Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF
T E
A S
Company Overview
1
FNMA buys mortgages on the secondary market
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Company Overview
FNMA is a critical component to the United States ability to lead the 1 2 rates providing stability, credibility, 3 world in homeownership FNMA pools FNMAand sells FNMA buys liquidity to the mortgage mortgages into market mortgagedmortgages on the secondary market packaged securities backed securities to investors
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Thesis
Shareholders are suing the US Treasury over unlawful seizure of private assets
This seizure of shareholder assets is a violation of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
Should the court rule in favor of shareholders, we believe substantial value to be unlocked
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
FNMA Timeline
Government spends $188bn to bail out FNMA in exchange for senior preferred stock offering a 10% dividend Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) puts FNMA under conservatorship Shareholders file lawsuits against the US Government alleging the Treasury acted illegally when it amended the terms of FNMAs deal with the government
2008:
Financial Crisis
FNMA unexpectedly returns to profitability US Government forgoes previous dividend policy and lays claim to all FNMA profits effectively shutting off equity holders from future earnings
There are two possible outcomes for FNMAs shareholders as value is derived from future legislation, not FNMAs core business
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Shareholders lose
Shareholders win
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
itigation
Key Issue
Under 2012 Amended Agreement Under 2008 SPS Agreement
FNMA Profits
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Key Issue
Under 2012 Amended Agreement Under 2008 SPS Agreement
CF CF to to Government Government Preferred (Fixed AllAmountProfits 10%) Stockof private profits violate Does the US Treasury and FHFAs seizure Senior th Amendment FNMA Profits Preferred the Takings Clause of the 5 Stock by amending the terms of its stock to eliminate
Preferred and Common Stock
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Litigation Overview
Perry Capital v. Treasury & FHFA
The Treasurys 2012 amendment to the SPS agreement is illegal under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment and is an abuse of power as a conservator
As FNMA is a GSE and the FHFA is its appointed conservator, FHFA has unrestricted control over the company to impose any changes to the SPS agreement
Argument
Support
Conservative interpretation of HERA governing FHFA Precedent court case Expert opinion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
FHFA & Treasury Argument: Like 11 of the FDIA, 1145 of HERA says the conservator has a higher power than any and all stakeholders in the business This sounds like property rights of stakeholders are wiped out under conservatorship; however
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
FHFA & Treasury Rebuttal: Argument: Like 11 of the FDIA, 1145 of HERA stakeholders retain the conservator their says right to payment or has a higher power than any settlement of their claims all stakeholders in onand the business the business This sounds like property rights of It shall, to the extent of proceeds realized stakeholders wiped or sale of from performanceare of contracts under assets ofout the institution, pay all valid obligations of the regulated entity at the time conservatorship; that are due and payable at the time. however
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
the Senior Preferred Stock Agreement amendment FHFA & Treasury Rebuttal: Argument: was not within FHFAs as an appointed conservator . Likepower 11 of the This sounds like FDIA, 1145 of HERA property rights of It shall, to the extent of proceeds realized stakeholders retain the conservator stakeholders wiped or sale of from performanceare of contracts their says right to payment or has a higher power than any under assets ofout the institution, pay all valid settlement of their claims obligations of the regulated entity at the time all stakeholders in conservatorship; onand the business that are due and payable at the time. the business however
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Precedent Case
OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC (1994)
American Diversified Savings Bank (ADSB) shareholders in conflict with conservator The FDIC believes its fiduciary duty is to taxpayers, not to ADSB shareholders Supreme Court rules 9-0 in favor of shareholders
The OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC case serves as an effective precedent that tells us courts will issue a ruling in favor of FNMA shareholders
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Expert Opinions
[language] in the FDIA and the FDIC has shown precedent in following procedures to maximize value for shareholders.
Randall Guynn-- Partner and Head of Financial Institutions Group, Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Takings law asserts- as its currently construedif the qualitative value of FNMA being wound down is being used as a reason for winding it downyou still need to provide just compensation for existing stakeholders.
Expert Opinions
Richard Epstein-- Professor in Constitutional Law, NYU Randall Guynn-- Partner and Head of Financial Institutions Group, Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Investment Overview Litigation Valuation Considerations Conclusion
there is disclosure regarding and Freddie Expert sentiment isIf overwhelmingly in favor of future FNMA Fannie shareholders: earnings and the administration has a commitment that existing Fannie and Freddie equity holders will never Additionally, experts agree that FNMA has a case common on both a constitutional receive any future positive earningsthis commitment would Takings law asserts- as its currently construedif the be material to investors and should be disclosed. qualitative value of FNMA wound down basis. is being used as a andbeing contractual reason for winding it downyou still need to provide just Lewis Lowenfels-Managing Partner, Tolins & Lowenfels compensation for existing [language] in the stakeholders. FDIA and the FDIC has shown precedent in following procedures to maximize value for shareholders.
aluation
Decision Tree
Litigation Outcome Payoff Market-Defined Probability
Favorable
PT: $40
9.3%
Unfavorable
$0
90.9%
Due to its investor sentiment surrounding FNMAs past and the risk appetite of investors leaving FNMA, current prices do not accurately reflect the expected value for the litigation payouts.
