Chris Roberts

577 posts

Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts

@chrisevanston

Fannie Mae enthusiast, waiting for government to release from 16.5 years of conswervatorship-swerved from any definition of the word

Katılım Haziran 2022
18 Takip Edilen83 Takipçiler
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@DoNotLose Nothing in this Bill about GSEs, so not sure why it matters to shareholders of common or JPS, or to ending conservatorship or anything. Why the optimism?
English
1
1
5
231
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@DoNotLose Get out of life alive? I think I need a refresher on Nietzsche and Kafka. Help me out here,
English
1
0
0
20
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@StealthQE4 @nealreclus Pay no attention to the man in the doorway. Hear the food is great at Mar-A-Lago, but a weekend visit means time for sun & sand, too! Maybe a convo abt F2, as well?! (Others stated Paulson was there, too)
English
0
0
0
6
QE Infinity
QE Infinity@StealthQE4·
Here’s the Trump presser that triggered all the headlines on X tonight. Interpret it as you like.
English
362
401
2.1K
447.2K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@nealreclus Did you see the video from Mar-A-Lago the past weekend (Sunday prior), where Bill Pulte was waiting in the doorway for minutes to get with DJT? The next day, "Ackman" tweet from the same weekend caused massive volume & 50% gain. One tweet or one whisper about coming IB news?🤔
English
1
0
1
67
Neal, CFA
Neal, CFA@nealreclus·
If Pulte doesn't announce a $FNMA and $FMCC exit from conservatorship before June 30, it wouldn't surprise me to see the share prices flutter and gradually decline until a fresh Bill Ackman end-of-quarter pump comes along.
Ticker Wire@Tickerwire

$FNMA $FMCC | Fannie and Freddie common shares logged their biggest gains in a decade after Bill Ackman called them "stupidly cheap" with 10X potential. As FHFA Director Pulte optimizes the GSEs for an exit, the path to a 2026 IPO looks increasingly clear.

English
7
8
36
4.6K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@BillAckman @X I am sure your 'poll' results speak for themselves, but I will also vote for: Do not settle a nuisance claim. There. Now, you have my vote. Overpaid, under-worked and claiming some other motive should not win a lawsuit.
English
0
0
0
23
Bill Ackman
Bill Ackman@BillAckman·
I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?
English
10.7K
1.4K
24K
11.1M
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@pulte Very well-reasoned article from Joe Morse. Seldom that F2 have figures laid out which spell out the benefits to: 1 US govt. & taxpayer - ROI & Safety/Soundness 2 MBS market 3 Current shareholders (ending the endless conservatorship) Win-win-win open.substack.com/pub/joemorse77…
English
1
0
2
42
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@familymang1 @1MainCapital SPS needs to be 0 for capital, true! SPS could be (illegally, unilaterally) converted by Treasury in shot-gun receivership (BK) to make them common shares. Plan to steal shares & turn around & sell them (at a premium) not smart. Better to have deal of 80% .8 of $500 > .95 of 300B
English
0
0
0
57
familymang
familymang@familymang1·
Bc w/o SPS forgiveness or conversion today, the capital hole is so large, that date won’t come until ~2035+. In the interim- no admin until then is seeing any economic benefit from the current arrangement as the NWS cash payments are suspended. So it’s a question of if this admin wants to access $300b+ cash today vs leaving it to a future admin 10+ years from now.
English
2
0
10
565
Yaron Naymark
Yaron Naymark@1MainCapital·
What I don’t get about the Ackman GSE plan: under current PSPA terms, once GSE hit capital targets, treasury effectively sweeps ~100% of net income forever via the senior pref. So why would the govt voluntarily deem the pref repaid and thus ending up w 80% of the GSEs (instead of 100%), while letting hedge funds capture a massive windfall? Seems way more likely to happen via court pressure than voluntarily…and especially unlikely before midterms.
