Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAN) News

$FMCC $FNMA get your shares https://t.co/5mujhMljeO— Nico (@nicosintichakis) September 27, 2024

No need for any more gse pref trolling.

Fnma

Keep all the gse pref dilution malarkey, sunshine.

Fnma

A bit too Trollish

So while your points above are factual

Yes, now stop there before any foolish commentary.

There is no way Treasury can cash out any time soon without a conversion of the SPS.

Reality will one day hit you like a sledgehammer. Until then, you will keep peddling your nonsense.

Profitable but statutorily insolvent, hence why they are in Conservatorship.

I'm not too worried about a reverse split, as you still have the same value regardless of the number of shares. It doesn't matter if you have 1,000 shares at $1.20 or 10 shares at $120. The problem would be any dilution from warrants or SPS conversion. That's eroding your value per share even if they don't do a reverse split.

Even more bigger question. Do folks know that we are in cship Jail? Then only the question of release comes into picture

The even bigger question, what release?

While I have agreed that AIG situation could be relevant in terms of junior preferred shares converted at a % of face value, I agree that AIG was in terrible financial shape and the government wanted out at break even if possible. Unfortunately there wasn’t a good way for them to recoup from AIG. But that is a completely different scenario than these 2 as both are highly profitable.

Thank you very much sir, that gives me hope, now the next big question is when will the release happen? has trump just been bullshatting?

"Nobody is as dumb as she is!"

Makes one wonder about the quality of the educational system in this country. She zipped through college and law school, seemingly, without a brain. What does that tell you? Also note, there has never been a mention of F&F.

This stock is in no way tied to conditions on the broader markets. For those of you scoring at home, this company is in the 16th year of conservatorship with no clear path to exit and the ability for the conservator to take profits and/or retained capital at their discretion. Until that changes, the Dow could go to 60,000 and this would still trade sideways.

You are a liar the author of a lie! No, the situation is not worse. The gov knows their actions are illegal and the conservatorship continues because they don’t know how to unwind this without looking like theft. No one wants to take the blame. I know it, you know it and everyone that has weighed the facts knows it. If as you say the shareholders will be wiped out would be the greatest theft in the history of finance.

- It would appear that this c-ship/nws scheme was to allow Govt time to take control of the housing market and seize the profits. The main Govt players that instituted the c-ship got the Shareholders handcuffed when they installed the FHFA and made this Agency a self-funded parasitic agency. By by-passing Congressional oversight, they help drive the so-called Marxist agenda that the political parties are fighting over now.

- There is only one Candidate that is for capitalism and the regulation there of - if He wins, so does Capitalism.

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract between two government agencies which Fannie and Freddie had no say so. The only legal contract is the one with the U.S. Congress, called the Charter Act. The Senior Preferred Stocks are illegal because the Stocks have an illegal commitment fee attached to it.

- It appears that the SPSP was implemented to safeguard the Govt investment. Since the Obama Administration took it upon themselves to implement the NWS, that violated Shareholder protections, which was verified by the Lambert Jury. Why hasn’t He been questioned about his lack of eagerness to sign off on the Jury verdict?

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.

- One would think that the FHFA should be recognized as a self-dealing agency and regulated via oversight and the funding of Congress.

Using 2023 numbers, could be seen as 17.4B / 1.158B shares = $15 per share. Depending on what P/E ration you want to use it will vary. If I use an extremely modest P/E of 9 it would be $15 x 9 = $135/share. This would be with no SPS conversion, and no warrants exercised. If the warrants are exercised, it would be 20% of that number, so $27/share. (Annual Revenue will likely increase by the time they are released so it will likely be higher)

If the SPS LP gets converted to common, that's a lot of dilution, and it could be less than 1% of the number, so it could be less than $0.20 per share. I don't think Treasury needs to convert the full LP to common shares, so I don't think this is a high probability, but it is possible.

