Federal National Mortgage Association (PK) (FNMFO) Share Price

Hi kthomp19,

It's sad to see that the quality of your posts has gone way down. That's also the reason why I haven't responded to your previous replies to my posts, too bad. 😢

Now you don't even seem to know what market cap means anymore. Or how else can you explain why you write such things:
If there is no junior pref conversion then the legacy common gets to keep more, but the market cap has to be adjusted downward by $2B (total junior pref dividends) times whatever P/E is used (looks like around 12 to get a $330B valuation).

Here is a definition of market cap, for a better understanding:

„The Market Cap—or “Market Capitalization”—is the total value of a company’s equity from the perspective of its common shareholders. Often used interchangeably with the term “equity value,” a company's market capitalization measures the value of its common equity as of the latest market close.“
https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/market-capitalization/#:~:text=The%2520Market%2520Cap%E2%80%94or%2520%E2%80%9CMarket,of%2520the%2520latest%2520market%2520close.

If you have this understanding of market cap, you will be able to recognize that my approach is the right one. It also becomes clear that a conversion of JPS into commons under this proposal, which is allegedly circulating in government circles, can take place at the earliest at the SPO, and at the issue price of the capital raise.

We can go through this together at the weekend if you are interested.

Kind regards, Fully 😊

Looks like some is mad they didn't buy cheaper and now trying bs... don't yiu agree?

Looking beyond this prison sentence, Fannie and Freddie moving into new global mortgage markets, under the current charters are the companies allowed to expand their book of business in this way? And if so, what would be the potential Compound Annual Growth Rate of the Earnings Power of the Businesses?

your first post in 16 years. lol. go away.

more likely, they will convert both senior and junior into common, then the price will be way less than $4.44 per share, probably around $1, don't you agree? If so, it's best to sell all right before they make the decision and when the market price is probably $10 per share

You guys are gettin; me Skeerd again, i'm gonna go to
bed, pull the covers up over my head, and tremble with fear,
and pray

Obiterdictum may shed some light into this.

The capital stack must be set set before a public offering. The stack before a public offering seem to be setting up at 79.9% treasury, 12-15% JPS, 35 billion, and the remainder of 5-8% current shareholders. Then a secondary offering. The amount of the secondary offering will depend on what the Treasury will do with its 79.9%. If it puts it into a sovereign wealth fund the market will imply a government guarantee, in which case only $30-50 billion will need to be raised in the secondary. An additional 10-15% dilution.

but they stole it all. 8 billion market cap, should be 3 trillion . after stealing for last 16 years, they must give back the warrants back to the companies, return the excess money looted with interest.

"In 2024, with over $4.3 trillion in assets, Fannie Mae is the largest company in the United States and the fifth largest company in the world, by assets
In terms of profit, Fannie Mae is the 15th most profitable company in the United States and the 33rd most profitable in the world"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Toby Keith sez, "Freddie Mac kiss my ass, wyooo".

$FMCC~

Trump’s talk suggests dilution coming. Hasn’t he said stuff like “the government will make a lot of money on fannie/freddie”?

Correct. His letter to Rand Paul says "My Administration would have also sold the government's common stock in these companies at a huge profit and fully privatized the companies."

The only two avenues for Treasury to get common stock are via warrant exercise (79.9% dilution) or senior pref conversion (higher; John Paulson said it would be 90-95%).

I’m super glad he wants them to be released but it’s too bad that the “vibe” we’re all getting from the chatter out there, including Trump’s various comments and also Ackman himself seemingly being ok with dilution.

Nobody of prominence has claimed that there should be no dilution at all. Ackman's own price target involves three different forms of dilution: warrant exercise, capital raise, and junior pref conversion.

Either way, won’t dilution trigger another round of lawsuits by common shareholders?

Perhaps, but given Treasury's perfect track record against FnF shareholders those lawsuits have very little hope of succeeding.

The calculation of the share price is much simpler: if 7.2 billion shares (warrants redeemed) are worth 250 billion dollars, then one share is worth 34.72 USD. Such an approach also avoids confusion regarding a JPS conversion.

No, it doesn't work that way. The warrants gives Treasury 79.9% of the, ahem, Fully Diluted share count which includes all dilution from the IPO and a potential junior pref conversion. Treasury can achieve a share count far greater than 7.2B even if they write off the seniors.

If the valuation really is $330B and $264B goes to Treasury (which is 80%; the article says the warrants are worth more than $250B), that leaves $66B behind for everyone else. $25B for the IPO (article says $20-30B) means $41B for the commons and juniors combined. A junior pref conversion gives them $33B of that, leaving $8B behind for the legacy common, or around $4.44 per share.

