Luke 532 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Moelis & Company @Moelis 9m9 minutes ago Don’t miss Chairman and CEO, Ken Moelis on @BloombergTV with @ErikSchatzker today during the 11am ET hour. He’ll be talking tax reform, M&A, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Looks like screenshots from a bill (pulled from Twitter so can't verify it). See attached... hmmm. lots to think about here. especially since we don't know what mnuchin wants. on one hand, he thinks extending jumpstart for a year is fine since he really does want to work with congress and avoid friction with the Republicans. on the other hand, he could recoil from this, realizing he loses leverage in negotiations in 2018, and play chicken with Congress if they resist completing the govt funding or tax reform over this. he might also want to settle lawsuits with a 4th amendment, and this could scuttle that plan. there's not a lot of volume in the lower price preferreds which tells me that the mkt doesn't fully buy this joe light article. Lets see what the end of the day volume is on the preferred. Put in an order for the less liquid preferred and extremely hard to come by. Who would be selling with this news at these prices? I try to think at things from multiple angles. what if the joe light article was simply a way to grease through the jumpstart extension, and ultimately means little? or what if the corker plan pays back preferreds but only over many years, which reduces the NPV? I wouldn't be writing this if conveniently the jumpstart renewal didn't appear 12 hours after the Bloomberg article. Did you even read that bill that was posted? It appears as an extension of 1 year BUT it actually tries to stop paying out money for the housing trust funds while assuming dividends will stop as well. What this bill (Corker/Warner) is trying to achieve is prevent Admin to nuke the Srs. because... my view, they want to do that in the housing reform bill and this little bill is a prelude to allow recapitalization and build up of capital. The original jumpstart was two lines. It only referred to tying up Treasury's hands. Had no language on anything else. This is much more than just an extension. It is already meddling with potentially a 4th amendment that will stop dividends. There are still funds/retail that use any rally to unload. A bit disheartening. @ Orthopa that wayne comment wasn't nice. And we still don't know the end to this movie. My view why Mnuchin is implicitly okeing all this. He said any reform comes after build up of capital. The above bill appears to: a) give congress 1 more year for reform b) strongly suggests fixing the coming zero net worth capital as it includes language of "not paying dividends". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 I was only good at market timing once, buying heavily in the July to Dec 2010 period. I just wanted to give "fair warning" to the extent anyone was interested in a different opinion. I do think the stocks I swapped into also have good if not better prospects in the next couple years. Still, I'll be looking at this stuff this weekend to try to see what's what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Looks like screenshots from a bill (pulled from Twitter so can't verify it). See attached... hmmm. lots to think about here. especially since we don't know what mnuchin wants. on one hand, he thinks extending jumpstart for a year is fine since he really does want to work with congress and avoid friction with the Republicans. on the other hand, he could recoil from this, realizing he loses leverage in negotiations in 2018, and play chicken with Congress if they resist completing the govt funding or tax reform over this. he might also want to settle lawsuits with a 4th amendment, and this could scuttle that plan. there's not a lot of volume in the lower price preferreds which tells me that the mkt doesn't fully buy this joe light article. Lets see what the end of the day volume is on the preferred. Put in an order for the less liquid preferred and extremely hard to come by. Who would be selling with this news at these prices? I try to think at things from multiple angles. what if the joe light article was simply a way to grease through the jumpstart extension, and ultimately means little? or what if the corker plan pays back preferreds but only over many years, which reduces the NPV? I wouldn't be writing this if conveniently the jumpstart renewal didn't appear 12 hours after the Bloomberg article. Did you even read that bill that was posted? It appears as an extension of 1 year BUT it actually tries to stop paying out money for the housing trust funds while assuming dividends will stop as well. What this bill (Corker/Warner) is trying to achieve is prevent Admin to nuke the Srs. because... my view, they want to do that in the housing reform bill and this little bill is a prelude to allow recapitalization and build up of capital. The original jumpstart was two lines. It only referred to tying up Treasury's hands. Had no language on anything else. This is much more than just an extension. It is already meddling with potentially a 4th amendment that will stop dividends. There are still funds/retail that use any rally to unload. A bit disheartening. @ Orthopa that wayne comment wasn't nice. And we still don't know the end to this movie. My view why Mnuchin is implicitly okeing all this. He said any reform comes after build up of capital. The above bill appears to: a) give congress 1 more year for reform b) strongly suggests fixing the coming zero net worth capital as it includes language of "not paying dividends". Comment to Wayne wasn't derogatory, just looked back in the thread and noticed he was out 2 days before, thats all. Also any bill needs to