Flynnstone5 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 "Trump budget estimates $fnma and $fmcc will give $142bn for "deficit reduction" over next 10 years under NWS; http://bit.ly/2rMPqj4 " True, but you can cherry pick negatives or positives. "The Administration has publicly expressed its desire to work with members of Congress to facilitate a more sustainable housing finance system. Any reform of the housing system likely will impact the cash flows attributable to the GSEs in the 2018 Budget projections in ways that cannot be estimated at this time" "Historically, investors in GSE debt have included thousands of banks, institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, foreign governments and millions of individuals through mutual funds and 401k investments." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 "Trump budget estimates $fnma and $fmcc will give $142bn for "deficit reduction" over next 10 years under NWS; http://bit.ly/2rMPqj4 " This may be Watt's point of contention and urge to retain dividends... In addition, in 2014 FHFA directed the GSEs to set aside 4.2 basis points for each dollar of the unpaid principal balance of new business purchases (including but not limited to mortgages purchased for securitization) in each year to fund several federal affordable housing programs created by HERA, including the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. These set-asides were suspended by FHFA in November 2008 and were reinstated effective January 1, 2015. The 2018 Budget proposes to eliminate the 4.2 basis point set-aside and discontinue funding for these Funds, resulting in an increase to the estimated PSPA dividends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 mnuchin seems to be realistic in disfavoring "bright" ideas that have the capacity to wreck havoc in real world, as per BAT: https://www.thestreet.com/story/14147329/1/mnuchin-puts-kibosh-on-border-tax-as-house-debates-measure.html i suspect he is equally suspicious of gse reform proposals that "look good on paper" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 "Trump budget estimates $fnma and $fmcc will give $142bn for "deficit reduction" over next 10 years under NWS; http://bit.ly/2rMPqj4 " True, but you can cherry pick negatives or positives. "The Administration has publicly expressed its desire to work with members of Congress to facilitate a more sustainable housing finance system. Any reform of the housing system likely will impact the cash flows attributable to the GSEs in the 2018 Budget projections in ways that cannot be estimated at this time" "Historically, investors in GSE debt have included thousands of banks, institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, foreign governments and millions of individuals through mutual funds and 401k investments." Also, when have budgets actually mattered to the gov't? Not like any of those estimates actually come to fruition anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 "Trump budget estimates $fnma and $fmcc will give $142bn for "deficit reduction" over next 10 years under NWS; http://bit.ly/2rMPqj4 " This may be Watt's point of contention and urge to retain dividends... In addition, in 2014 FHFA directed the GSEs to set aside 4.2 basis points for each dollar of the unpaid principal balance of new business purchases (including but not limited to mortgages purchased for securitization) in each year to fund several federal affordable housing programs created by HERA, including the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. These set-asides were suspended by FHFA in November 2008 and were reinstated effective January 1, 2015. The 2018 Budget proposes to eliminate the 4.2 basis point set-aside and discontinue funding for these Funds, resulting in an increase to the estimated PSPA dividends My understanding is that Watt is not retaining dividends, he's delaying them. In the end they may wind up being the same thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 "Trump budget estimates $fnma and $fmcc will give $142bn for "deficit reduction" over next 10 years under NWS; http://bit.ly/2rMPqj4 " This may be Watt's point of contention and urge to retain dividends... In addition, in 2014 FHFA directed the GSEs to set aside 4.2 basis points for each dollar of the unpaid principal balance of new business purchases (including but not limited to mortgages purchased for securitization) in each year to fund several federal affordable housing programs created by HERA, including the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. These set-asides were suspended by FHFA in November 2008 and were reinstated effective January 1, 2015. The 2018 Budget proposes to eliminate the 4.2 basis point set-aside and discontinue funding for these Funds, resulting in an increase to the estimated PSPA dividends My understanding is that Watt is not retaining dividends, he's delaying them. In the end they may wind up being the same thing though. Unless they come up with something esoteric, which will be a bad omen, and provided he orders the companies to waive payments those funds *will* be retained earnings no matter how they characterize the event. So even if Watt goes on with his decision the most important thing for us will be how it happens. If it is a simple waiver with no added french fries or hot sauce it will represent gaining ground. And I do not think we have to wait for Corker's 75th day. If Watt is determined, he should