Aakash Gupta@aakashgupta

The math on Fannie and Freddie is so dislocated it looks like a pricing error. Fannie printed $14.4 billion in net income last year. Freddie printed $10.7 billion. Combined market cap on the pink sheets right now: ~$12 billion. The market is pricing $25 billion in annual earnings at a 0.48x multiple. Find me another 0.48x earnings multiple anywhere in American finance. It doesn't exist. The dilution fear is the reason the stock is cheap and the reason the stock is wrong. Treasury put in $187 billion. The GSEs have swept back over $300 billion since 2012. That's an 11.6% IRR. If Treasury exercises its 79.9% warrants at today's price, the government's stake is worth ~$9.6 billion. If it exercises post-relist at 10x earnings, that stake is worth $200 billion. The difference is $190 billion. Washington doesn't leave $190 billion on the table to spite penny stock holders. Capital requirements look scary until you do the arithmetic. The ERCF says $334 billion. They have $179 billion. The FHFA can lower Tier 1 to 2.5% without Congress. New target: ~$190 billion. Gap: $11 billion. One IPO closes it. One year of retained earnings closes it twice. G-fees are already at 65 bps. Pre-crisis they were 20. The GSEs have been charging privatized pricing inside a conservatorship for 14 years. Credit losses outside of 2008 average under 5 bps. The margin is so fat that mortgage rates don't move at all on release. So what are you actually buying at $5? A royalty on the American mortgage system. 65 bps on $7.5 trillion in outstanding MBS. $48 billion in gross annual revenue. Under 5 bps in historical losses. The most predictable spread in finance, backstopped by a guarantee both parties have publicly committed to preserving. JPMorgan trades at 13x and takes real credit risk. Utilities trade at 15x with half the visibility. These two trade at 0.48x collecting tolls on other people's risk. The second those warrants convert and the NYSE listing goes live, every index fund and pension fund with a financial sector mandate has to buy. Two of the ten most profitable companies in America, sitting on the pink sheets, waiting for one signature.

English
16
2
32
19.8K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@onechancefreedm Credit losses are in the loss reserves like any insurance company. Stress tests performed w/ near catastrophic unemployment, etc. have them weathering easily. That's the point. These are insurance cos. & not banks. ERCF should be a simple 2.5% .48 PE is based on OTC games by MM
English
0
0
1
29
EndGame Macro
EndGame Macro@onechancefreedm·
The bull case for Fannie and Freddie only works if you treat their $25B in net income like a stable royalty stream from the American mortgage system. That is the wrong assumption. Credit performance is highly procyclical, and the leading indicators are already weakening while the labor market has been revised down sharply. BLS benchmark revisions since early 2026 have erased roughly 1 million jobs from 2024 through 2025. Reported 2025 job growth was cut from +584k to just +181k, the largest percentage downgrade since 2009. February 2026 also posted a net payroll loss of 92k. Headline U3 unemployment is 4.4%, but that hides a softer labor backdrop. U6 is already 7.9%, labor force participation is stuck at a cycle low of 62.0%, and the employment population ratio is only 59.3%. GSE serious delinquencies are still low at 0.60%, but that mostly reflects the fact that their higher quality loan book lags the cycle. That is exactly what happened in 2006 and 2007, when Fannie’s delinquency rate looked benign below 1% right before it jumped above 2.4% in 2008 after home prices peaked and unemployment rose. FHA stress is already much more visible. Total delinquencies have risen to 11.52%, the serious delinquency rate hit 6.24% in January, foreclosures have increased 20% YoY for the 12th straight month, student loan delinquencies are near 25%, and home price forecasts are now flat to negative. The historical relationship matters here. Every 100 bps rise in unemployment has tended to coincide with a 50 to 100 bps increase in serious mortgage delinquency. Even a modest move in GSE serious delinquencies toward 1.5% to 2.5% would force much higher loss provisions, slow capital build under the ERCF, and widen the regulatory shortfall far beyond the clean arithmetic bulls rely on. FHFA also cannot simply cut Tier 1 capital requirements in the middle of stress without creating major political and systemic blowback. That is why the market values these names at about 0.48x book. Common equity is structurally first loss capital and still sits behind Treasury’s senior preferred claim. The idea of a clean no dilution rerating to 15x earnings with 6x to 10x upside breaks down the moment credit losses begin to rise, which is exactly when Treasury has the strongest incentive to protect its roughly $300B+ position rather than hand common shareholders an easy exit. This is not simple mispricing. It is the market assigning a discount to real execution, credit, and policy risk in a deteriorating macro environment.