be signed by Trump (mnuchin) of course. I dont see congress going to far off he rails here but always possible of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 That's fine. I did not think it was derogatory... just trying not to throw more coal into the fire in case he was unhappy about his decision. But it looks he has no regrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Looks like screenshots from a bill (pulled from Twitter so can't verify it). See attached... hmmm. lots to think about here. especially since we don't know what mnuchin wants. on one hand, he thinks extending jumpstart for a year is fine since he really does want to work with congress and avoid friction with the Republicans. on the other hand, he could recoil from this, realizing he loses leverage in negotiations in 2018, and play chicken with Congress if they resist completing the govt funding or tax reform over this. he might also want to settle lawsuits with a 4th amendment, and this could scuttle that plan. there's not a lot of volume in the lower price preferreds which tells me that the mkt doesn't fully buy this joe light article. Lets see what the end of the day volume is on the preferred. Put in an order for the less liquid preferred and extremely hard to come by. Who would be selling with this news at these prices? I try to think at things from multiple angles. what if the joe light article was simply a way to grease through the jumpstart extension, and ultimately means little? or what if the corker plan pays back preferreds but only over many years, which reduces the NPV? I wouldn't be writing this if conveniently the jumpstart renewal didn't appear 12 hours after the Bloomberg article. Did you even read that bill that was posted? It appears as an extension of 1 year BUT it actually tries to stop paying out money for the housing trust funds while assuming dividends will stop as well. What this bill (Corker/Warner) is trying to achieve is prevent Admin to nuke the Srs. because... my view, they want to do that in the housing reform bill and this little bill is a prelude to allow recapitalization and build up of capital. The original jumpstart was two lines. It only referred to tying up Treasury's hands. Had no language on anything else. This is much more than just an extension. It is already meddling with potentially a 4th amendment that will stop dividends. There are still funds/retail that use any rally to unload. A bit disheartening. @ Orthopa that wayne comment wasn't nice. And we still don't know the end to this movie. My view why Mnuchin is implicitly okeing all this. He said any reform comes after build up of capital. The above bill appears to: a) give congress 1 more year for reform b) strongly suggests fixing the coming zero net worth capital as it includes language of "not paying dividends". we're not seeing this the same. do you think mel watt is eager to stop funds to affordable housing if he withholds sweep dividends? I don't. I see this as an attempt to thwart any 4th amendment and continue the sweep until Congress acts, if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 why would treasury be cool with a plan that does not redound to common when it owns 80% of common? Remember, they do not own 80% of the common. They have a provision that allows them to choose the timing of their dilution, which can come before or after a capital raise -- so it's a bit more nuanced than just owning 80% of the common. They own 80% of the common of NewCo, not 80% of the common of OldCo. There could be many steps between OldCo & NewCo. Moreover, it's possible that OldCo common does okay while OldCo preferreds are made whole at par -- i.e. it's possible for Treasury to do well on its NewCo common while OldCo Common holders merely do okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Looks like screenshots from a bill (pulled from Twitter so can't verify it). See attached... hmmm. lots to think about here. especially since we don't know what mnuchin wants. on one hand, he thinks extending jumpstart for a year is fine since he really does want to work with congress and avoid friction with the Republicans. on the other hand, he could recoil from this, realizing he loses leverage in negotiations in 2018, and play chicken with Congress if they resist completing the govt funding or tax reform over this. he might also want to settle lawsuits with a 4th amendment, and this could scuttle that plan. there's not a lot of volume in the lower price preferreds which tells me that the mkt doesn't fully buy this joe light article. Lets see what the end of the day volume is on the preferred. Put in an order for the less liquid preferred and extremely hard to come by. Who would be selling with this news at these prices? I try to think at things from multiple angles. what if the joe light article was simply a way to grease through the jumpstart extension, and ultimately means little? or what if the corker plan pays back preferreds but only over many years, which reduces the NPV? I wouldn't be writing this if conveniently the jumpstart renewal didn't appear 12 hours after the Bloomberg article. Did you even read that bill that was posted? It appears as an extension of 1 year BUT it actually tries to stop paying out money for the housing trust funds while assuming dividends will stop as well. What this bill (Corker/Warner) is trying to achieve is prevent Admin to nuke the Srs. because... my view, they want to do that in the housing reform bill and this little bill is a prelude to allow recapitalization and build up of capital. The original jumpstart was two lines. It only referred to tying up Treasury's hands. Had no language on anything else. This is much more than just an extension. It is already meddling with potentially a 