make an official request -possibly in writing and public- to the companies in advance of the transfer. BTW, Senator Warren probably had a heart attack reading that last paragraph. Do you all remember how much she publicly punished Mel Watt in that hearing regarding the lack of funding of these funds? All for nothing (maybe) lol. (Note to myself) No matter how progressive or moderate a democrat is, some senators are probably thinking recapitalization with a few fixes is, after all, not such bad of a deal considering this 2018 budget proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Pretty much agree the Demo's are on our side and probably more vital to our wants than any other. Now excuse me while I go shower that off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Where is hope? There is some. A paid-for MBS guarantee -as per Mnuchin- is good for us. It validates FF business model and stops the narrative of private gains/social losses (an explicit guarantee mean less profits for shareholders). A role for FF as monoline reinsurers/guarantors is good for us too, as discussions emerge. Watt's initiative of rebuilding a buffer is good for us. What we really need to see to solidify this bet is more of ICBA's solid endorsement of legacy shareholders. Remember, whatever reform may look like we need a seat at the table. We legally own the companies and at a minimum, we have a 20% ownership guaranteed. Mnuchin's comment about shareholders being wiped out in a restructuring is also encouraging. He said "other regulations may come into play" when forced unto the issue. Meaning, "not always". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Fannie and Freddie Endgame Takes Shape https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-endgame-takes-shape-1495618202?mod=djemheard_t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Where is hope? We legally own the companies We do own a fractionable ownership in the firm. Undisputable fact, and will so remain, unless changed by legislature My reason for not selling any, will sleep on this peacefully for a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Fannie and Freddie Endgame Takes Shape https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-endgame-takes-shape-1495618202?mod=djemheard_t interesting. probably important not to dismiss. i'm guessing a solution where FnF exists but with material competition and thus a lower earnings base. this would likely satisfy the banksters. the shareholders, in return, could get cancellation of warrants / sr preferred (govt's been paid back with full interest), and preferreds voluntarily tendered to common (using threat of no dividends during capital building phase). capital raised through retained earnings and equity offerings (hence hiring MS treasurer as deputy cfo). lawsuits dropped. or maybe all that's just too simple....good luck everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Fannie and Freddie Endgame Takes Shape https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-endgame-takes-shape-1495618202?mod=djemheard_t interesting. probably important not to dismiss. i'm guessing a solution where FnF exists but with material competition and thus a lower earnings base. this would likely satisfy the banksters. the shareholders, in return, could get cancellation of warrants / sr preferred (govt's been paid back with full interest), and preferreds voluntarily tendered to common (using threat of no dividends during capital building phase). capital raised through retained earnings and equity offerings (hence hiring MS treasurer as deputy cfo). lawsuits dropped. or maybe all that's just too simple....good luck everyone! We have seen the same movie over many years. What do they say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Congress will get nothing done. Don't you think Corker is trying to buy time till Jan 2018 by saying "don't worry, we are working on it, be patient" until the train wrecks in Jan 2018 when they call for liquidation (remember Mark Warner asked a question of shareholders being wiped ?" . I am getting pissygsetyk pessimistic here. We have 2 more days for them to turn all docs and if Sweeney gives them more days to comply would mean she isn't serious about this case, it has been years for her to drag on. And you dumped prfd to buy common because.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Fannie and Freddie Endgame Takes Shape https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-endgame-takes-shape-1495618202?mod=djemheard_t interesting. probably important not to dismiss. i'm guessing a solution where FnF exists but with material competition and thus a lower earnings base. this would likely satisfy the banksters. the shareholders, in return, could get cancellation of warrants / sr preferred (govt's been paid back with full interest), and preferreds voluntarily tendered to common (using threat of no dividends during capital building phase). capital raised through retained earnings and equity offerings (hence hiring MS treasurer as deputy cfo). lawsuits dropped. or maybe all that's just too simple....good luck everyone! We have seen the same movie over many years. What do they say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Congress will get nothing done. Don't you think Corker is trying to buy time till Jan 2018 by saying "don't worry, we are working on it, be patient" until the train wrecks in Jan 2018 when they call for liquidation (remember Mark Warner