Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3222689 times)

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12350 on: May 10, 2019, 10:36:55 AM »
@rros

so you are saying that calabria is calling for a 2.25% capital amount?


rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12351 on: May 10, 2019, 10:51:57 AM »
@rros

so you are saying that calabria is calling for a 2.25% capital amount?
It looks like. She said:

"so does that mean that you have a certain amount of capital requirements, so 4.5% for risk-weighted assests, for instance, for the largest banks.." at which Calabria replied: "Exactly".

However, when the reporter brought up specific amounts in dollar terms, $250 billion, the amount was much higher than 2.25% of total assets. So, not completely clear.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 10:56:15 AM by rros »

allnatural

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12352 on: May 10, 2019, 11:04:14 AM »
Shortly after he said 3 to 4 to 5%... and during his senate testimony he was ok w/ FHFA's 3.25%. So honestly I don't even think he knows.

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12353 on: May 10, 2019, 11:21:26 AM »
Shortly after he said 3 to 4 to 5%... and during his senate testimony he was ok w/ FHFA's 3.25%. So honestly I don't even think he knows.
Maybe it's a good thing he avoided nailing a straight dollar figure.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12354 on: May 10, 2019, 11:25:19 AM »
Shortly after he said 3 to 4 to 5%... and during his senate testimony he was ok w/ FHFA's 3.25%. So honestly I don't even think he knows.

what's astonishing is that calabria is rattling numbers off top of head while his agency has actually proposed a specific capital plan

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12355 on: May 10, 2019, 11:40:17 AM »
there is one aspect to Calabria's musings out loud that I like....saying that he felt obligated by HERA to proceed with administrative reform if congress doesn't act...meaning he interprets the conservator's role as a mandate to restore soundness...so how can the litigation proceed with fhfa counsel claiming the exact opposite?

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12356 on: May 10, 2019, 11:46:30 AM »
Shortly after he said 3 to 4 to 5%... and during his senate testimony he was ok w/ FHFA's 3.25%. So honestly I don't even think he knows.

what's astonishing is that calabria is rattling numbers off top of head while his agency has actually proposed a specific capital plan
It was strange...

Some rough numbers as of 3/31/19. Fannie's book of business is composed approximately of 2.963 trillion mortgage-related assets for single family units and 316 billion mortgage-related assets for multi-family. So over 90% of its book of business is composed of single-family mortgage related assets. The "risk-weighted" concept is critical in determining a final dollar figure.

Banks may see a final capital requirement figure closer to a 4.5% of total assets because of their particular mix of assets. Fannie or Freddie, instead, while using the same ratios, can achieve a much lower figure due to only having one type of (high quality) collateral. I believe the FDIC has implemented regulatory capital levels at 50% risk weight for residential mortgages (not being precise here, so correct me please).
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 11:51:31 AM by rros »

DocSnowball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12357 on: May 10, 2019, 11:56:16 AM »
there is one aspect to Calabria's musings out loud that I like....saying that he felt obligated by HERA to proceed with administrative reform if congress doesn't act...meaning he interprets the conservator's role as a mandate to restore soundness...so how can the litigation proceed with fhfa counsel claiming the exact opposite?

From his Senate hearing testimony statement:
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Calabria%20Testimony%202-14-19.pdf
"I have even brought with me today my nearly decade old, dog-eared personal copy of HERA. Whatever the policy issue, my first question will always be “what does the statute say?”"

Now, he says the statute obligates him to get the companies out of conservatorship.

I was wrong, receivership is not his plan of action, neither Treasury's who will lose their investment in such scenario - this risk is disconfirmed based on his statements. Therefore, risk zero is gone, yay!. Competitors will be invited via new charters if Congress legislates, who knows if and when but the bank lobby may get it done eventually. FnF may shrink their footprint over time but this is unlikely to be a problem for a preferred investor (smaller footprint = lesser capital raise needed). He mentions NWS is likely to be gone in the new year, and there will be a negotiated agreement between Treasury and FHFA on the plan ahead and its details, along with what Treasury will do with its stake.

