TightCoil
5 시간 전
Notice from Mar 18 to today, Mar 25,
FNMA has had 6 consecutive
GREEEEN DAYS - And it's only Tuesday - 3 trading days left this week!
Mar 25 - $7.31 - 13,849,144 - up 21 cents - Today
Mar 24 - $7.0879 - 16,707,951 - up 71 cents
Mar 21 - $6.38 - 8,510,618
Mar 20 - $6.25 - 8,037,839
Mar 19 - $6.03 - 8,071,667
Mar 18 - $5.65 - 10,339,547
kthomp19
6 시간 전
Familiar and incorrect. When the GSEs are released, which they will be eventually, we will see what residual value remains in the common. I do not need to file a lawsuit to reap my share of the residual value. Time will tell us more accurately than a court document.
That's not at all what I was talking about. Only a court can settle our disagreement as to whether or not the LP ratchets in the 2019 and 2021 letter agreements were a breach of the implied covenant.
There is a vast difference between harm being done, and being able to calculate damage from that harm. Lamberth was only interested in what can be objectively proved in court as factual. There is no crystal ball of what "could have" been, therefore that harm is inadmissible. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why would any other court case be able to use counterfactual share price models? I'm not saying it's impossible, but given the precedent we have seen it sure seems like share price drop is the only real provable harm.
They could be - through some future action. But the current trending news is hinting at release with residual value.
In other words, speculative value. That's all either the juniors or commons have right now. No actual economic rights because those were removed by the NWS.
The LP ratchets didn't remove any economic rights because those were permanently removed by the NWS, and neither did they remove the speculative value because that clearly remains as evidenced by current market prices. Therefore the LP ratchets in and of themselves didn't cause any harm and they didn't breach the implied covenant.
kthomp19
6 시간 전
1. Treasury: they can make all different kinds of salads: 79%, 90% and 95%...2. Me: I am happy with $30/shares, below that I am not satisfied.
Then you better cross your fingers, like Ackman does, that Treasury exercises the warrants. You're not getting $30 per share if Treasury ends up with 90% or higher.
In fact, according to Ackman you're not getting $30 even if Treasury stays at 79.9%. His $31 price target has Treasury only getting 71%.
With all of Ackman's own assumptions, except that Treasury gets 79.9% instead of 71%, the common price target is $15.
kthomp19
6 시간 전
Any updated thoughts on cap requirements? That will be a huge swing factor in all of this. 2.5% and almost no dilution beyond government. 4.5% and it's ugly. I haven't seen a peep related to this.
You will have to be more specific.
12 USC 4612(a)(1) says that the lowest that FnF's minimum cap req (called the leverage cap req in the ERCF) can go is 2.5% of balance sheet assets. The ERCF has it at 2.5% of adjusted total assets, which are only slightly more than balance sheet assets for Fannie. Fannie's adjusted total assets as of December 31 2024 were $4.460T, while their balance sheet assets were $4.350T.
There is very little room for Pulte to lower the leverage cap req.
The ERCF's risk-based cap req is split into four parts: total capital (8.0%), CET1 capital (4.5%), Tier 1 capital (6.0%), and adjusted total capital (8.0%). All those percentages are of risk-weighted assets. Fannie's risk-weight assets as of December 31 2024 were $1.364T.
Pulte has the authority to set the risk-based cap req by 12 USC 4611. That law is very broad and allows him to set it just about wherever he likes.
12 USC 4614(a) requires the FHFA director to give each of Fannie and Freddie one of four capital classifications outside of conservatorship:
1) "Adequately capitalized" (meets both the minimum and risk-based cap req)
2) "Undercapitalized" (meets the minimum cap req but not risk-based)
3) "Significantly undercapitalized" (meets neither cap req, but core capital is at least half the minimum cap req)
4) "Critically undercapitalized" (meets neither cap req, core capital is less than half the minimum cap req)
Without the buffers, the minimum cap req is greater than the risk-based one right now anyway so it would control outside of conservatorship. That renders Pulte's authority to lower the risk-based cap req mostly moot: he could lower it to zero and FnF would still be "significantly undercapitalized" outside of conservatorship if they don't meet the minimum cap req (the one Pulte doesn't have the authority to lower very much).
What Pulte really can do to help is eliminate the capital buffers in the ERCF. Those restrict FnF's ability to pay distributions (like dividends) and are quite large compared to the base cap reqs.
So talk of lowering the cap reqs is basically useless due to 12 USC 4612(a)(1). We should instead be asking Pulte to eliminate the PCCBA and PLBA buffers.
TightCoil
7 시간 전
Mar 25
Go Fannie Mae - All The Way - Freddie Mac - Load Up and Don't Look Back
Recap of our PPS since Mar 7 which was Day 39 of over $5 when we were at $5.84. Then the next trading Day (Mar 10)) we went BELOW $5 to $4.91, but rebounded swimmingly the next Day (Mar 11) to $5.19 and hit $6.11 on Mar 14...
Mar 25 - $7.31 - 13,849,144 - up 21 cents - Today
Mar 24 - $7.0879 - 16,707,951 - up 71 cents
Mar 21 - $6.38 - 8,510,618
Mar 20 - $6.25 - 8,037,839
Mar 19 - $6.03 - 8,071,667
Mar 18 - $5.65 - 10,339,547
Mar 17 - $5.82 - 9,309,100
Mar 14 - $6.11 - 16,518,200
Mar 13 - $5.50 - 5,951,400
Mar 12 - $5.65 - 9,589,600
Mar 11 - $5.19 - 10,480,900
Mar 10 - $4.91 - 16,783,700
Mar 7 -- $5.84 - 23,007,600
navycmdr
8 시간 전
Major Shake-Ups At Freddie, Fannie
Bisnow - 51,151 followers
March 24, 2025 - What You Need To Know
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing an
executive order to study the potential impacts of privatizing
Fannie and Freddie, which act as the financial backbone of
the housing market by providing liquidity to thousands of
banks and other financial institutions.
