Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAM) Share Price

If we were related, bru, that 0.05 commons pps valuation would never have been floated unless it was meant as a joke.

My family members don’t have that intentional lying dna.

Fnma

Hey buddy, what does GSE court talk have to do with politics… nothing.
How are people suppose to debate a court hearing in your opinion… do tell.
Fnma
Otherwise, go censor yourself somewhere else

Yes, I believe Paulson is behind the curtain for things like Sovereign Wealth Fund and release FNMA & FMCC. He is very close to Trump.

Commons $444/share get with the program bro

No. Sovereign wealth being funded by warrants is just this boards theory being hallucinated. 
Sovereign fund being funded by warrants is just this boards 

lol good

IMO, the original SPSPA is still in force.

Not just the SPSPAs. Every amendment to them, including the NWS, is also still in force. The jury verdict was ONLY for money damages. Nothing else.

Everything over the 10% dividends (roughly $30 billion plus possible interest) is due back to the corporations.

Wrong. That wasn't part of the jury's verdict and Treasury views itself as the rightful owner of the full LP.

Judge Lamberth didn't make it clear that SPS is fully paid.

I guess technically correct, but misleading. He didn't talk about the senior pref "payback" at all because that wasn't part of the case.

If Pulte and Bessent announce that the SPS have been paid off, the corporations can buy back the warrants based on the prior 20 days average closing price.

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't thump their asses on the ground all day. Pure wishful thinking.

I don't like the idea of shelling out over $40 billion to buy back the warrants, but it will be partially offset by the overpayment on the 10% dividend.

Why on earth would FnF spend any money at all on buying back warrants? They need to be building capital, not depleting it.

Wrong

How much exactly will there be per share?

It's around 66.9 cents per $25 of par value for Fannie and 49.3 cents per $25 of par value for Freddie.

That's before lawyer's fees which I ballpark at around 25%, bringing it down to 50 cents per $25 of par for Fannie and 36.9 cents per $25 of par for Freddie.

The difference is because Fannie's juniors were awarded pre-judgment interest and Freddie's weren't.

Both classes (and Freddie common) are eligible for post-judgment interest of around 5.75% per year. That started on March 20 of last year from what I understand, so the above amounts should be grossed up by 5.75%.

“then the government nationalized it.”

Justice Breyer did not separate the two entities in this statement: The FHFA and Treasury is the government.

JUSTICE BREYER Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company.

Justice Breyer isn't saying himself that FnF were nationalized. He's summarizing the plaintiffs' claim. That's not the same as agreeing with it.

The win technically cancels the NWS

Wrong. The win ONLY results in FnF having to pay money damages to shareholders. Nothing else.

The NWS, and the subsequent letter agreements that turned the cash dividends into LP increases instead, continues in full force to this day and is totally unaffected by the jury verdict.

PERMANENT and ONGOING and CURRENT harm are the key words here

Exactly. That means that any further alleged breach of the implied covenant, like Jester claims with the LP ratchet, has to be proven to have done damage above and beyond that of the NWS itself.

That argument can't logically be made: the agreement that turned the cash sweep into an increase in the LP didn't cause any new form of harm because the NWS already totally wiped out shareholders' economic interests.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

In that case, your $1.50 and 87% would be directionally correct

That's exactly my point. Being directionally correct is much more important than being exactly correct, and yet all you could point out was that my point estimate scenarios have a combined less than 50% chance of happening.

Not as much as I'd want based on the investment timeline, but the Preferred would then put me firmly into the win territory.

Which is exactly why hedging with a good amount of juniors, like you and Ackman have done, is prudent.

Still, your purported investment strategy doesn't line up with your actions. If all you care about is making money compared to your cost basis, you could sell everything right now and lock in a 100% chance of a gain. The only reason to hold shares is if you expect to gain money from current prices (which requires an expected value calculation to do so rigorously), at which point your cost basis no longer matters.

Likewise, I don't need to account for your narrower view and come up with a competing percentage of "probability" for YOUR scenarios for me to have a rigorous framework.