If there is no junior pref conversion then the legacy common gets to keep more, but the market cap has to be adjusted downward by $2B (total junior pref dividends) times whatever P/E is used (looks like around 12 to get a $330B valuation). That knocks the total valuation for the common down to $306B.

Starting at $306B, $245B goes to Treasury as 80% and $25B for the IPO leaves $36B for the legacy common, or $20 per share.

No one is buying warrants, they’ll be converted to common and then sold. Anyone challenging them will spend 10 years in court.

Not just that. Given how all the other cases against Treasury have gone (all losses), especially the NWS takings cases, it's hard to imagine cases over the warrants succeeding. That would mean 10+ years in court just to lose anyway.

Trump's creation of sovereign wealth fund is a catalyst to GSE release from C-ship.

Why would this necessarily be good for share prices?

The free warrants are worth $300B to the SWF.

Which means the senior prefs after conversion to common would be worth even more.

It's still an illegal taking in my opinion and goes completely against what a conservatorship is.

"Illegal taking" is an oxymoron.

The goal being to rehabilitate and receive a modest return on investment in return, not a massive windfall.

Where was that goal ever stated? Treasury's return on FnF is already over 50% and they still have yet to write off the seniors, which they would have already done if that 50% return was deemed sufficient.

Unfortunately, the judicial system has refused to address the illegal actions the government has taken. Instead they have been complicit with it.

When the judicial branch says something is legal, as the Supreme Court did with the NWS, anyone else calling it illegal is just plain wrong.

Until a judge with a backbone does something, which seems to be nonexistent these days, we're left begging for scraps.

Bingo. The next step to enlightenment is to realize that all of the court cases against Treasury lost, and the one case that succeeded (so far, it could get appealed) did not have Treasury as a defendant and involves only a small payout made by the companies.

At no point did you refute the main core arguments I presented: /i]

Wrong. I refuted all three of your points in this post.

Since you couldn't win the argument logically, you basically told me that I'm a hypocrite for not filing my own lawsuit.

Wrong again. You might think that I didn't win the argument logically, but I think I did. I called you a hypocrite in addition to showing that your legal thesis has no grounds, which directly contradicts your accusation.

The conversation went exactly how I said your arguments go. If you can't win the argument factually, you'll throw out the razzle dazzle unrelated historical bullstuff, and then when all else fails, you tell the other person to shut up.

WRONG. Strike three, you're out.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

You claimed before that I try to shut down conversations by hiding behind my first signature line. This post right here (among many others) proves you wrong.

Now you're moving the goalposts by saying "well okay you engage in the argument, but then you shut it down when you think you're losing", which is also wrong. I refuted your points already; you (or anyone else, remember the argumentum ad populum fallacy?) disagreeing with that doesn't change things.

.

So you are saying people are not supposed to share their opinions of what may possibly happen, without also sharing a probability?

Wrong. That's not what I said. Those are your words, not mine.

What I did say is that it is impossible to do an expected value calculation without probabilities, which is a fact.

People can post whatever they want. I'm just pointing out the uselessness of listing possibilities without probabilities attached. If the weather forecast said "chance of rain" tomorrow, but without giving a probability, it wouldn't be very useful now would it?

What method other than expected value would you recommend as a basis for deciding whether or not to own the common at today's prices?

But how do you explain that we are not slowing dissolving to a nickel?

1) A senior-to-common conversion doesn't have to drive the common share price all the way to a nickel; it could be a few bucks.
2) Senior pref conversion isn't guaranteed to happen.
3) The market has a different collective valuation than I do.

Do you not agree that the investor sentiment is that there will/should be enough equity remaining for common shares to be at some multiple higher than it is today?

Perhaps, but that's not the only explanation. Not every common shareholder intends to hold the shares all the way through recap/release. They could be looking for a shorter-term gain with a price target much lower than Ackman's $31. Those shareholders are also not concerned with what the price would be if Treasury does convert the seniors to commons because they don't intend to hold on that long.

Of course, such a conversion could happen at any time and catch them off guard. It's a risk factor.

But they are looking at the same facts & circumstances that you are, but coming to a different conclusion.

That's exactly where the saying "differences of opinion are what make a market" comes from.

Stay thirsty my friend..

I see: your myriad scenarios are just bluster and bullshit. If you truly had a share price estimation method that didn't involve probabilities you wouldn't hestitate to throw it in my face.

Regardless of the return on FnF or AIG or any company, the Fed & Treasury are set up the way they are, and neither is set up for maximizing profits via the private sector. You saying otherwise isn't going to persuade them to set a new mission.