Aakash Gupta@aakashgupta

The math on Fannie and Freddie is so dislocated it looks like a pricing error. Fannie printed $14.4 billion in net income last year. Freddie printed $10.7 billion. Combined market cap on the pink sheets right now: ~$12 billion. The market is pricing $25 billion in annual earnings at a 0.48x multiple. Find me another 0.48x earnings multiple anywhere in American finance. It doesn't exist. The dilution fear is the reason the stock is cheap and the reason the stock is wrong. Treasury put in $187 billion. The GSEs have swept back over $300 billion since 2012. That's an 11.6% IRR. If Treasury exercises its 79.9% warrants at today's price, the government's stake is worth ~$9.6 billion. If it exercises post-relist at 10x earnings, that stake is worth $200 billion. The difference is $190 billion. Washington doesn't leave $190 billion on the table to spite penny stock holders. Capital requirements look scary until you do the arithmetic. The ERCF says $334 billion. They have $179 billion. The FHFA can lower Tier 1 to 2.5% without Congress. New target: ~$190 billion. Gap: $11 billion. One IPO closes it. One year of retained earnings closes it twice. G-fees are already at 65 bps. Pre-crisis they were 20. The GSEs have been charging privatized pricing inside a conservatorship for 14 years. Credit losses outside of 2008 average under 5 bps. The margin is so fat that mortgage rates don't move at all on release. So what are you actually buying at $5? A royalty on the American mortgage system. 65 bps on $7.5 trillion in outstanding MBS. $48 billion in gross annual revenue. Under 5 bps in historical losses. The most predictable spread in finance, backstopped by a guarantee both parties have publicly committed to preserving. JPMorgan trades at 13x and takes real credit risk. Utilities trade at 15x with half the visibility. These two trade at 0.48x collecting tolls on other people's risk. The second those warrants convert and the NYSE listing goes live, every index fund and pension fund with a financial sector mandate has to buy. Two of the ten most profitable companies in America, sitting on the pink sheets, waiting for one signature.

English
8
9
77
18.4K
Kong
Kong@The1KenKong·
$fnma $fmcc Hey @pulte @realDonaldTrump @DonaldTrump @howardlutnick What happened to the “confirm 2025 timing for Fannie, Freddie IPO” and then the “1 or 2 months” and also Lutnick “earlier than people think” public posted info? Does anyone have a conscience? Bueller … Bueller
Kong tweet mediaKong tweet media
English
11
23
102
2.5K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@World_21m Patience. Telling that there has been a plan & he "knows too many details" to divulge & it could have been in 2025. To use our mantra, "Patience"!
English
0
0
0
41
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
PSA: Do provide a caller w/a ""verification code" I am sending to you... "read it off" Got a call from Google. "Your account accessed in Va." (I'm not in Va.) "I am resetting, sending code, read it off to me" I said "sorry" (good thing!) Checked Google, No access from Va=SCAM!