You're still not getting it. You would come up with your own scenarios; they don't have to match mine at all. It's the outcome of the calculation that would allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

And how can anybody tell whether or not your framework is rigorous if you don't post it?

All that would do would give you more things to argue about, and let's face it, you are EXHAUSTING!

You are welcome to stop whenever you like. And isn't thoughtful discussion supposed to be the point of this board? 😉

Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. The resolution will be coming so we will see who is more "wrong" - time will dissolve opinions into cold hard facts.

The only way you can actually prove that the LP ratchets were a violation of the implied covenant is by actually filing a lawsuit. Resolving the conservatorships by whatever vehicle FHFA and Treasury choose has nothing to do with that.

So the Jury verdict once entered as final judgement, holds less weight than a singular comment the Judge made?

Less weight on other judges and circuits, yes.

Not that I'm disagreeing with "reasonable investor expectations" are set based on changes that occur over time. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that every "change" that occurs is valid in the eyes of a reasonable shareholder.

Reasonable shareholder expectations are set based on the actual language of contract or amendment, not on their opinion as to the validity or legality of said contract or amendment. If such judgment calls were allowed to set reasonable expectations then just about anyone could bring an implied covenant lawsuit over something or another.

This is so simple, I just don't understand why you don't get it.

Because you're wrong. The NWS already completely thwarted the implied covenant by denying shareholders any economic value going forward. Starting from that point (the most recent amendment to the SPSPAs), there is nothing left to take away.

As I've said before, I am just using your tactics against you, so you know how it feels and maybe realize how ridiculous you sound.

Wrong. Your tactics are yours and yours alone.

I call you a hypocrite because you fit the definition: your actions put the lie to your words. It is an objective observation.

Your name-calling, on the other hand, includes things like calling me "narcissitic" and "smug", which are subjective assessments that have nothing to do with the conversation and smack of a cheap attempt to score points with the myraid of cheerleaders here.

You are putting words in my mouth.

WRONG. Note that my sentence started with the word "if".

Try understanding what I say before saying something this stupid in response. Kind of like when you accused me of being a hypocrite for not responding to Ackman's tweet when in fact I already had.

Well then there is no point to me explaining it then, is there?

Wrong again. You don't need to explain the math, but instead the probability and share price outcome for each scenario. Otherwise you're just throwing stones from a glass house.



Another strikeout on three pitches for you. Shameful.

foot note on page 6 clearly state the US Treasure recieved the G-fee or guarantee fee for "essentially insuring MBS's" issued by the GSEs. This means the US Treasury is explicitly recieving funds to guarantee loans in the Mortgage Back Securities. So there is already a mechanism and policy explicitly state the US Government is on the hook to for loans.

No, that is not at all what the footnote says. You posted it yourself.

The TCCA fee is just an extra charge (10 bps) Congress has forced FnF to pay to Treasury each year. It has nothing to do with any MBS guarantee.

Treasury does have an explicit backstop for the companies (not the MBS), of which Fannie still has $110B remaining and Freddie $140B, but that's not the same as being on the hook for the loans as you say.

You are not representing Ackman's assumption - his value for common assumes that the legacy common own 20.1 pct before any JPS conversion and that is a very material assumption for the $ 30 plus valuation. His 71% figure for the UST is as the result of the allocation of 20.1% to legacy common, 8 pct to JPS after conversion and 71% to UST.

No. Here is a screenshot straight from page 98.



It shows 71% for Treasury, 2% for new investors (re-IPO of $5B), 9% for converted junior prefs and 18% for legacy common. Not 20.1% for legacy common.
If Treasury insists on the full 80% and the stakes for new investors and junior prefs stay the same, legacy common goes down to 9%. That's half of 18%, which results in a price target half of Ackman's.

That being said we have ask why the common is trading heavy
The other issue is why the JPS is trading heavy also?

I can only speculate as to the motives behind the recent share price gyrations.

I think the commons have a bleak long-term outlook relative to current prices, but shorting them would be a bad idea because shorting is path-dependent and the commons can have huge swings in prices between now and the crystallization event (seniors being converted or written down).

Please remove. No politics on this forum.

