Sunday Spectacle LXXV



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Delisted





The government agency in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac told them to delist their shares. I'm not really sure what this means since the market cap of their shares was still roughly $1 billion... This ends a multi-decade attempt by the government to utilize a public-private partnership structure to facilitate purchase of homes by Americans (there is still Ginnie Mae and Farmer Mac.) The structure probably doesn't make much sense given how profits accrue to private investors during the good times, while losses accrue to taxpayers during bad times. I'm not in favour of such structures and would prefer something to be privatized completely. As you could tell from the charts private investors, including Warren Buffett and several other value investors at one time, made a fortune in the 80's and 90's; but taxpayers ended up massive losses (not shown by the share price graphs) in the late 2000's.

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a lot of blame for the subprime problems, they really weren't a player in that market and basically curbed their activities in the early 2000's. Once the current problems are long forgotten, I believe Fannie and Freddie will be remembered for putting a floor to the real estate market during the collapse in 2008-2009. Without the government "forcing" them to provide liquidity to the real estate market during that time, USA would likely have seen a far worse real estate bust with even more financial insitutions failing (basically no mortgage lender wanted to finance anyone in 2008/2009 and the GSEs were the only ones that stepped in to fund mortgages.) I think the cost borne by the taxpayers was worth it but the ultimate outcome won't be known for a few decades... It's just that these companies never should have been allowed to be owned by private individuals while the company was backed by the taxpayer.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>