asked a question of shareholders being wiped ?" . I am getting pissygsetyk pessimistic here. We have 2 more days for them to turn all docs and if Sweeney gives them more days to comply would mean she isn't serious about this case, it has been years for her to drag on. And you dumped prfd to buy common because.......... Returns higher in commons. How so when there's an extremely high probability of dilution? Common is a fools play at this point IMO. It made sense prior to the litigation losses, but not now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Fannie and Freddie Endgame Takes Shape https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-endgame-takes-shape-1495618202?mod=djemheard_t interesting. probably important not to dismiss. i'm guessing a solution where FnF exists but with material competition and thus a lower earnings base. this would likely satisfy the banksters. the shareholders, in return, could get cancellation of warrants / sr preferred (govt's been paid back with full interest), and preferreds voluntarily tendered to common (using threat of no dividends during capital building phase). capital raised through retained earnings and equity offerings (hence hiring MS treasurer as deputy cfo). lawsuits dropped. or maybe all that's just too simple....good luck everyone! We have seen the same movie over many years. What do they say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Congress will get nothing done. Don't you think Corker is trying to buy time till Jan 2018 by saying "don't worry, we are working on it, be patient" until the train wrecks in Jan 2018 when they call for liquidation (remember Mark Warner asked a question of shareholders being wiped ?" . I am getting pissygsetyk pessimistic here. We have 2 more days for them to turn all docs and if Sweeney gives them more days to comply would mean she isn't serious about this case, it has been years for her to drag on. And you dumped prfd to buy common because.......... Returns higher in commons. How so when there's an extremely high probability of dilution? Common is a fools play at this point IMO. It made sense prior to the litigation losses, but not now. I am not as savvy as many of you who are in preferreds. I do not know what will happen. I do know that all eyes are on to make sure hedge funds do not make money and they all hold preferreds. Preferreds would not be trading at $5-$6 if they were a sure bet. Believe me, I'm not as savvy as many on this board either. Prfd's are far from a sure bet, but they have a significant advantage over common. To your point, I see Ackman losing and taking one for the HF's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 A few gems from the Analytical Perspectives part of Trumps FY2018 budget: (apologies if these have been posted) https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/spec.pdf p. 96 (110 of 292 in the .pdf), bottom of left column: Although federally chartered to serve public-policy purposes, because GSEs are intended to be privately owned and controlled, with any public benefits accruing indirectly from the GSEs’ business transactions, they are classified as non-budgetary. p. 212 (226 of 292 in the .pdf), top of right column: HERA provides that as conservator FHFA may take any action that is necessary to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a sound and solvent condition and to preserve and conserve the assets of each firm These exact phrases were also in Obama's FY2017 budget so they aren't really indicative of the Trump administration's priorities for the GSEs. I just found them ironic. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/spec.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Mnuchin live: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/live/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Is anyone able to post the text of the WSJ article? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Is anyone able to post the text of the WSJ article? Thanks A fight is brewing between the U.S. Treasury department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency over Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC). Investors would do well to ignore it. Instead, investors and other housing market participants should focus on a promising consensus that is beginning to form about the ultimate future of Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC). The recent news around these two government-controlled housing giants has focused on an intragovernmental dispute over whether they will continue to pay their full quarterly profits to the U.S. Treasury, as they have since 2012. Less noticed has been Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's opening of the door for the first time to an explicit government guarantee for the mortgage market. In an exchange last week with key Senators Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) and Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), Mr. Mnuchin said he would consider a government backstop for the mortgage market. "If there is a guarantee, we would want to make sure that there is ample credit and real risk in front of that guarantee, so that taxpayers are not at risk," he said. These comments suggest the Trump administration's thinking is in line with a range of compromise proposals put forward by private think tanks, the Mortgage Bankers Association and others. These plans would dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie, and