After being appointed head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
Bill Pulte posted on X that there is “a lot of upward mobility, to earn
and grow MORE” at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He failed to
mention that may only apply to the employees that survive the
bloodbath that followed.
In his first full week in the role, Pulte has ousted and replaced more
than a dozen board members and executives at both government-
sponsored enterprises, instructed teams to begin reviewing their
2025 budgets, and placed dozens of FHFA employees on indefinite
administrative leave, which has triggered fears of mass layoffs.
Among those who have been dismissed is Freddie CEO Diana Reid,
who was fired shortly after co-signing with Pulte a return-to-office
notice to employees.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing an
executive order to study the potential impacts of privatizing
Fannie and Freddie, which act as the financial backbone of
the housing market by providing liquidity to thousands of
banks and other financial institutions.
Though the past week has made the end of Fannie and
Freddie’s conservatorship seem more imminent, the
government has slowly been building the foundation
for a transition for quite a while. In 2019, during Trump's
first term, the Treasury Department ended sweeps of
the GSE’s profits, a practice that began in an attempt
to recover taxpayer funds used for the companies’
2008 bailout. That has allowed Fannie and Freddie
to shore up capital reserves.
Those in favor of privatization say that increased
competition could lead to improved efficiency and
lower costs for borrowers. The two giants support
about 70% of the mortgage market, according to
the National Association of Realtors.
But those against the change think that it would
increase costs, slash consumer protections and
overall reduce access to home ownership,
especially in today’s high-priced environment.
Of course, for some, the argument simply boils
down to: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
— Sasha Jones
RickNagra
8 시간 전
Boom boom. Ready the pom poms. I need to call my cheerleaders.
Yes, Bill Pulte, as the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), has the authority to use a waiver rule to rescind certain policies without a public comment period, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the policy in question. This authority is derived from the FHFA's regulatory framework, specifically outlined in the *Code of Federal Regulations* (CFR), Title 12, Part 1211, Subpart B, which governs procedures for waivers, approvals, non-objection letters, and regulatory interpretations.
Under 12 CFR § 1211.3, the FHFA Director has the discretion to waive any provision, restriction, or requirement of an FHFA rule, regulation, policy, or order—provided it is not explicitly required by law—if certain conditions are met. These conditions include a determination that applying the provision would adversely affect the purposes of the authorizing statutes or the Safety and Soundness Act, or if the requester (in this case, potentially the FHFA itself or a regulated entity like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) demonstrates "good cause." Importantly, this waiver authority does not inherently mandate a public notice-and-comment period, as it is an administrative action distinct from formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The APA typically requires agencies to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment when issuing or amending substantive rules (5 U.S.C. § 553). However, there are exceptions, such as when an action involves "rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice," or when the agency finds "good cause" to bypass notice and comment because it would be "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." Additionally, rescinding a policy that is not itself a formal regulation—such as an advisory bulletin, guidance, or internal directive—may not trigger APA rulemaking requirements at all, further enabling the Director to act without a comment period.
In practice, Pulte could leverage this waiver authority to rescind policies swiftly, especially if he frames the action as aligning with the FHFA’s mission or as a response to an urgent need (e.g., streamlining operations or reducing costs, consistent with his stated goals). For example, on March 25, 2025, Pulte announced several policy changes via X, including the rescission of a 2024 advisory bulletin on unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) enforcement, without mention of a comment period. This suggests he may already be utilizing this discretion, relying on the FHFA’s internal authority rather than engaging in a public rulemaking process.
That said, the scope of this power has limits. Waivers cannot override statutory mandates, and significant policy shifts affecting regulated entities (like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks) or the public might face legal scrutiny if stakeholders argue they were entitled to notice and comment under the APA. Critics could also challenge whether "good cause" was adequately justified. Nonetheless, within the FHFA’s regulatory framework, Pulte has the technical ability to rescind certain policies via waiver without a comment period, particularly for non-legislative rules or internal directives. Whether this approach holds up under potential legal or political challenges would depend on the specific policy and the rationale provided.
navycmdr
9 시간 전
What is Treasury chief Scott Bessent focusing -2-
Provided by Dow Jones
Mar 25, 2025 11:09am
https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2025032588/what-is-treasury-chief-scott-bessent-focusing-2
Bessent believes a sovereign wealth fund could be crafted out of the government's current assets. For instance, the Social Security trust fund, with around $2.8 trillion in assets, should be able to invest in equities and other non-Treasury assets to boost returns. The Treasury's claims on the government-sponsored enterprises, i.e. Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), could be shifted to a sovereign wealth fund. Federally owned land could be used as an asset as well. Bessent doesn't view a revaluation of the government's gold (GC00) holdings as a credible path to reducing the budget deficit, as some have suggested.
The jury is still out on what a sovereign wealth fund would look like, but if one is set up, it would likely invest in domestic assets and encourage investment. On the margin, the idea can't hurt.
Hot Features
프리미엄
실시간 차트, 분석 도구 및 가격을 받으려면 등록하세요.
Zardiw
8 시간 전