That doesn't contradict my point: Treasury's current return on FnF evidently isn't enough for them because they haven't already written off the seniors (or the warrants!), therefore your idea that Treasury might do so in the future due to having gotten a sufficient return already doesn't stand up.

I'd agree that the PE will likely increase over time from the initial release. However, your estimate of 9.2 is not more valid than Ackman's 15 except in your own mental model.

Validity is in the eye of the beholder.

You provided your relatively simplistic method above. Ackman provided his presentation and slides.

Ackman's P/E assumptions are no less simplistic as mine.

Nothing wrong with that - but pretending that you are more accurate than Ackman or anyone else?

Yet again you are putting words in my mouth. I am not claiming that my estimate is more accurate than Ackman's. That isn't possible because it hasn't happened yet.

I think mine is more reasonable than his, which is my opinion that I gave some reasoning for.

For the billionth time, your probabilities do not dictate reality.

I never said they did. You're still dodging the point, which is to assign probabilities to possibilities. Without doing that you can't form a rational basis for a price target built off of your myriad scenarios.

You can assign whatever probability you want, and so can others using the exact same set of facts and circumstances.

Who else has done so?

Just because you arrive at "85%" probability of cramdown, it means EXACTLY DIDDLY SQUAT.

An opinion stated as a fact. You know, you're pretty bad about doing that.

At least this is a relevant point. Are you talking about a shift compared to 2008-2019?

The most relevant comparison point would be the January 2021 letter agreement, which removed the cap on the LP ratchet.

Whether Treasury's goals will shift to be favorable, I'll wait for an official statement.

See, you're dodging the point yet again. In order to make a price estimate now, and thus make a decision as to what to buy or hold now, you have to make your probability estimate NOW. Using only currently available information.

By refusing to do so and yet owning the common shares anyway, all you are doing is blind guessing.

If you think that there is an 85% chance that Treasury's stance is the same as it has been since 2008 (i.e. it's mission is to wipe out shareholder equity and dissolve the GSEs), I'd say your estimate is inaccurate. I'd give 100% probability to that./i]

Twisting my words around again. You even quoted me! I said that I think there's a 15% chance that Treasury's goals shift in a way that is favorable to common shareholders. That does not mean an 85% chance of no shift at all from 2008. If it did, I wouldn't own the junior prefs or the commons.

I think there is an 85% chance that Treasury converts the seniors to common, and that is also a huge shift from its attitude in 2008-2012. That implies a zero percent chance of Treasury reverting to its stance from 2008-2012.

Again, just because you can't see the scenario, nor it's probability, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said I see no reason to believe it has any reasonable chance of happening, so its probability estimate rounds to zero.

The LP is large enough that Treasury MUST leave a huge amount of money or put the GSEs in receivership. Assuming they are opting for the former, there really isn't much difference in $50B to grease the wheels.

The same could be said about $20B, or $10B, or $5B.

Is $50B a large amount of money in absolute terms? Yes.
Is $50B a large amount of money relative to the full LP? Yes.
Is $50B a large amount of money relative to what Treasury could realize from a max conversion? Yes.
Is $50B a large amount of money relative to the size of the federal budget? No.

You seem to think that only the last of these will matter.

She is not anti-GSE or anti-shareholder - much the opposite. I think what upsets some of the board is that she seems to be advocating more for the juniors. Or it could be just because she likes to refute some of the more "out there" pps claims of some of the common shareholders. (Hey - at his point, anything is possible - say cancel Seniors, Warrants, turn on dividends, relist - and you are definitely off to the races - works for me - but I would agree that the perfect scenario is very unlikely).

I am not on this board for validation of my opinion (which is basically, as a holder of juniors and common, is PAR/ballpark Ackman's target price). Just because a poster may not tell you what you want to hear - its helpful to fully read the post and try to understand the reasoning. It may not change your mind on anything, but it may get you to thinking. I find her posts interesting and thought provoking. And the fact that they may be pissing off a lot of folks on this Board is an indication to me that she may be right on a lot of points. Because, again, as the last 16 years have proved - anything goes.

Busting up the echo chamber does tend to ruffle feathers, but it's far better than 100% sunshine and pumpers, which is akin to speeding down the freeway with one's eyes closed.

this may not be the most profitable investment I ever made, but it is certainly the most interesting.

For me it has been both...so far!

Bessent was positive in my opinion

But we all know

Carney
Whalen
Etc

Will run fake news release is not going to happen due to interest rate concerns

It’s too easy for them with this info

We are going to have to weather the storm until admin action

Happy about Turner news and now Bessent did say after taxes but the interest rate thing gave the fake news media a bone to print more crapola

We have to have more patience until plan is released after Pulte confirmed

Hopefully investors stay positive and fake news doesn’t matter anymore

when and where did he say that?