That being said, I don't rely on these calculations entirely. I use an array of possibilities, similar to when a financial advisor runs multiple market conditions to see what the probability is that you'll run out of money in retirement and give you a confidence score (e.g. you are 92% likely to not run short by the time you reach 99 years old). I try to position myself to make money in a majority of the scenarios, by leveraging both Common and JPS.

GLTU!

Hey Baron, I greatly appreciate the effort you have put in to bring the injustice to light. I'm happy to weigh in periodically on the board, but I'm not one to get involved in lawsuits directly. If you want me to read, review or make suggestions on something, I should be able to do that, however I don't have an IH account and can't PM.

Treasury took 92% of AIG and AIG's shareholders had rights, FnF shareholders don't.
AIG owed a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, FnF don't owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

There was no way Treasury could capture a positive return on AIG without converting their Seniors to common and selling them. So while your points above are factual, they do not reflect the situation at FnF where Treasury is already in the positive return territory without needing to convert or sell a single common share.

Fannie the comeback Kid!!

Oh wow. Another four cents down the crapper.

How is this any different than what our own government has done to @FannieMae & @FreddieMac ? Our Incompetent & Impotent Congress is Incapable of putting an end to the biggest ongoing swindle in history!— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) September 27, 2024

If Dow futures are positive then that means we will be in the red. If Dow futures are neutral then that means we will be in the red. If Dow futures are negative then that means we will be in the red.

Hope you get there. I'd be happy with $4 at this point. Baby steps.

yup, huge cases, infinitely larger than chicken feed Lambert case, are just around the corner.

You are a liar the author of a lie! No, the situation is not worse. The gov knows their actions are illegal and the conservatorship continues because they don’t know how to unwind this without looking like theft. No one wants to take the blame. I know it, you know it and everyone that has weighed the facts knows it. If as you say the shareholders will be wiped out would be the greatest theft in the history of finance.

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract between two government agencies which Fannie and Freddie had no say so. The only legal contract is the one with the U.S. Congress, called the Charter Act. The Senior Preferred Stocks are illegal because the Stocks have an illegal commitment fee attached to it.

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.

Thx, brother. 👍

That is totally correct. It’s $10 vs $1 depending on what happens in November. Acme is out to lunch. In La La Land. Earth calling Acme. Over and out. Is anyone home ? Is anyone there ? Hello ?

So did Treasury own AIG stock, did they convert to common, avoid government balance sheet and raise capital. Yes! Good job Captain Obvious! You found the similarities! Now pay attention to the differences!

Yes, let's pay attention to the differences.

Treasury took 92% of AIG and AIG's shareholders had rights, FnF shareholders don't.
AIG owed a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, FnF don't owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The situation here is much worse than was at AIG.

And fools keep thinking they're gonna get some big windfall. 😆

Of course you do!! I'm just going to focus on the market!!

I think it depends on who wins the election.

Sounds good to me!! I think we break 2 before new years!!

Very good arguments and due diligence! Would you be interested in working with me and a few other posters on this board to help me draft a potential “Little Tucker Act” pro se complaint? Depending on the results of something not allowed to be discussed in early Nov, I might want to file in 2025. But only if a totalitarian police state is avoided. If not, then there are much more important things to worry about. You have shown a good handle on the facts.

I know you didn't ask me, but DaJester,
but one thing i'm fearin' is that the FHFA, Treasury, and maybe even the SEC will impose a reverse-split, at minimum
1 for 10, or 1 for 50 or 1 for 100

Nobody is as dumb as she is!

A mere "lot," of word salad
is an understatement, he's
got 4 horse troughs full

Despite the political risk to Treasury, Secretary Steven Mnuchin expressed full support for the restructuring of Treasury’s preferred share holdings when I arrived at the FHFA.

Great peek into history. Not relevant to today since neither of them are in those positions.

There had been some calls over the course of the conservatorship for Treasury to just forgive all or part of its claim. That was a nonstarter, politically, for Treasury.

