Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3209170 times)

SnarkyPuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10630 on: October 15, 2018, 04:31:53 PM »
All signs pointing to explicit MBS guarantee as one of the principles that will be released.   

This is entirely misleading. If first dollar guarantee then has to go as federal debt towards ceiling. If there is private capital to absorb losses then how subordinated is federal guarantee?  Mnuchin principles contra federal payouts again. I think this is just all MBA smokescreen for now.

Still misleading?


cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10631 on: October 15, 2018, 05:41:12 PM »
Not sure why anything publicly said so far would be inconsistent with the mutualization model.  Member banks provide capital and returns are regulated.  Banks can appy to join as members under reg approval

mutuals are not privately owned enterprises.  no one owns a mutual.

Midas79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10632 on: October 16, 2018, 08:38:27 AM »
Now the government wants the one count Lamberth declined to dismiss to also be dismissed.

http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-mc-01288-0089-Motion-for-Reconsideration-10-16-18.pdf

How much merit does this argument have? Can Lamberth change his mind at this point?

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10633 on: October 16, 2018, 08:45:12 AM »
Now the government wants the one count Lamberth declined to dismiss to also be dismissed.

http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-mc-01288-0089-Motion-for-Reconsideration-10-16-18.pdf

How much merit does this argument have? Can Lamberth change his mind at this point?

They basically argue the following...
"Judge Lamberth, we know we lied to your face in your original ruling.  So sorry about that.  But please consider your lack of legal logic (i.e. you're an idiot) as grounds for changing your mind.  Thanks!"
Invest for retirement?  Sure.  But investing in eternity is infinitely more important.  Don't get it twisted.  "...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."  Matthew 6:20

Midas79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10634 on: October 16, 2018, 09:29:07 AM »
Now the government wants the one count Lamberth declined to dismiss to also be dismissed.

http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-mc-01288-0089-Motion-for-Reconsideration-10-16-18.pdf

How much merit does this argument have? Can Lamberth change his mind at this point?

They basically argue the following...
"Judge Lamberth, we know we lied to your face in your original ruling.  So sorry about that.  But please consider your lack of legal logic (i.e. you're an idiot) as grounds for changing your mind.  Thanks!"

Except that Lamberth already upheld the dismissal for everything else even after finding out about the Fairholme discovery documents. If he really took so much umbrage to the defendants' prior behavior, wouldn't he have found more than just one count to allow to proceed?

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10635 on: October 16, 2018, 09:31:31 AM »
Now the government wants the one count Lamberth declined to dismiss to also be dismissed.

http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-mc-01288-0089-Motion-for-Reconsideration-10-16-18.pdf

How much merit does this argument have? Can Lamberth change his mind at this point?

They basically argue the following...
"Judge Lamberth, we know we lied to your face in your original ruling.  So sorry about that.  But please consider your lack of legal logic (i.e. you're an idiot) as grounds for changing your mind.  Thanks!"

Except that Lamberth already upheld the dismissal for everything else even after finding out about the Fairholme discovery documents. If he really took so much umbrage to the defendants' prior behavior, wouldn't he have found more than just one count to allow to proceed?

Perhaps.
Invest for retirement?  Sure.  But investing in eternity is infinitely more important.  Don't get it twisted.  "...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."  Matthew 6:20

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 628
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10636 on: October 16, 2018, 12:03:30 PM »
recent commentary in the FnF Twitter/blog universe is fairly weak.  it's like they think the guys in charge are lying with some secret alternative strategy.

it seems quite clear that mnuchin wants to do this legislatively.  It's not impossible to get done, it's permanent, and the backstop MBS-level govt guarantee is important to consistently have access to the global capital markets (as a replacement for the implied guarantee on the 2 entities, which everyone wants gone).

imo people should just accept this is the primary plan and focus their writing energy on more relevant things like stopping the NWS immediately or creating a new $15bn buffer instead of $3bn.

blackcoffee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10637 on: October 16, 2018, 12:47:53 PM »
recent commentary in the FnF Twitter/blog universe is fairly weak.  it's like they think the guys in charge are lying with some secret alternative strategy.

it seems quite clear that mnuchin wants to do this legislatively.  It's not impossible to get done, it's permanent, and the backstop MBS-level govt guarantee is important to consistently have access to the global capital markets (as a replacement for the implied guarantee on the 2 entities, which everyone wants gone).

imo people should just accept this is the primary plan and focus their writing energy on more relevant things like stopping the NWS immediately or creating a new $15bn buffer instead of $3bn.

The commentary is not as weak as the odds of legislation happening. It's been a decade and nothing. Polarization is at an all time high. I wouldn't say impossible but it's damn close.

Additionally, do we know how current beneficiaries of the GSE charters are reacting politically to the admin threatening their entire lines of business? I know for a fact that these businesses are valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. Do we think the people with pull at that level are going to go quietly? Not bloodly likely.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10638 on: October 16, 2018, 12:58:35 PM »
by involving congress there will be a controversy regarding duty to serve underserved neighborhoods/low income housing.  you eliminate GSE charters and make all guarantors simple business entities without a public purpose and democrats will scream bloody murder (as well as some republicans).  this will not be a simple piece of legislation by any means, and given the animosity between the parties I am doubtful that this can be passed on a bi-partisan basis...especially when I expect all of the nonGSE future guarantors will balk at low income housing mandates

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10639 on: October 16, 2018, 12:59:41 PM »
recent commentary in the FnF Twitter/blog universe is fairly weak.  it's like they think the guys in charge are lying with some secret alternative strategy.

it seems quite clear that mnuchin wants to do this legislatively.  It's not impossible to get done, it's permanent, and the backstop MBS-level govt guarantee is important to consistently have access to the global capital markets (as a replacement for the implied guarantee on the 2 entities, which everyone wants gone).

imo people should just accept this is the primary plan and focus their writing energy on more relevant things like stopping the NWS immediately or creating a new $15bn buffer instead of $3bn.
Increasing the buffer to 15 bn will only solidify the status quo. The larger the buffer, the lower the urgency for a comprehensive fix. The way to push legislation and reach a final solution is to remove the sweep and recapitalize. Odds are both lobby groups and legislators will move fast to contain what they will hate the most: a release.