English
0
0
0
46
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@timpagliara @Robert_B_Bowes @BillAckman Back of the envelope. $FMCC .8B $FNMA 1.2B shares = 2B total US Govt. 8B total 10B x $5 = $50B mkt cap today $25B combined earnings x 20x P/E = $500B SH Risk Discount w/"SPS" (illegal) conversion 12 P/E = $300B 80% $500B = $400B, 95% $300B = $285B Q:Who buys w/ govt control
English
1
1
5
334
Robert Bowes
Robert Bowes@Robert_B_Bowes·
To compliment the @BillAckman accurate description of the Net Worth Sweep of 100% of Fannie and Freddie profits, one must also look at how the Obama Treasury forced F2 to cook their books. Then Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner continued the Hank Paulson large bailout plan that exacerbated the mortgage market crisis and extended credit losses beyond the sand States. Geithner hired both Blackrock and Blackstone to direct F2 to find as many write downs as they could to justify the $100B each bailout that protected F2 bondholders. When F2 internal models were stressed they each could not come close to $100B in losses. Paulson and Geithner wrongly compared street private label mortgage losses to the relatively safer book of GSE mortgages failing to recognize that GSEs had strong first loss cover in private mortgage insurance and in bank legal obligations to repurchase fraudulent and defectively underwritten mortgages. Obama Treasury forced F2 to cook their books and zero out all PMI ($43B of trapped liquid claims paying ability) and all lender recourse (another $61B of liquid bank assets - $20B alone with BofA) that provided F2 legally obligated claims paying ability. Treasury ignored that first loss liquidity forcing F2 to post large credit provisions in 2008-2010. The policy was extend and pretend for the banks and PMIs but to force F2 into conservatorship. Yet the PMI and recourse funds were being collected while bad loan repurchases mushroomed. F2 also tightened the credit box and doubled GFees during this period. It was a total double standard to target F2 investors. In hindsight F2 never needed the bailouts for cash flow because the credit loss provisions and other valuation allowances were non-cash. The bailouts were optics done for mostly foreign bondholders. American homeowners and F2 shareholders were the victims of that failure. Then with the high non cash credit losses F2 each wrote off $31B and and $21B of Deferred Tax Assets in 2008 respectively. In 2009-2011 another $29B Fannie and $8B Freddie DTA write downs for a total of $89B. Combining the $104B non-cash credit losses with the $89B DTA write downs coincidentally equalled the amount of Treasury F2 bailout in Senior Preferred. Yet in 2010 and 2011 F2 were collecting the PMI, lender recourse, the higher GFees and trends started to look good for home price recovery. Treasury knew ahead of the NWS taking that F2 would be rolling in profits. Nonetheless F2 kept loan loss allowances high and gave no model value to the liquid PMI first loss claim receipts. They all knew ahead of 2012 that the DTAs and loan loss provisions would appear anomalous. Facing obvious valuation allowance reversals, Treasury rushed to implement the 2012 NWS. Smart folks inside witnessed the accounting and loan loss committee gimmickry - with some still working at F2.
Bill Ackman@BillAckman

A number of press reports have characterized our and other shareholders’ efforts on behalf of Fannie and Freddie (F2) as seeking a ‘gift’ or ‘handout’ from the government. We, the shareholders of F2, seek no such thing. Hundreds of financial institutions were bailed out during the GFC by the U.S. Treasury. Nearly all of the financial institution bailouts during the GFC involved an injection of capital in the form of senior preferred stock by Treasury at an interest rate of 5%, plus warrants to acquire common stock in an amount equal to 15% of the face amount of the preferred with an exercise price at the then-current stock price of the rescued institution. For example, Treasury’s preferred stock investment in Goldman Sachs was in an amount of $10 billion and, in addition, Treasury received warrants on $1.5 billion of GS' common stock at its then market price. The bailout terms for F2 were materially more burdensome and expensive, with a higher interest rate and substantially more warrant coverage, than that of every other financial institution (other than those of AIG whose terms were similar). Despite the F2 bailouts’ massively more burdensome terms, shareholders are not complaining about the original terms. Treasury invested $193 billion in F2 in the form of senior preferred stock (SPS), including funding for $2 billion of commitment fees, with a 10% coupon (twice that of the banks). Treasury also received warrants on 79.9% of both companies’ outstanding shares. Fannie and Freddie have since repaid Treasury $301 billion, which includes interest on the SPS at a blended rate of 11.6%, an interest rate which is 160 basis points more per annum, and have returned the entire $193 billion of outstanding principal, $25 billion in excess of what was contractually owed. In summary, the F2 SPS has been fully repaid according to its original contractual terms plus an extra $25 billion. Despite the fact that the SPS has been more than repaid in full, Fannie and Freddie have not accounted for these payments on their respective balance sheets, and the $193 billion of SPS remains an outstanding liability as if no principal payments had ever been made. How can it be, you might ask, if indeed F2 have repaid $301 billion to Treasury when only $276 billion was due could there be any remaining balance of the SPS on the F2 balance sheets? The answer relates to something called the ‘Net Worth Sweep (NWS).’ During the second term of the Obama administration, on August 12, 2012, two quarters after F2 returned to profitability, Treasury announced that it was unilaterally amending the terms of the SPS stock to provide that Treasury would take 100% of the profits of F2 each quarter in lieu of the 10% annual dividend rate. This was not a negotiated resolution with F2. It was a unilateral amendment of the original terms of the SPS that was done in bad faith. The supposed rationale for the amended terms of the SPS was akin to the IRS garnishing the wages of someone who will never be able to pay the taxes that they owe. That is, the Treasury said F2 will never be able to pay the 10% coupon, let alone the SPS’ $193 billion principal balance, so it decided instead to ‘settle’ for 100% of F2’s profits forever. In discovery, shareholders learned that the stated justification for the amendment was false. In mid 2012, the Obama administration had come to learn that both companies would soon be reversing tens of billions of reserves on their balance sheets as housing values had increased and the reserves taken during the GFC had been excessive. The NWS was instituted by Obama to forestall F2 from forever being able to recapitalize and be released from conservatorship. The NWS was not a ‘settlement’ for a lesser amount of future payments. It was the outright theft of the forever profits of both companies. Never before or since has the government ‘swept’ 100% of the profits of any company, let alone a financial institution in conservatorship, a form of government intervention where the goal is rehabilitation of the institution, and where the hierarchy of corporate claims has always been respected. The accounting for the NWS payments while it was in effect (until Secretary Mnuchin terminated the NWS in Trump’s first term) was also unusual. The NWS was treated by F2 as a quarterly adjustment to the dividend rate on the SPS such that the dividend amount owed was made equal to the after-tax profits of F2 for that quarter with no limitation. In other words, regardless of the amount of profit F2 generated for the quarter – whether or not it was in excess of the original 10% annual dividend – the dividend payable under the NWS was made equal to the quarterly profit. The absurd terms of the NWS sweep therefore made it impossible for any partial or full repayment of the SPS to take place as every dollar paid to the Treasury on the amended terms of the SPS was considered a dividend payment, even if the amount was massively in excess of the original contractual SPS terms. The absurdity of the NWS was made clear just two quarters after the NWS went into effect. Fannie Mae generated a profit of $59 billion in the first quarter of 2013, and the SPS dividend rate for that quarter was set at $59 billion so the entire amount was swept to the government, more than 10 times the contractual dividend rate. I had the opportunity to discuss F2 and the NWS with Warren Buffett about a decade ago and he said that he “couldn’t believe what the government had done.” In short, the shareholders of F2 are simply asking the government to respect the original and highly burdensome terms of the SPS. There is no dispute that Treasury has received more than the original 10% coupon and full repayment of principal of the SPS, that is, an extra $25 billion. We and the millions of other shareholders of F2 are simply asking the administration to honor the original SPS terms and properly account for the $301 billion of payments, thereby eliminating the SPS liability from both companies’ balance sheets. Shareholders have not asked for the extra $25 billion to be returned to the two companies. Treasury can decide whether to keep those funds or return them to the companies. Accounting for the repayment of the SPS has other important implications. Namely, it is critically important that conservatorships respect the rule of law, in particular, the contractual terms of corporate instruments and the hierarchy of claims. Otherwise, no financial institution that gets into trouble will be able to raise rescue capital in the private markets. Notably, the treatment of F2 in conservatorship explains why Silicon Valley Bank and other recent large bank failures since the GFC were unable to raise private capital and avoid government intervention or a forced sale to J.P. Morgan. If the government with the stroke of a pen during conservatorship can at a whim wipe out common and preferred shareholders, no one is going to step in to try to save a financial institution that gets into trouble, and only the top few banks will be possible rescuers of big banks