EXACTLY!!! Fannie and Freddie do not control what the banks do. I think that was the only soft answer he had available other than telling us release is coming super fast…LIKE IN TOMORROW!

ITS ALL BASED on mortgages going up or down NOTHING ELSE. Yes im yelling!

$10 by Friday

Dr Susan Wachter on impact from privatization

See 37:30 for about a very intelligent 5 minute conversation. POTUS 47 went to Wharton -

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/policies-that-work-series/

Bessent said we ARE NEXT UPPPP

Hi DCBill, I think you are underestimating the greatest POTUS of all time. He actually wants to lower housing costs by increasing supply and the GSEs out of Conservatorship can help via innovative construction lending credit enhancement and credit enhancement for multi-family projects. Secretary Turner worked closely with Chairman Scott on the Opportunity Zones during DJT I and they will work together again to bring new housing across America. I dont think you have anything to compare what DJT will do for housing - you have a Pulte as FHFA Director and a Trump calling the shots. Definitely will be the Golden Age for the GSEs and for Housing in America. Dont underestimate DJT and his extraordinary Administration.

Published 02/06/2025, 10:43 AM

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares see double-digit growth after WSJ report
© Reuters.

FMCC - 15.96%

FNMA - 14.55%

Investing.com -- Shares of Fannie Mae (OTC:FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTC:FMCC) experienced substantial growth on Thursday, following a report from the Wall Street Journal stating that Scott Turner, the head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (NSE:HUDC), revealed that privatizing the companies will be a priority.

Fannie Mae's shares saw an increase of up to 21%, while Freddie Mac's shares gained as much as 22%.

This significant growth is the latest in a series of jumps for both companies, which have seen their stock prices increase by over 400% since the presidential election on November 5.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.

I'll go out on a limb and forecast
a flat out 10% gain for Fannie tomorrow
give or take 1%

Bessent do your DD before answering reporters with such ignorant answers.


Elon is right about Bessent!
I am afraid Bessent is like Mnuchin, unlike Pam Bondi, Lutnick, Hegseth...

1% extra fee in mortgage rate for 4.5% cap will be gone if private cap is raised.
That will lead to reduction in mortgage rate by 1% if capital requirement is reduced from 4.5% to 2.5% with $30B private capital raised.

calabria on why rates won't go up upon exiting conservatorship

why rates won't go up

I sent the letter out again tonite on X

Promises made ... promises kept ...

Trump put no contingencies for release ...

unlike the Treasury Sec Bessent

I'm holding Trump to that promise letter ...

Promises made ... promises kept

Mortgage Rates will not go up if Fannie and Freddie are released from Conservatorship. One area has nothing to do with the other. Fannie and Freddie will still conduct the same business if they are private for anyone to suggest otherwise clearly indicates they do not know what they are talking about.
Bessent do your DD before answering reporters with such ignorant answers.

yep, it's a super positive message 

FNMA Closing Prices Form T .....
16:41:51 6.85 15,208 form t Buy 6.46 6.89 32,462,622 23998 nasd
16:40:48 6.85 3,260 form t Buy 6.46 6.89 32,447,414 23997 nasd
16:07:34 6.50 5,000 form t Sell 6.74 6.75 32,444,154 23996 nasd
16:00:00 6.85 5 Buy 6.84 6.85 32,439,154 23995 nasd
15:59:59 6.85 97 Buy 6.84 6.85 32,439,149 23994 nasd

bessent did not say we need congress or we need reform or we need capital or we aren’t sure about releasing them but only said ‘oh i care that rates don’t go up’ as we all know they should not for homeowners and rates will not. he is saying oh i listened to you and we will let you know soon that it will in fact go down as a result. rates is the only criteria and they will go down. it is hugely positive.

Treasury Secretary Bessent Sits for a Short Video Interview on the GSEsBessent Will Be Deliberate and Cautious to Make Sure He Doesn't Blow Out the Mortgage Credit Spread (as He Should Be)

Rule Of Law Guy - Feb 7

Today, in a video interview of Treasury Secretary Bessent by Bloomberg reporter Saleha Mohsin, Bessent stated that tax policy is his current priority and, after that has been sorted out, he will focus on a safe and sound GSE conservatorship release.

Bessent stated that the most important metric he will focus on with regard to any GSE conservatorship release is its effect on mortgage rates, and he would look for any “study or hint” that would indicate that interest rates would rise in connection with a GSE conservatorship release.

