all parties, whereby lawsuit likelihood is minimized. If there is a win-win situation that can be crafted, that would be the smart choice, knowing that you can't please all of the people all of the time. But you may be able to appease them just enough.

The flaw in Ackman's lawsuit threat is assuming that any senior-to-common conversion, no matter how it is crafted, would result in exit-stifling lawsuits.

Ackman's full writedown scenario has the legacy common getting 18% of the equity, and all of his senior conversion scenarios have them getting 0%. There is a lot of room in between to avoid lawsuits. For example, why would a common shareholder sue if a senior conversion at $8 per share happens?

I agree that the final outcome is unlikely to leave everyone pleased. I once heard a successful negotiation defined as an agreement where everyone feels like they got a bit screwed. That's another reason why I think Ackman's price target is a best case, not a base or worst case. It's basically his opening offer in a negotiation.

When you expect levels of detail from others that you are not willing to provide.

As I said in the other response, it is you who is guilty of this as evidenced by your continued requests for specific statutes and official comments by Treasury/DOJ regarding the (il)legality of a senior writedown.

And are you really accusing my posts of not containing sufficient detail? If anything I go too far in that regard, and certainly do compared to the vast majority of posters on this board.

When you interpolate or read into what has been said, and come up with your opinion, yet tell others they cannot do the same or that their interpretation is "wrong."

Post an example of this so I can have some idea of what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just another baseless accusation.

When you tell others they are guilty of logical fallacies that you are also making.

Given that you have been guilty of the argumentum ad populum, ad hominem, and false equivalence logical fallacies (among others), you don't have room to speak about others doing the same since you clearly don't recognize them for what they are.

I'd say that makes you a hypocrite.

Which once again proves that you don't actually know what that word means. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. In the case of my accusations, it is arguing for one thing (that X, Y, Z are illegal) while demonstrating a lack of conviction in what is said (by not filing a lawsuit).

Ackman say within the next year.🤑

Start at 13:10 is where she asks about FnF.
https://x.com/michaelmulhol13/status/1880842685399146988?s=46&t=VcFxDZRhIQTg6a6x1QQawA

Vice in Latin means in place of, instead of

Sandra resigned and she is gone

Let the New Appointment Take Office.

Make adjustments in personnel and procedures.

We have a new Government that thinks differently about 5AT’s of BO and friends.

WMI/WMB and F&F were 5AT.
Lehman’s, and BS was JPM’s failure to deliver, all due to the Derivative Market Meltdown created by JPM.



Ron

There you go.  It is official Thompson did not resign.  Trump is keeping her around.  Thompson is definitely pro-release which is probably why she is staying on.  She will work under Pulte.  I'm fine with this development.  Makes no difference if fact I believe she will be very helpful to us.

Kenneth Kies, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, vice Lily Lawrence Batchelder.

No they don't think but its the narative they want to create..

From the White House today Pulte’s and others - NOMINATIONS TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/nominations-transmitted-to-the-senate/

The cognitive dissonance comes from those who think Treasury shouldn't convert the seniors because of lawsuits but fail to recognize the possibility that a writedown could also cause lawsuits.

I think your disconnect is that if there is pressure to get this done quickly, any lawsuit would be seen as a negative. Maybe "fear" is too strong a word, but lawsuits are something to avoid. What would be the logical course for the new Exec Branch to take then? A solution that works for all parties, whereby lawsuit likelihood is minimized. If there is a win-win situation that can be crafted, that would be the smart choice, knowing that you can't please all of the people all of the time. But you may be able to appease them just enough.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
Well what would you call it? When you expect levels of detail from others that you are not willing to provide. When you interpolate or read into what has been said, and come up with your opinion, yet tell others they cannot do the same or that their interpretation is "wrong." When you tell others they are guilty of logical fallacies that you are also making. When you discount an opinion due to lack of outside action when this is a discussion board that requires no action - and you have not shown any legal action yourself. I'd say that makes you a hypocrite.

Please try and include all the facts especially letting common folk know of America Group Funds new purchase of 125 million common shares of Fannie and Freddie. And no smoking cannabis while writing your letter.