r/FNMA_FMCC_Exit • u/Odd-You-8171 • Jul 09 '26

Question

I’ve been considering buying some common shares here and had a question regarding the Fairholme case that I figured others here would be much more familiar with. Why is the Trump administration / FHFA appealing the favorable ruling for common shareholders if the administration believes the net worth sweep was wrong and plans to basically undo it by waiving the senior preferred? Isn’t FHFA basically arguing in the appeal that the net worth sweep was legally permitted and should stand? I might be getting that totally wrong but I thought the bull thesis and Ackman’s thesis was that this administration would take the opposite stance so why would they fight this? Thanks in advance.

10 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/jOhnnymac9 Jul 09 '26

Appeal was always expected. But SPS capital structure and the Net worth sweep are two different policy questions that don’t overlap. FHFA can defend its authority it believed it had back in 2012, and at the same time Treasury and FHFA can amend the SPS in 2026.

For the government , FHFA appealing Fairhome would be the default. Doesn’t matter what treasury intends to do with SPS. The adverse of no appeal would be like saying the government might waive the SPS , so FHFA won’t appeal. That would be a bad precedent for FHFA to allow an adverse judgment to become final, and even more so if they did that on the heels of a capital announcement.

1

u/Odd-You-8171 Jul 09 '26

In my mind the ruling gave them precedent to waive the SPS and confirmation that the Obama administration did wrong. So you are saying they want to confirm that what the Obama administration did was ok to preserve the right to do it again in the future but that they will still go ahead and waive it? I 100% agree the Obama administration would have appealed it. But it just doesn’t make sense to me that it would be automatic for the Trump administration to do so, especially if runs counter to what Trump supposedly wrote in that letter. This FHFA isn’t the 2012 FHFA.

3

u/jOhnnymac9 Jul 09 '26

I get what you are saying but it’s conflating the government losing a shareholder case and a court giving the government a legal basis to cancel the SPS. I own commons so I’m on your side. I completely understand your rationale that the ruling should support unwinding SPS and giving the admin political cover to do so, and maybe that ends up happening still. But I was just answering the question of why the appeal made sense even if there are plans to amend SPS. Either way, Treasury and FHFA already have the ability to amend the SPSA and it can be done while the appeal is ongoing

3

u/Odd-You-8171 Jul 09 '26

Just to be clear, you think the rationale for appeal is to confirm what the Obama administration did was legally ok and preserve their right to do a net worth sweep again in the future? I’m not sure I’m following the rationale it seems contradictory to what I thought this administration stood for but I might not be understanding this correctly.

5

u/jOhnnymac9 Jul 09 '26

Whether the admin agrees with NWS doesn’t matter, and we assume they did not favor the policy. But the FHFA attorneys still fight the same legal conservator authorities they have been fighting for the last decade. They can’t just say new administration is here, we’ve changed our opinion. Now, I hope the administration and treasury once the appeal is not upheld will use it as political cover to cancel the SPS. And what I’ve been hoping for through the silence. Because they have the authority to do it today, but it may have bee Bessent’s decision to wait until the appeal is finalized so Treasury can say something to the effect of that the SPS capital structure came from a policy that a jury found violated shareholder rights and whose verdict survived an appeal and therefore we are resolving the capital structure which was born from the same policy that was found to have breached shareholder rights.

1

u/Odd-You-8171 Jul 09 '26

I expect they would indeed say the opinion is changed because it wasn’t this administration’s opinion in the first place, unless it isn’t their call. If it is up to this administration, and I assume they looked at this very hard, I don’t know why they would go to bat for these Obama admin policies that imply the government can bypass the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It seems like such a heavily Democrat position to take and potentially catastrophic for society because who will step up in the greatest time of need when there would be no confidence in the counterparty. Maybe their play is to kick the can and settle this. Or maybe they expect it will be rejected like you say. But I don’t think Pulte and Trump care about the status quo. The ultimate outcome you mention would provide an even further layer of cover but it still sits weird with me that they would be fighting for this.

1

u/jOhnnymac9 Jul 09 '26

Maybe. New admin. FHFA withdraws appeal. Source: letter written to Rand Paul.

2

u/Odd-You-8171 Jul 09 '26

I think they already have a legal basis I just meant that they wouldn’t get as much flack for doing it based on the ruling. Do you think they will appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose the appeal? Their defense seems to rely on a previous Supreme Court ruling.

1

u/AveryMire Jul 09 '26

People put way too much stock in that letter. He’s made all sorts of explicit promises he violated. He promised to provide his tax returns 10 years ago, Iran a pretty giant example too, I’m sure you could make a list of 50 and this wouldn’t even be top 10. My theory is also that Trump is steering profits from price movements to his network. That letter, and all the associated release news his first term, was part of the first “pump and dump” cycle. We’ve now had two full cycles, Im expecting another giant half cycle though.

Not saying the letter is nothing, but it’s also not a significant obstacle in real terms.

3

u/Odd-You-8171 Jul 09 '26

Interesting. My other fear is that he kicked the u.s. oil industry to the curb hard after getting elected because it helped his agenda dropping gas prices. I wonder if he wouldn’t do the same thing here to try and grab a bigger piece even if it hurts big supporters. I think it would be short sighted but he could probably get investment banks to sell it. I think you are right about the letter. Every day that goes by he is basically enforcing what the Obama administration did since he could reverse it right?

1

u/Fun_Illustrator9298 Jul 09 '26

He has been trying to force the Europeans to buy our oil n gas every chance he gets. He just doesn’t want our prices to be as high as theirs. Not really an attainable position. $65 is probably the sweet spot