Of course, the terms imposed on the GSEs in the GSE conservatorship release, relating principally to GSE capital levels, will dictate what effect GSE conservatorship release will have directly on the GSE MBS market, and indirectly on national mortgage rates.

So for GSE investors, the good news is that GSE conservatorship release is definitely on Treasury Secretary Bessent’s radar.

The caveat to this good news is that he will not focus on this as soon as some GSE investors might wish.

The question Bessent raises for GSE investors is what standard of safety and soundness will he require of the GSEs in the conservatorship release.

He is taking an academic approach to analyzing this concern. Bessent will be offered up pure advocacy pieces by mortgage professional associations incentivized to obtain a Treasury guarantee of GSE MBS. Bessent will see right through this biased advocacy.

It is not clear to me that Bessent will find a definitive academic study to answer his question...

Treasury Secretary Bessent Sits for a Short Video Interview on the GSEsBessent Will Be Deliberate and Cautious to Make Sure He Doesn't Blow Out the Mortgage Credit Spread (as He Should Be)

Rule Of Law Guy - Feb 7

Today, in a video interview of Treasury Secretary Bessent by Bloomberg reporter Saleha Mohsin, Bessent stated that tax policy is his current priority and, after that has been sorted out, he will focus on a safe and sound GSE conservatorship release.

Bessent stated that the most important metric he will focus on with regard to any GSE conservatorship release is its effect on mortgage rates, and he would look for any “study or hint” that would indicate that interest rates would rise in connection with a GSE conservatorship release.

Of course, the terms imposed on the GSEs in the GSE conservatorship release, relating principally to GSE capital levels, will dictate what effect GSE conservatorship release will have directly on the GSE MBS market, and indirectly on national mortgage rates.

So for GSE investors, the good news is that GSE conservatorship release is definitely on Treasury Secretary Bessent’s radar.

The caveat to this good news is that he will not focus on this as soon as some GSE investors might wish.

The question Bessent raises for GSE investors is what standard of safety and soundness will he require of the GSEs in the conservatorship release.

He is taking an academic approach to analyzing this concern. Bessent will be offered up pure advocacy pieces by mortgage professional associations incentivized to obtain a Treasury guarantee of GSE MBS. Bessent will see right through this biased advocacy.

It is not clear to me that Bessent will find a definitive academic study to answer his question...

Sorry, any cheerleading after years of daily moaning from you serves absolutely 0.0000% purpose. "AGREED!"
BTW, how's your BFF kiteflier doing.
Did you line him up with any new job opportunities.
Funny, I don't see any of his posts and all of that 0.05 malarkey.
FNMA

dunno how many F'in times posting

any article pro or con is NOT A F'IN

endorsement - with all due respect STFU

Rates are going down and we're off to the Moooooon.


GlobeNewswire
Mortgage Rates Decrease

02/06/2025 12:00:00 PM

MCLEAN, Va., Feb. 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 6.89%.

"The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage decreased this week, now averaging 6.89%," said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s Chief Economist. "Mortgage rates have been stable over the last month and incoming data suggest the economy remains on firm footing. Even though rates are higher compared to last year, the last two weeks of purchase applications are modestly above what we saw a year ago, indicating some latent demand in the market."

News Facts

The 30-year FRM averaged 6.89% as of February 6, 2025, down from last week when it averaged 6.95%. A year ago at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 6.64%.
The 15-year FRM averaged 6.05%, down from last week when it averaged 6.12%. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 5.90%.

The PMMS® is focused on conventional, conforming, fully amortizing home purchase loans for borrowers who put 20% down and have excellent credit. For more information, view our Frequently Asked Questions.

Bessent said focus now is tax policy -

said GSE Release would depend on study

or assurances that release would not

increase mort rates for homeowners 🤔

Question is : One has nothing to do with

the other - HERA "requires" ending the

Conservatorship - not dependent on either

Rates up or down - totally irrelevant

With all due respect, shareholderts don't need/want Secy. Turner or Congress involved with what--after Bessent opines--should be just another Trump Administrative action/presidential order.
If you wish for anything else, you are asking for less certainty and much later implementation, if not being dropped from the agenda.
I am happy for all that stock prices are rising, but this isn't a day at the beach or a walk in the park.
Bessent said today, he's looking to see rates go down if C-Ship is ended--which I believe they will--but that likely will cause the GSE opponents to add to what they've been saying , i.e. "rates will rise."
Friends, it's a "how many angels..." question. Be ready to pushback.

Agreed!

HUGE - we're on deck after tax policy

Be patient grasshopper.

https://x.com/bloombergtv/status/1887608557144514871?s=46

What Bessent meant was he would make sure it would be sound release and it would not have the implications on mortgage rate some people raised as risk of release.