Debt increasing Budget passed - There are risks according to Ray Dalio
visit - www.cogwriter.com - see link as above title

Spot on.  Lamberth was smart by simply waiting before releasing his decision.  He did us shareholders a huge service.  There will be no appeal and he gave Pulte a legal cover.

Lamberth jury case: questions & thoughts ...

I'm only in FNMA commons and since I will receive nothing, I did not delve into the case-setting circumstances. My question(s) ultimately center on what was the extent of Lamberth's control on two things (NOTHING to do with the interest). I know there was an amount per share that ultimately was based on the time period the "share price damages" are associated with. I thought I remember reading something about Lamberth setting limits on the amount per share and / or what the time period was to associate with those damages. Does anyone have a good breakdown of these two things.

Now, further thoughts: First, it is the 8-0 verdict on the breach itself that is the more important aspect for ultimate release and full compensation shareholder treatment - certainly, no great insight on my part as we all likely see it that way; however, there is much to build on from this aspect.

Second, it is the government's well-understood intention to ulimately kill and replace the GSEs (the intergovernmental emails prove this, and I'm sure much more nefarious actions could be proven via the hidden documents), which renders this short window time period used for the assessed damages AND the damages themselve all the more suspect and EXTREMELY underassessed.

Third, and related to the previous point, anyone who knows anything about data values and their trajectories, and stock values and growth rates are implicit in this, if you want to do the most damage to the magnitude of longer-term data values, you do that damage at the beginning of the time series. In other words, given the extreme breach at that early critical period, with the assessed values based on that restricted short window, knowing full-well what the actual government intention were destroys much more value that shareholders would have received or would be receiving far and above this miniscule compensation.

Fourth, using Ackman's full valuation of theENTIRE enterprise, which does NOT include the sacrificial get-out-of-jail offerings to the government (convicted breachers, criminals - if you will), and which by the way agrees with the other well-known successful fund manager's valuation of around $150/per share (in the very near term with this "fortress-like capital," ARGUES for a MUCH MUCH larger damage to shareholders - for the dividends earned and the much larger share prices that could have achieved much earlier in this fiasco - given a true and non-corrupted c'ship.

This alone, even setting aside all of the other thefts, overpayments, the forced CRT giveaways, less than full reward share of the TBTF bank recoveries, the common security technology platform theft, and many others ARGUE for MUCH LARGER non-taxable DAMAGES DUE TO SHAREHOLDERS. Nothing short of $25 per share is easily and legitimately winable. Furthermore, these arguments alone should wipe out the warrants, zero out the liquidation preference, render the seniors fully compensated by the repayments made with the execess applied to fully capitalizing FnF. If these actions were taken by private entities no court would let any of this mess go without full compensation to the wronged parties - possibly even bankrupting the offending parties if this were not the government. The Lamberth compensation portion is a f'ing farce.

It's a fair theory and as good as any really. We will never know for sure. But exciting times for us long haulers here in the Twins saga. Almost doesn't feel real TBH.

He should simply be loyal to the law

My theory regarding timing of the Judge Lamberth's Court finding in favor of plantiffs

1) Lamberth signature certifying 8-0 jury verdict was signed on 3/21/24

2) Defendents appealed verdict using exact same arguments that they lost the case,

Lamberth reviewed the appeal and made his decision.

3) Because the government would judge shop until they won, he delayed signing the denial of appeal.

As he wanted this to end without further delay or appeal to Supreme Court.

4) He rolled the dice that Trump would win and appoint a favorable FHFA director. He was appointed

to the DC court by Reagan

5) Once Pulte was sworn in he knew that no further appeal would occur.

Signed the Denial of Appeal same day that Pulte was sworn in (3/14/25) finding in favor of Plantiffs.

Any comments appreciated.

Monday $7 plus.

Bondi may have sent Him a letter with a due date. Nonetheless, glad His finally signed off on a 8-0 Jury verdict.

Still, His loyalty is debatable.

Working on the weekend like usual #MakeHousingGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/TviEcq7bX9— Pulte (@pulte) March 15, 2025

Ya think John Paulson - who turned down

Treasury job jus might be behind the

curtain w his Soverign Fund plans ?