that fail. Furthermore, because of F2’s history, their reputation in the capital markets has been greatly damaged. F2 raised $22 billion of preferred stock in the year or so prior to conservatorship as the government pressed both companies to raise capital. Institutions were willing to invest billions of dollars of capital into both institutions before they failed because, based on all precedent conservatorships, the contractual terms of all financial instruments and the hierarchy of claims had been preserved. Unfortunately, in light of the precedent of the net worth sweep, no investor can be confident that they won’t be wiped out in a future conservatorship so none has been willing to take the risk. Some have proposed that Treasury simply convert the SPS into junior preferred and common stock and massively dilute shareholders. Putting aside the potential legal challenges to this approach, the result will be that Treasury will at best own something approaching 95% of both companies rather than 79.9%. While the government’s percentage ownership stake would be larger in the SPS conversion approach, the value of the government’s larger stake would be considerably lower as the companies would become un-investable. Who would invest in F2 alongside the government when they just wiped out the previous owners? In the SPS conversion scenario, the government’s stake, at best, if it could be sold, would trade at a massively discounted valuation, well below the value of the government's stake if Treasury retained only its contracted for 79.9% stake and respected the original terms of the SPS. In other words, a slightly smaller ownership stake of much more highly valued companies would equate to considerably more value for Treasury and taxpayers. In a public letter to Rand Paul after his first term in November of 2021, President Trump recognized that the net worth sweep was theft from the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie. He wrote: “Another Obama/Biden scam in legal trouble was when they allowed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to steal the retirement savings of hardworking Americans who had invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…The idea that the government can steal money from its citizens is socialism and is a travesty brought to you by the Obama/Biden administration. My Administration was denied the time it needed to fix this problem because of the unconstitutional restriction on firing Mel Watt. It has to come to an end and courts must protect our citizens.” I couldn’t have said it better than President Trump. Now that you have the time, Mr. President, let’s Stop the Steal!

English
44
110
387
147.5K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@firewill65 @pulte Layton sees clearly 1. Stress tests confirm ERCF too high/complex 2. Most feel 2.5% not 4% which also has add-on buffers (see his older article) 3. Commencing even while out-for-comment (i.e. through LOA with @USTreasury perhaps) Now, not 6 months from now #StopTheSteal
English
0
0
1
30
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@BillAckman Gentle reminder to the "why not keep status quo" crowd. Conservatorships are NOT for the benefit of the conservator. The conservator has duties to safeguard, protect and assist to rehabiliate the conservatee. Dad LOVED being Britney Spears' guardian. Court said "enough"
English
0
0
1
31
Bill Ackman
Bill Ackman@BillAckman·
A number of press reports have characterized our and other shareholders’ efforts on behalf of Fannie and Freddie (F2) as seeking a ‘gift’ or ‘handout’ from the government. We, the shareholders of F2, seek no such thing. Hundreds of financial institutions were bailed out during the GFC by the U.S. Treasury. Nearly all of the financial institution bailouts during the GFC involved an injection of capital in the form of senior preferred stock by Treasury at an interest rate of 5%, plus warrants to acquire common stock in an amount equal to 15% of the face amount of the preferred with an exercise price at the then-current stock price of the rescued institution. For example, Treasury’s preferred stock investment in Goldman Sachs was in an amount of $10 billion and, in addition, Treasury received warrants on $1.5 billion of GS' common stock at its then market price. The bailout terms for F2 were materially more burdensome and expensive, with a higher interest rate and substantially more warrant coverage, than that of every other financial institution (other than those of AIG whose terms were similar). Despite the F2 bailouts’ massively more burdensome terms, shareholders are not complaining about the original terms. Treasury invested $193 billion in F2 in the form of senior preferred stock (SPS), including funding for $2 billion of commitment fees, with a 10% coupon (twice that of the banks). Treasury also received warrants on 79.9% of both companies’ outstanding shares. Fannie and Freddie have since repaid Treasury $301 billion, which includes interest on the SPS at a blended rate of 11.6%, an interest rate which is 160 basis points more per annum, and have returned the entire $193 billion of outstanding principal, $25 billion in excess of what was contractually owed. In summary, the F2 SPS has been fully repaid according to its original contractual terms plus an extra $25 billion. Despite the fact that the SPS has been more than repaid in full, Fannie and Freddie have not accounted for these payments on their respective balance sheets, and the $193 billion of SPS remains an outstanding liability as if no principal payments had ever been made. How can it be, you might ask, if indeed F2 have repaid $301 billion to Treasury when only $276 billion was due could there be any remaining balance of the SPS on the F2 balance sheets? The answer relates to something called the ‘Net Worth Sweep (NWS).’ During the second term of the Obama administration, on August 12, 2012, two quarters after F2 returned to profitability, Treasury announced that it was unilaterally amending the terms of the SPS stock to provide that Treasury would take 100% of the profits of F2 each quarter in lieu of the 10% annual dividend rate. This was not a negotiated resolution with F2. It was a unilateral amendment of the original terms of the SPS that was done in bad faith. The supposed rationale for the amended terms of the SPS was akin to the IRS garnishing the wages of someone who will never be able to pay the taxes that they owe. That is, the Treasury said F2 will never be able to pay the 10% coupon, let alone the SPS’ $193 billion principal balance, so it decided instead to ‘settle’ for 100% of F2’s profits forever. In discovery, shareholders learned that the stated justification for the amendment was false. In mid 2012, the Obama administration had come to learn that both companies would soon be reversing tens of billions of reserves on their balance sheets as housing values had increased and the reserves taken during the GFC had been excessive. The NWS was instituted by Obama to forestall F2 from forever being able to recapitalize and be released from conservatorship. The NWS was not a ‘settlement’ for a lesser amount of future payments. It was the outright theft of the forever profits of both companies. Never before or since has the government ‘swept’ 100% of the profits of any company, let alone a financial institution in conservatorship, a form of government intervention where the goal is rehabilitation of the institution, and where the hierarchy of corporate claims has always been respected. The accounting for the NWS payments while it was in effect (until Secretary Mnuchin terminated the NWS in Trump’s first term) was also unusual. The NWS was treated by F2 as a quarterly adjustment to the dividend rate on the SPS such that the dividend amount owed was made equal to the after-tax profits of F2 for that quarter with no limitation. In other words, regardless of the amount of profit F2 generated for the quarter – whether or not it was in excess of the original 10% annual dividend – the dividend payable under the NWS was made equal to the quarterly profit. The absurd terms of the NWS sweep therefore made it impossible for any partial or full repayment of the SPS to take place as every dollar paid to the Treasury on the amended terms of the SPS was considered a dividend payment, even if the amount was massively in excess of the original contractual SPS terms. The absurdity of the NWS was made clear just two quarters after the NWS went into effect. Fannie Mae generated a profit of $59 billion in the first quarter of 2013, and the SPS dividend rate for that quarter was set at $59 billion so the entire amount was swept to the government, more than 10 times the contractual dividend rate. I had the opportunity to discuss F2 and the NWS with Warren Buffett about a decade ago and he said that he “couldn’t believe what the government had done.” In short, the shareholders of F2 are simply asking the government to respect the original and highly burdensome terms of the SPS. There is no dispute that Treasury has received more than the original 10% coupon and full repayment of principal of the SPS, that is, an extra $25 billion. We and the millions of other shareholders of F2 are simply asking the administration to honor the original SPS terms and properly account for the $301 billion of payments, thereby eliminating the SPS liability from both companies’ balance sheets. Shareholders have not asked for the extra $25 billion to be returned to the two companies. Treasury can decide whether to keep those funds or return them to the companies. Accounting for the repayment of the SPS has other important implications. Namely, it is critically important that conservatorships respect the rule of law, in particular, the contractual terms of corporate instruments and the hierarchy of claims. Otherwise, no financial institution that gets into trouble will be able to raise rescue capital in the private markets. Notably, the treatment of F2 in conservatorship explains why Silicon Valley Bank and other recent large bank failures since the GFC were unable to raise private capital and avoid government intervention or a forced sale to J.P. Morgan. If the government with the stroke of a pen during conservatorship can at a whim wipe out common and preferred shareholders, no one is going to step in to try to save a financial