This is not even half the story. Had been calls by who? Nonstarter why? Are the people calling for forgiveness still advocating for that? Are the political reasons for Treasury still the same? This is just a recollection of a conversation in a point in time. It has zero bearing on the current situation.

I use the term "Treasury" because it is the term Calabria used.

Yep - this is hearsay. You read it in a book and now you say it as if it means something that it doesn't. Calabria doesn't say it was Mnuchin or any source. We have no idea if whomever he spoke to knows anything about the illegality of the write-down. He's making the argument from authority fallacy, and you are just repeating it.

You misstated my premise, which is that since Calabria reported that Mnuchin believed a SPS writedown would be illegal, and since Mnuchin had already agreed to convert the SPS, it is unreasonable to put a higher probability on writedown than conversion.

Nope, the timeframe of the book was over a decade ago. Neither Calabria no Mnuchin have any impact at this time. So your point is only true in the context of the past and what was being considered then. You have NO IDEA if the same concepts are being currently considered. Or if you do, please provide your source.

probabilities and not possibilities. Could Treasury have been lying? Yes. Is there any reason to believe that it is probable that they did so? Absolutely not, as judged by their other actions

You and I must be judging Treasury's actions very differently. Would I doubt "Treasury" was being fully honest about the situation in that conversation. Almost certainly not. They will say anything to get what they want, and it's not necessarily illegal for them to be misleading in a conversation. Do I doubt Calabria's recollection of the conversation? Maybe just a little - it makes for good reading, it doesn't have to be accurate. It's NOT reporting, it's a book - he can literally write whatever he wants in it and embellish whatever he feels like. You equating it to "reporting" is a false equivalency.

Quoting Calabria, as a direct participant in the discussions and negotiations around a SPS conversion or writedown, clearly is not a false attribution. See above for Calabria's use of the term "Treasury".

Again, you cannot refute my claim. Treasury has NEVER said a write-down is illegal. There is no official statement, statute, or case law you can point to that says otherwise. If you could refute it you would have done it by now. Quote the source or shut up.

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.

And this is the precise thinking that leads to the corruption. You seem to suggest it's not about what is legal or not legal, but what they can get away with. This is why you have people fighting on this board. There REALLY IS such a thing as right and wrong.

If a commitment fee is charged - it would be illegal per the Charter Act as currently written. Period, full stop. Your first signature line is irrelevant. We should not have to take the Government to court to get it to act legally and ethically. To suggest otherwise means you are part of the problem, not the solution.

If you expect the government to act illegally and want to invest accordingly, that's your prerogative. But you should not expect people to agree with you and bend over waiting for the government to ream them.

Holy schmolies are you being dense...
1a) When the LP ratchets were signed the jury verdict hadn't yet occurred and therefore could not have informed reasonable shareholder expectations.
- This makes ZERO logical sense. There is no discernable difference from shares purchased after the decision than those purchased before the decision. A shareholder's expectations are not limited to the information at the time of purchase, nor do different common shares come with different expectations. They all evolve together.
1b) The jury's verdict is not final. It can be appealed, and that appeal could be dragged out for several years depending on how far it goes. It could even be overturned.
- Again, technically true but wholly misses the point. The point is what the shareholder agreement means to investors. At no point does the agreement get modified to "shareholders have zero economic rights" because if it did, there's no point to have shares. Any "reasonable" shareholder would agree.
The idea that nothing can be reasonably expected because it could later be deemed a breach would render the entire premise of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing moot.
- There are plenty of things that can be expected or unexpected. Again, not the point. We aren't talking about every business decision, just those that violate the shareholder agreement. Any action that intentionally violates the shareholder's ability to reap in the rewards of their end of the contract, would be a breach of the implied covenant. It would be entirely reasonable to assume that if a company intentionally thwarts shareholders, that action would be a breach, now and in the future.
2) No. The removal of shareholders' economic rights by the NWS didn't have anything to do with FnF being in conservatorship
Say what? An investor should know that their shares have zero economic value because even after conservatorship, they can still expect a NWS to the Treasury? I don't have a clue what you are implying here.

so what do you think that fnma stock will be worth when the govt releases them? thanks

"While we're on the topic of challenges to refute a statement, try refuting this one.
The only ways in which the situations of AIG common shareholders in 2009 and FnF common shareholders in 2024 differ are worse for FnF common shareholders."