I polished my response a little:

@pulte @FannieMae & @FreddieMac are consistently in top 3 most profitable corporations by employee. Their performance has never been an issue. The problem is the fraudulent "temporary" conservatorship and looting $301 billion of their equity by @FHFA & @USTreasury . https://t.co/8jeRyue9yV— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) March 15, 2025

3 and out.

I like magic brownies

I don't believe in coincidences myself but I agree it was coordinated which is fucked up as judges are supposed to be impartial but clearly they are not.

"lamberth will turn around and reject in 24 hours"

Don't make that bet, it mat be another 1 1/2 years!.

That's alright because shareholders have been damaged, and damaged badly, by the antics of the government, and not just one party. People have died while being deprived of their rights as corporate shareholders and American citizens by their own government. The government's clock should be cleaned, and cleaned good, to the extent that it never, ever happens again.

Old, chickensh*t Lamebreath finally reared his ugly head.
He waited until the coast was clear.
Screw him and his $20 anyways.
We got bigger fish to fry.

Pretty sure this was coordinated by the Administration? Seems kinda coincidental that it happens the day after Pulte is confirmed (which was fast tracked btw). There is a plan actively going right now.

Cash? It comes in the form of brownies, better known as pennies.

I am shocked...not really, that lamberth waited for purely political reasons to do his damn job. Judges like this need to be impeached.

I do not know if they know or not. You are certainly welcome to forward the information or anyone is welcome to do so.

stockanalyze, I do appreciate your contribution to our cause, but what you said is not what I understand… , “judges are tied to the admin to the hip and that is why shareholders have not won any in 17 years except the jury trial.” … it is not the judges nor the courts fault.

SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.

THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.

We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).

Devil's in the details.

Wait a second, Pulte is actually working as the head of the FHFA. Getting to work on the GSEs even on a Saturday.
Sandra T was only acting….sorry lady, that was some dreadful acting, no Oscar for you.

Kind of reminds me of her former sleepy boss, just acting and pretending.
Fnma

evidence presented in jury trial should be in public domain, it is a treasure trove and damning. isn't that is why lawyers are going to get about 300 million ?
we also need 10,000 docs to be released.

FHFA is deflecting the issue and blaming their victims. Please respond. I did.
https://t.co/eWalG5mckc— FHFA (@FHFA) March 15, 2025

“the Net Worth Sweep causes permanent and ongoing harm to private shareholders by making it impossible for them to ever receive anything from the Companies, and by giving everything to Treasury.”

strong, powerful. does pulte know? does bessent know? does potus know? pulte is asking for feedback openly.

they have already appealed so likely not. but even if they do, for pompom show, lamberth will turn around and reject in 24 hours. i strongly believe it is all well coordinated. sick.

the lamberth judment appears to be well coordinated with the admin and makes me sick that judges are tied to the admin to the hip and that is why shareholders have not won any in 17 years except the jury trial. i would not be surprised that shareholders all of a sudden win every case that is on appeal like in sweeney's and others. but the process is sickening, law does not exist anymore. let's see what happens with other cases.

how much cash does fmcc common get? each share of pfds? what happens to fnma shares, out in cold?

$Boooooooooooom ! ... the NEW Sheriff Bill is ON THE JOB !

Working on a SATURDAY ! - #MakeHousingGreatAgain !

Great to hear the news about the lawsuit verdict. Now looking forward to receive the actual cash to be distributed based on the lawsuit verdict. 
Also looking forward to enjoy the Vegas Trip with fellow shareholders!
I am no longer active posting on this board, but I do read messages recukarly. 
Thanks to all of you who contribute daily and frequently on this board and share your views and news with the rest.

The best way to settle is to issue special dividend to stockholders.

Navy we know who the GSE haters and Board haters are, let's just hope none of them have a seat at the table for our FINAL RELEASE from bondage and the ending of a now 16 year Conservatorship, which has done absolutely NOTHING for the shareholders. Thank you for your continued POSITIVE posting throughout this long ordeal....