institution that gets into trouble, and only the top few banks will be possible rescuers of big banks that fail. Furthermore, because of F2’s history, their reputation in the capital markets has been greatly damaged. F2 raised $22 billion of preferred stock in the year or so prior to conservatorship as the government pressed both companies to raise capital. Institutions were willing to invest billions of dollars of capital into both institutions before they failed because, based on all precedent conservatorships, the contractual terms of all financial instruments and the hierarchy of claims had been preserved. Unfortunately, in light of the precedent of the net worth sweep, no investor can be confident that they won’t be wiped out in a future conservatorship so none has been willing to take the risk. Some have proposed that Treasury simply convert the SPS into junior preferred and common stock and massively dilute shareholders. Putting aside the potential legal challenges to this approach, the result will be that Treasury will at best own something approaching 95% of both companies rather than 79.9%. While the government’s percentage ownership stake would be larger in the SPS conversion approach, the value of the government’s larger stake would be considerably lower as the companies would become un-investable. Who would invest in F2 alongside the government when they just wiped out the previous owners? In the SPS conversion scenario, the government’s stake, at best, if it could be sold, would trade at a massively discounted valuation, well below the value of the government's stake if Treasury retained only its contracted for 79.9% stake and respected the original terms of the SPS. In other words, a slightly smaller ownership stake of much more highly valued companies would equate to considerably more value for Treasury and taxpayers. In a public letter to Rand Paul after his first term in November of 2021, President Trump recognized that the net worth sweep was theft from the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie. He wrote: “Another Obama/Biden scam in legal trouble was when they allowed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to steal the retirement savings of hardworking Americans who had invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…The idea that the government can steal money from its citizens is socialism and is a travesty brought to you by the Obama/Biden administration. My Administration was denied the time it needed to fix this problem because of the unconstitutional restriction on firing Mel Watt. It has to come to an end and courts must protect our citizens.” I couldn’t have said it better than President Trump. Now that you have the time, Mr. President, let’s Stop the Steal!
English
370
467
2.2K
856K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@HorsemanCountry @BillAckman @pulte Albeit, the 2018 article also has draconian 5% capital (like a TBTF bank, which is now also being removed by @realDonaldTrump ), has some other hamstringing stipulations about explicit fees, etc. Actually, 5-7 BP reinsurance fee would be fine! Much like FDIC (call it FMIC)
English
0
0
0
16
Horseman Country
Horseman Country@HorsemanCountry·
$FNMA $FMCC It sure does seem like big, unstoppable wheels keep on turnin' to wind down the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conservatorship. Will reductions in capital requirements represent a light at the end of the shareholder tunnel to our EXIT? furmancenter.org/publication/pr…
Horseman Country tweet media
English
4
15
75
2.3K
Horseman Country
Horseman Country@HorsemanCountry·
$FNMA $FMCC The exposure of Obama's theft from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac & their shareholders via NWS is gaining momentum. Than you, @BillAckman! @SecScottBessent & @pulte, you're hawkish on fraud. Look no further than Mnuchin's account from 2017. Justice is long overdue.
English
15
115
437
78.9K
Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts@chrisevanston·
@b_csky19 @realDonaldTrump Mathing About 200 days between Inauguration and this August NYSE ring the bell in November post About 200 days between this post and today. Translation: The plan has been sitting around for a very, very long time. Rand Paul Steal letter 2021 was 4.5 years! @realDonaldTrump
English
1
2
11
142
B Coskay
B Coskay@b_csky19·
Dear President @realDonaldTrump, back in August 2025 you pushed a November 2025 #NYSE uplist narrative for $FNMA and $FMCC. We believed in you and have waited patiently long enough. It really only takes one call to do right by the people, what exactly is the hold-up? Why push that narrative and still not act? What is the justifiable reason for this delay? Who can explain it? Mr. President? Secretary @SecScottBessent? Director @pulte? Secretary @SecretaryTurner? Secretary @howardlutnick? Mr. @BillAckman? Mr. @michaeljburry? Anyone? As promised, please: 🇺🇸⚠️ End the Obama/Biden scam. Enough crushing hardworking Americans. 🔓 End #Fanniegate 🏦 Privatize #FannieMae and #FreddieMac - do right by shareholders. ⚖️ Justice delayed for 18 years is not justice. #UplistNow #EndTheConservatorship
B Coskay tweet media
English
11
34
155
5.1K