put in place a federal guarantee on certain mortgage securities. This protection would kick in after private investors have taken initial losses through the new "credit risk transfer" market. Under most of these plans Fannie and Freddie would still exist, but with a more limited role, perhaps as utility- like mortgage guarantors. That may not be the most profitable outcome for Fannie and Freddie shareholders, but they are far from the only stakeholders in this debate. The new government guarantee would ensure a steady flow of investment into the trillion- dollar mortgage-backed securities market, keeping mortgage rates low. Investors willing to take on some repayment risk in exchange for higher returns could do so in the new credit-risk transfer market. Fannie and Freddie have been unloading credit risk on mortgage pools with securities and reinsurance contracts through this experimental market since 2013. There remain important questions on compromise plans like these, notably how the system would cope with a pullback of private risk capital during a housing downturn. It is also unclear if conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives would support any federal role in housing finance. But a limited, explicit guarantee would strike many policy makers as preferable to the alternative arrangement of huge implicit government backing for Fannie and Freddie. Housing market participants across the board should look past the weekly Washington battles over Fannie and Freddie, and be encouraged that a long-term solution is now emerging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 would dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie Nope put in place a federal guarantee on certain mortgage securities. This protection would kick in after private investors Nope. Would kick in before and, if need be, after PI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 10 am https://www.c-span.org/video/?428775-1/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-testifes-fy-2018-budget-tax-reform worthless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 $4.1 trillion budget, and I'm not secure because radicals are allowed to immigrate, the streets I drive are a mess, cost for healthcare is ridiculous, 40 years of investment will likely mean squat on SS, I have no interest in medicare and all its pitfalls, most inter-space innovation is not from NASA, apparently everything i do and say is recorded by social media, aka NSA, and I guess I should learn words like 'ze'. All I want from my phucking govt is defense and infrastructure. THAT'S IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 $4.1 trillion budget, and I'm not secure because radicals are allowed to immigrate, the streets I drive are a mess, cost for healthcare is ridiculous, 40 years of investment will likely mean squat on SS, I have no interest in medicare and all its pitfalls, most inter-space innovation is not from NASA, apparently everything i do and say is recorded by social media, aka NSA, and I guess I should learn words like 'ze'. All I want from my phucking govt is defense and infrastructure. THAT'S IT. Do these really affect you that much lol. Plenty of positives happening in the world. Think it's a matter of perspective and what you choose to focus on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 https://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/imfnews/1_1115/daily/-1000041476-1.html May 26, 2017 By Paul Muolo, pmuolo@imfpubs.com There was scant mention of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the new Trump budget but the White House did take note of the Housing Trust Fund and Capital Magnet Fund, two federal programs that provide money for affordable and low-income housing. The cash comes from Fannie and Freddie. Not too long ago, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt ordered the GSEs to forward the money to HUD, which administers the programs. The money assessed on the GSEs totals roughly $627 million. The White House wants to eliminate the programs… If Trump is successful on this score, presumably the money would flow through to the bottom line of Fannie and Freddie and be counted toward earnings. This, in theory, would increase the amount of dividends swept into the U.S. Treasury… As we all know, FHFA chief Watt wants to prevent another GSE draw of Treasury funds, something that could happen if their capital positions fall to zero next year and there’s a large hedging charge. Across the industry, there’s mixed views on whether this is a good idea. But what would the harm be in allowing Fannie and Freddie to hold, say $2 billion in capital, and cap it there? What’s wrong with that? One fear – so we’ve been told – is that by doing so there would no pressure on Congress whatsoever to pass GSE reform legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert_Rat Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 My understanding is that program has already been slated to end 1/1/2018. This admin has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 My understanding is that program has already been slated to end 1/1/2018. This admin has nothing to do with it. ? One fear – so we’ve been told – is that by doing so there would no pressure on Congress whatsoever to pass GSE reform legislation. So then let the retaining of earnings ride! Once that crosses the 20 bill threshold look at Senators rushing for a bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now