Ahh, the old adage - there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Ways in which AIG differs in situation? That's painfully obvious. Although "worse" is not as relevant as different. Different situations yield different results, for better or worse. Let me list a few differences and see if you can refute a single one of them:
- There is no Charter Act which creates by LAW, the existence of AIG as an entity, let alone as a privately owned entity. But obviously this exists for FnF. No Federal Agency can undo the Charter Act. For FnF to cease to exist, it will take Congress.
- The Federal Reserve initially LOANED $85B to AIG, meaning - it could be paid back with interest. As you and others keep touting here - there is no loan with FnF.
- AIG was hit with a commitment fee of $1.7B and then an ongoing commitment fee of 8.5% per year (later reduced) on the revolving credit amount. There was never a commitment fee on FnF. As mentioned in other posts, such a fee would be illegal per the Charter Act.
- There were several different rounds of AIG Preferred stock issued to Treasury. The Series C had voting rights. The 79.9% conversion rights switched to 77.9% to accommodate the creation of he Series D Preferred stock which had a cumulative dividend of 10% and additional warrants for 2% ownership. These were later exchanged for Series E Preferred stock that were NON-cumulative. The Series F started with zero LP but increased dollar-for-dollar with any amount drawn. All of this just illustrates that SPS agreements vary greatly AND CAN CHANGE. If they can change over time for AIG, they can for FnF also. I think it was you that asked "Why would Treasury agree to convert to a non-cumulative SPS" - well the same could be asked about AIG.
- The Federal Reserve reaped a $17.7B return on their $113B loan/credit commitments, roughly 15.7%. Again, there was no loan for FnF.
- Treasury made $5B return from the $69.8B AIG common & preferred stock investment, roughly 7%. So the cramdown was necessary just to achieve a single-digit return for Treasury's bailout of AIG. A cramdown for FnF is not necessary to achieve a 7% return, as Treasury has already received a greater return. A full LP cramdown would result in an absolutely unprecedented return from any government bailout in the history of the planet.
- After the cramdown, Treasury's 2012 AIG common stock offering was $20.7B, the largest US common stock offering at that time. This would pale in comparison to the amount of a FnF common stock offering if Treasury were to convert the entire LP (with or without warrants) into common shares.

So did Treasury own AIG stock, did they convert to common, avoid government balance sheet and raise capital. Yes! Good job Captain Obvious! You found the similarities! Now pay attention to the differences!

Will the real slim shady please stand up?

FNMA/FMCC
To Those blocking the path leading to Shareholder Recovery - sTAND dOWN

I have averaged down. Get me $8 and I retire. Come on baby!!!!

Oh no. I am a sheep holder. Baa baa baa.

Yeah, great forFannie and Freddie employees and Corrupt Directors, and Board Memebers, great for the Corrupt FHFA and Corrupt Treasury, great for Biden and Harris - But won't be great for Fannie and Freddie Shareholders, or should I say, SHEERHOLDERS - Fight, Fight, Fight 'Em - Fight to Right the Wrongs Done To Sheerholders

Refinancing is picking back up. Should be great for the twins right?

That's understandable if you're a long term shareholder!! I'm just speaking on a run to 2 or 3 bucks!! That probably wouldn't satisfy you!! I would have been building a separate position to average down though!! Hope you haven't just been sitting on your hands!!

Patience? My patience ran out at a decade. That was a while ago.

👇 You need a good slapping!! Lol!! Patience!!