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Relative Valuation
Peer Analysis Apartment and Investment Management Trust Equity Residential UDR Inc American Capital Agency Corp Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation Annaly Capital Management Capstead Mortgage Corporation MFA Financial, Inc. Median FNMA AIV EQR UDR AGNC ANH NLY CMO MFA P/E 21.7x 10.0x 16.3x 6.8x 10.6x 3.0x 13.8x 10.0x 10.3x .65x P/B 4.9x 2.0x 2.3x 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x 1.0x 0.9x 1.0x NA
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Relative Valuation
Valuation 2013A EPS (Billions) -DTA Valuation Reclamation 2013A Adj. EPS Industry P/E Peer Group Position Adjustment FNMA P/E Target Expected Market Cap FDSO (Treasury Warrants Exercised) Expected Share Price 84.0 50.6 33.4 10.3x -33% 6.9x 231.2 5.8 $40.12
2.9x 3.9x 4.9x 5.9x 6.9x 7.9x 8.9x 9.9x 10.9x $16.81 $22.61 $28.41 $34.20 $40.00 $45.80 $51.59 $57.39 $63.19 348% 503% 657% 812% 967% 1121% 1276% 1430% 1585%
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
12.0x
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
12.0x
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
12.0x
Significant downward pressure on valuations Valuations remain depressed despite a major upturn in profitability
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
onsiderations
Investment Execution
FNMA Rest of Portfolio
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Execution
FNMA Rest of Portfolio
Catalyst
risk-return profile, FNMAs payoffs can result in immaterial losses, but its upside potential contributes significantly to overall portfolio return if sized correctly.
Investment Overview Litigation Valuation Considerations Conclusion
Catalysts
1 2 3
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
onclusion
Investment Thesis
Shareholders are suing the US Treasury over unlawful seizure of private assets
This seizure of shareholder assets is a violation of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
Should the court rule in favor of shareholders, we believe substantial value to be unlocked
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
uestions
Appendix Slides
Government Plans for FNMA- 23 Intrinsic Valuation- 24 Legislation Current Progress- 25 Capital Structure- 26 Risks- 27 Price Chart- One Year- 28 Management- 29 Circumstances Surrounding Entering Conservatorship- 30 Capital Structure Breakdown over time- 31 Shareholder Base- 32 Senior Preferred Stock Agreement- 33 Historical Interest Income- 34 FDSO Calculation- 35 DCF Flaws- 36 Calculating Discount to P/E- 37 Addressing the GSE- Ultimate Power- 38 Theodore Olson Strong Attorney- 39 OMelveny and Myers v. FDIC 1994- 40 Existing FNMA Structure- 41 Government Suggested Structure- 42 Price Chart- Since 2007- 43 Why is it Mispriced?- 44 Recent News Decision Trees-45 Housing Industry in Regards to FNMA- 46 Credit Quality- 47 Twitter Sentiment Analysis- 48
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
A new system would feature several smaller versions of FNMA in which the government would financially back mortgagesnot firms.
The governments plans for FNMA do not impact FNMAs value unless the government is able to wipe out private investors.
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Intrinsic Valuation
Analyst Case 2008A 42877 34341 8536 19.9% 1032 947 0 6557 15.3% 2597 3960 2009A 40813 28204 12609 30.9% 1133 1074 0 10402 25.5% 4119 6283 Historical 2010A 2011A 154616 143449 141035 13581 8.8% 1277 1320 0 10984 7.1% 4350 6634 133636 9813 6.8% 1236 1134 0 7443 5.2% 2947 4496 2012A 129677 110193 19484 15.0% 1195 1172 238 16879 13.0% 6684 10195 2013A 118740 92355 26385 22.2% 1218 1327 1001 22839 19.2% 9044 13795 2014E 116615 93292 23323 20.0% 1633 1866 1633 18192 15.6% 7204 10988 0.87 9519 18,963 6.0x 49,672 5,762 $8.62 2015E 114877 91902 22975 20.0% 1551 1723 1493 18208 15.9% 7210 10998 0.68 7501 Projected 2016E 110305 88244 22061 20.0% 1434 1544 1324 17759 16.1% 7033 10726 0.54 5759 2017E 106996 85597 21399 20.0% 1391 1391 1177 17440 16.3% 6906 10534 0.42 4453 2018E 104856 83885 20971 20.0% 1258 1258 1153 17301 16.5% 6851 10450 0.33 3478 Interest and Dividend Income Interest Expense, Total Net Interest Income Net Interest Margin Salaries and Other Empl. Benefits Cost of Services Provided Other Operating Exp. Operating Income Operating Margin Tax Expense EFCF Discount Factor PVEFCF Terminal Value Exit Multiple (P/E) Equity Value FDSO Share Value
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Pre-Court, 8 months
Supreme Court
P WINS D WINS
Post-Court
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Capital Structure
A
117.1bn
Senior Preferred StockHeld by US Treasury, initially issued to provide a bailout during 2008. Initially Issued with a 10% dividend paid quarterly on the liquidation preference, with unpaid dividends accruing to the LP. Amended in 2012 to pay out all of net worth.