Inverting to what all will be needed to do a successful capital raise and capital retention is a good mental exercise here for me - the preferred will either stay and wait their turn to get dividends turned on, or be converted to common in some ratio I have no control over, or be called at par. All in all, this is now a reasonable thesis to continue to carry forward administratively. The lawsuits do need to go away for the capital raise to occur smoothly, and thus provide a margin of safety, especially if you are represented. 

And fwiw what a crisp interview, I'm truly impressed by how well she had prepared and let him do the talking he really likes to do
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 11:58:13 AM by DocSnowball »

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12358 on: May 10, 2019, 01:02:06 PM »
there is one aspect to Calabria's musings out loud that I like....saying that he felt obligated by HERA to proceed with administrative reform if congress doesn't act...meaning he interprets the conservator's role as a mandate to restore soundness...so how can the litigation proceed with fhfa counsel claiming the exact opposite?

From his Senate hearing testimony statement:
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Calabria%20Testimony%202-14-19.pdf
"I have even brought with me today my nearly decade old, dog-eared personal copy of HERA. Whatever the policy issue, my first question will always be “what does the statute say?”"

Now, he says the statute obligates him to get the companies out of conservatorship.

I was wrong, receivership is not his plan of action, neither Treasury's who will lose their investment in such scenario - this risk is disconfirmed based on his statements. Therefore, risk zero is gone, yay!. Competitors will be invited via new charters if Congress legislates, who knows if and when but the bank lobby may get it done eventually. FnF may shrink their footprint over time but this is unlikely to be a problem for a preferred investor (smaller footprint = lesser capital raise needed). He mentions NWS is likely to be gone in the new year, and there will be a negotiated agreement between Treasury and FHFA on the plan ahead and its details, along with what Treasury will do with its stake.

Inverting to what all will be needed to do a successful capital raise and capital retention is a good mental exercise here for me - the preferred will either stay and wait their turn to get dividends turned on, or be converted to common in some ratio I have no control over, or be called at par. All in all, this is now a reasonable thesis to continue to carry forward administratively. The lawsuits do need to go away for the capital raise to occur smoothly, and thus provide a margin of safety, especially if you are represented. 

And fwiw what a crisp interview, I'm truly impressed by how well she had prepared and let him do the talking he really likes to do

Again outside of just the time of waiting still no excuse in my mind for an ultimate value of par for the preferred. 2/3 scenarios you mention directly relate to par including relation to dividend turn on and by default conversion to common would have to be on a = value to par basis to smooth things out for a capital raise/lawsuits.

Calabria continues to see how much he can throw out there and how much flack he gets in return. We have heard and will continue to hear crickets from MBA, Maxine waters, Crapo. Ill go on the record here as saying outside of maybe a charter change or guarantee Congress will have nothing to do with any capital raising etc and Admin will act to the extent that they can.

Am I the only one that seems to think this trickle of info via bloombers/scheduled interview on fox /etc is a little calculated? This is no doubt the deluge of juicy details Otting was talking about on the recording. There is a plan and everyone has signed off. Your just getting bits and pieces of it now in a calculated manor that will be adjusted for push-back if any.

SnarkyPuppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #12359 on: May 10, 2019, 01:19:23 PM »
Trickle of information is incredibly calculated.  Contrary to others view- Calabria is an extremely thoughtful and intelligent guy.  They are going through the motions here. 

I'm stunned at some of the negative comments here.  We have the head of the FHFA stating end of net worth sweep and IPO in the next 12 months with lawsuits naturally going away. 

Yet prices within 10% of 2014 highs when a) original terms had not been paid off b) both tsy and FHFA anti recap

You can argue semantics of whether this classifies as speculation or investing - but the classification won't matter when the inevitable outcome plays out
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 01:23:01 PM by SnarkyPuppy »