4th amendment that will stop dividends. There are still funds/retail that use any rally to unload. A bit disheartening. @ Orthopa that wayne comment wasn't nice. And we still don't know the end to this movie. My view why Mnuchin is implicitly okeing all this. He said any reform comes after build up of capital. The above bill appears to: a) give congress 1 more year for reform b) strongly suggests fixing the coming zero net worth capital as it includes language of "not paying dividends". we're not seeing this the same. do you think mel watt is eager to stop funds to affordable housing if he withholds sweep dividends? I don't. I see this as an attempt to thwart any 4th amendment and continue the sweep until Congress acts, if they do. It's all speculation at this point so yes, we differ :) My speculation is that there have been lots of talks behind the scenes and that Watt has also ok'd this jumpstart that stops monies to funds because he may believe reform is close at hand. Remember, even Hensarling said that any new bill should include provisions to affordable housing and that may include money sent to housing trusts. Since these are yearly payments, they may not miss any if a bill that includes the referred language is signed into law during 2018. Again, complete speculation based on this new jumpstart. Based on this bill the scheme may look like this: 1. 4th A stops dividends. (Treasury/FHFA) 2. Reauthorization of jumpstart is signed into law: a) 1 more year for reform, b) no payments to housing trusts. 3. Recap begins and zero net worth is voided. 4. Reform begins: includes competition to FF (Fed Powell), paid-for narrow gov guarantee, eliminates the Sr. shares as paid out, reorganizes FF as reinsurers allowing GM to securitize. Includes affordable housing measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 why would treasury be cool with a plan that does not redound to common when it owns 80% of common? Remember, they do not own 80% of the common. They have a provision that allows them to choose the timing of their dilution, which can come before or after a capital raise -- so it's a bit more nuanced than just owning 80% of the common. They own 80% of the common of NewCo, not 80% of the common of OldCo. There could be many steps between OldCo & NewCo. Moreover, it's possible that OldCo common does okay while OldCo preferreds are made whole at par -- i.e. it's possible for Treasury to do well on its NewCo common while OldCo Common holders merely do okay. the warrant ratchet is useful to prevent new issuances, not to facilitate them. i would only point out that if raising new common is the goal, both the senior preferred outstanding and the warrant ratchet effectively prevent that. so moving forward, you would think treasury, with experienced bankers at the top re GSE reform, will start to weigh in on what is practical on wall street. committee staffers are unlikely to have this experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Reauthorization of jumpstart. You all thought Corker is nice all of a sudden. Told you so. If this passes, there is no hope. You can't trust Corker, Warner, Joe, Carney, Stevens, Fellow Travelers, they are all in the same pack. We all know that it has been 9 years, congress will not do anything. That means kicking the can down the road and Mnuchin leaves and all is finished here. Time is now or never. Looks like screenshots from a bill (pulled from Twitter so can't verify it). See attached... Is there anyway to block someone, this is getting tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no_free_lunch Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 There is an ignore list in your profile. Just go to Profile and then Summary. From the page that pops up it is available if you hover over Modify Profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 There is an ignore list in your profile. Thanks. I looked for an ignore option at one point but couldn't find it and gave up. I like iHub's ignore feature better: both posts by the ignored member and replies to ignored member's posts are completely hidden in the message list. You would never even know they existed if it wasn't for skipped message numbers. Here, though, I suppose it's better. At least the replies to an ignoramus are generally well thought-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no_free_lunch Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 I am a little confused right now regarding Hensarling's intentions. This article from American Banker states that he supports the Milken plan. The milken plan specifically states that they will reconstitute fannie and freddie. However, he is simultaneously saying they need to be wound down. Maybe he interprets Milken differently? “I have been particularly encouraged by” the DeMarco-Bright proposal, Hensarling said. “Coupled with the basic tenets of the PATH Act, the DeMarco-Bright proposal creates another pathway under a better system to increase choice, help diversify risk and promote stability within the marketplace.” .. That is one area where Hensarling does not appear ready to compromise. He emphasized Wednesday that any bill should eliminate Fannie and Freddie. “To be clear, Fannie and Freddie must be wound down and their charters repealed,” he said. “I fear any plan to recap and release may very well constitute deja vu all over again.” https://www.americanbanker.com/news/breaking-down-hensarlings-gse-reform-overture Our proposal would end the conservatorships, reconstitute Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as lenderowned mutuals, and build on the credit risk transfer (CRT) initiative to create a private market for mortgage credit risk while preserving a government-guaranteed rates market for mortgage-backed