B
19.1bn
E-Shares Preferred Equity2.25% dividend payment on liquidation preference. Non-cumulative dividend, perpetual maturity. Entitled to full dividend satisfaction before funds can be passed on to common equity holders. Common EquityUS Treasury currently holds warrants to purchase up to 79.9% of outstanding common stock that have not yet been exercised. Under the existing senior preferred stock agreement, no new common equity may be issued.
C
24.1bn
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Risks
OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC Gave a related decision that the FDICs role as a conservator was to maximize firm value There is no precedent that dictates FHFA cannot abuse its conservator powers to eliminate equity holders
The core business will struggle if the overall housing market deteriorates- eroding FNMAs significant upside potential
FNMAs stock price currently reflects concerns over distributable cash flows, not the fundamentals of the core business
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Management
Timothy J. Mayopoulos, President and CEO
CEO since June 2012, joined FNMA in 2009 serving as General Counsel and EVP 25 Years of legal Experience in BAML, CSFB, DB, and DLJ, DPW $600K Base and Total Salary
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Shareholder Base
Existing Shareholders Pershing Square Capital Mgmt. Fairholme Capital Mgmt. Capital Research & Mgmt. Co. Seamans Capital Mgmt. 13D Mgmt. Buying Shareholders Pershing Square Capital Mgmt. Fairholme Capital Mgmt. Seamans Capital Mgmt. 13D Mgmt. Jet Capital Investors Selling Shareholders MetLife Advisers, LLC Lord, Abbett & Co. New Shares -.2m -.1m Ownership 0.01% 0.06% New Shares +115.6m +25.9m +2.2m +.6m +.4m Ownership 9.98% 2.24% 0.19% 0.05% 0.03% Shares 115.6m 25.9m 12.5m 2.2m .6m Ownership 9.98% 2.24% 1.08% 0.19% 0.05%
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
FDSO Calculation
FDSO Current Shares Outstanding(1) Treasury Warrant Ownership FDSO 1,158.1 79.90% 5761.592
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
DCF Flaws
We do not believe there is a material variant perspective when pricing the fundamentals of a $300bn secondary mortgage financing giant Consequently, we believe analyst estimates serve as our best insight into the value of FNMA under normal capital payout structures Additionally, applying a single WACC for FNMA is inappropriate, as the risk of FNMA is tied to its capital structure-related cash flow considerations, not the core fundamentals of the business.
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Average = 28.8% Average (ex-2006) = 33.7% Median = 31.4% 2013 Margin = 22.2% Avg Margin = 33.7% 22.7/33.7 = 33% Discount
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
FDIC tried to show it had power beyond what the FDIA allowed for it in conservatorship, but the supreme court said under the statute, when you become a conservator, you step into the shoes as a stakeholder and have a duty to maximize value for the stakeholders.
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Existing Structure
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Why is it mispriced?
Overly Negative Investor Sentiment
Few people want to be involved with a company that was at the headlines of 2008s housing meltdown 2008 overshadows the litigation thesis
Litigation Analysis
Our precedent case is not a direct reference to the FHFA-HERA case, as it relates to FDIC-FDIA but given how FHFA-HERA are modeled after FDICFDIA we believe it is a perfect precedent case nonetheless.
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
80% / $40
FNMA continues on with the SPS dividend = NI
Today
10% / $0
10% / $0
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
In 2013, 2.5 million underwater homeowners regained positive equity status thanks to an increase in housing value which strengthens FNMAs existing portfolio
Why? As default risk in FNMAs portfolio decreases, FNMAs investments are more likely to reach maturity
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
Credit Quality
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion
-100%
Negative
0%
Neutral
100%
Positive
Simple random sample of top 1400 most influential tweets from March 10th March 18th Classified each tweet in two categories:
Litigation mentioned, yes or no? Sentiment score: 1 positive, 0 neutral, -1 negative
Calculated the net effect of positive and negative tweets as an average sentiment per tweet
Investment Overview
Litigation
Valuation
Considerations
Conclusion