To an extent, the questions are political, not business. both companies make huge amounts of money no matter what. The government really should have wiped put 98%+ of the existing shareholders, not diluted them by 80%. To an extent, the previous managers/shareholders showed their own incompetance in lobbying to stop any oversight(shareholders are business owners and thus self responsible for their losses.). I suspect the outcome will be recapitalisation on retained earnings. If the president is the same in 2022, the gov shares will be sold at a very low cost to very little return for the gov. The share owners will retain most of the price increases and the treasury will get very little apart from a 5-10% return. If the president changes, it depends on the type. If its a right leaning leftist like Obama and Clinton were, they will demand a 25-100% profit margin on the shares, but still sell them. If it's an actually left leaning president, then the gov will simply retain the 80% ownership.

Gabriella strikes again. FNMAS up 10-15% since this interview. Consistently one of the top 5 RV guests!

Highly speculative. No thanks

Gabriella: brilliant, as always. If you are reading this, a question for you: what do you think of today's (11/24/19) WSJ piece on the situation? The Journal points out that that congressional legislation will likely be required to allow privatization of FNMA to proceed. What congressperson wants to sponsor a bill to take these institutions private in today's populist political climate? https://www.wsj.com/articles/firms-warn-of-risks-in-plan-to-take-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-private-11574591423

confusing... needs to be simplified a bit more

Alright I'm going to try to summarize as best I can what the conversation was mostly to help my understanding. Freddie and Fannie didn't know how to loan money and so the Treasury took them over, installed a director and then took all their profits. Something legal happened in the 5th circuit and a "Letter Agreement" between FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) and Treasury came about that let's Freddie and Fannie (F&F) retain earnings (Keep some pesos!!!) Since they can now retain earnings their leverage is decreasing making it less unstable (still horrible though :) This is all still early stages it seems and to get pulled off so that everyone makes money it has to be done quickly and correctly (Good luck my good government person.) Side Note: Gabriella points out the drop in price is probably due to liquidity concerns (i.e. the hedge funds need some cash and they got some of it from low volume F&F, PCG, and Intelsat) More Side note: Intelsat just got REKT due to some 5G change ups and their satellite systems are pretty much going to be space weight. Summing up as best I can understand: Essentially 3 things have to happen about the same time and near independently of each other. 1) They have to have enough actual money in their account to get over a 250 credit rating (you get 200 if you can spell your name right). 2) This part I'm confused on. An amendment of the PSPA. It sounds like they are going to "Re-value" the shares? Maybe buying them out or just saying "well this is worth x-1". Not sure on this point. 3) Legaleaz wize they have to make it so that the government can't come back later on and take all the money they have been saving to again become their own business. If they can't, then the next Washington Administration that hates them can come along and again take their lunch money. In short this was confusing to me but also very helpful in learning. It's so strange to me that F&F can loan money out, get paid back, but the treasury takes it and the stockholder investors fund it. All the while the goal seems to be, don't be the last guy/gal with the hot potato.

Stop limit?

This is great. These are the types of interviews that are really valuable. We need to hear more ideas from her and others like her!

Why would anyone put money on this junk?

Gabby, Since your interview, we obviously got the announcement from FHFA that they are going to re-propose a capital rule. Jr. Pfds reacted negatively. I would assume that you don't think this announcement has much impact on the outcome and that the FHFA is still really targeting Q3/Q4 2020 to set the GSEs on a permanent path toward recap & release. Does that sound about right? Thanks so much for your analysis!

Gabby, I really appreciate your ability to take a fairly complex situation and simplify it to where the important legal and regulatory issues that will drive the recap and release process are explained and categorized along with a rational timeline that has a high probability for the exit from conservatorship. It provides us a clear road map to follow to see if your investment thesis is still on track. Thanks.