securities. Other firms could compete with Fannie and Freddie in the business of aggregating loans and gathering together the private capital that takes on housing risk ahead of the backstop government guarantee. http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/view/823 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 A link to HR 4560 (Jumpstart extention to 1/1/2019): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4560/actions Given that this is a stand-alone bill it would have to be either eventually signed by Trump or gather a 2/3 majority to override a veto, neither of which seems very plausible. If the House actually votes on it we will get a good idea of who FnF's friends and enemies are in the House, and if the Senate ever takes it up we will see their stripes too. The original Jumpstart was attached as a rider to a spending bill, right? Do such riders usually start as stand-alone pieces of legislation? I don't know the answer but I would doubt it: riders like Jumpstart seem to be part of the negotiations and try to stay under the radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4560?r=21 thanks, Emily. I agree with your level of suspicion regarding this bill. the joe light article could have been a decoy. the Congress is running for re-election before trump. if mnuchin supports this bill, well then that's that. if he does not because he'll tie his own hands, then we'll have to see if either a) congress can get a veto proof majority on the matter or b) the congressional Repubs want to fight on this by holding up taxes or the short term spending bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4560?r=21 thanks, Emily. I agree with your level of suspicion regarding this bill. the joe light article could have been a decoy. the Congress is running for re-election before trump. if mnuchin supports this bill, well then that's that. if he does not because he'll tie his own hands, then we'll have to see if either a) congress can get a veto proof majority on the matter or b) the congressional Repubs want to fight on this by holding up taxes or the short term spending bills. i like to imagine my joe light like were playing duck hunt and hes on the second controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Calabria (paraphrased): "I worked on the framework on their conservatorship and it shocks me that they are in conservatorship today, that needs to end." https://twitter.com/AtlanticLIVE/status/938855271979294720 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Chatter in DC: on GSE Reform, Treasury may (very) soon need to assert leadership on the issue before piecemeal Congressional maneuvering disrupts any future potential for bipartisan legislative solution(s). Enter mnuchin and admin reform? Looks like this maybe becoming more urgent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Anyone else notice that Trump is going to start pushing infrastructure soon? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/trump-will-start-infrastructure-push-in-january-white-house-officials-say.html Observers expect a proposal involving $200 billion in federal spending that is designed to spur as much as $800 billion in state, local and private sector spending. I continue to think that monetizing the warrants will be one of the ways that they pay for the infrastructure plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Anyone else notice that Trump is going to start pushing infrastructure soon? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/trump-will-start-infrastructure-push-in-january-white-house-officials-say.html Observers expect a proposal involving $200 billion in federal spending that is designed to spur as much as $800 billion in state, local and private sector spending. I continue to think that monetizing the warrants will be one of the ways that they pay for the infrastructure plan. how many are there roughly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Anyone else notice that Trump is going to start pushing infrastructure soon? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/trump-will-start-infrastructure-push-in-january-white-house-officials-say.html Observers expect a proposal involving $200 billion in federal spending that is designed to spur as much as $800 billion in state, local and private sector spending. I continue to think that monetizing the warrants will be one of the ways that they pay for the infrastructure plan. how many are there roughly? How many shares? Treasury has the option to own 80% of the outstanding shares at whatever time they decide to execute the warrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Anyone else notice that Trump is going to start pushing infrastructure soon? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/trump-will-start-infrastructure-push-in-january-white-house-officials-say.html Observers expect a proposal involving $200 billion in federal spending that is designed to spur as much as $800 billion in state, local and private sector spending. I continue to think that monetizing the warrants will be one of the ways that they pay for the infrastructure plan. This is the first thing that came to my mind when I read the headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 +1 Trump has called infrastructure a “very easy one” to pass in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Same thing came to mind. But we are all subject to confirmation bias here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/prospects-for-housing-finance-reform-brighten-and-may-favor-shareholders-2017-12-08 The angle that some have mentioned in this thread that the gov will want to not have lawsuits hanging over reform mentioned in this article. 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