Seeking Alpha

Freddie Mac pays Treasury in full; to pay another $10.4B in Q1

  • As of Dec. 31, aggregate cash dividends to Treasury of $71.345B exceed cumulative cash draws of $71.336B. Based on Dec. 31 net worth of $12.8B, Freddie's Q1 dividend payment will be $10.4B, bringing total paid to $81.8B. Unfortunately (for now) for holders of the common, dividend payments do not reduce Treasury's preferred stock holdings, which remain at $72.3B.
  • Press release, Q4 results
  • FMCC +0.9% premarket

Check out Seeking Alpha’s new Earnings Center »

From other sites
Comments (10)
  • David Sims
    , contributor
    Comments (556) | Send Message
     
    Bernanke is testifying in the AIG case. Soon discovery will happen in the Fairholme case. The time is ripe for a positive change for shareholders.
    27 Feb 2014, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (9719) | Send Message
     
    Two words:

     

    Criminal

     

    Government
    27 Feb 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • A. Pushkin
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Not hard to make money when you get to borrow at 0 and sell at 4. This profitability is an accounting shell game at the expense of future generations of American citizens. These institutions benefit from access to the treasury and the treasury shifts the obligation to the taxpayer. Criminal.
    27 Feb 2014, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Nau
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone believe that Fannie or Freddie's common stock would be worth more than $0 if there was no bailout?

     

    As far as I am concerned, any value that common shareholders ever receive is because of government generosity: those buying before 2008 bought stock in an insolvent company and should be wiped out. As for those who bought in after the bailout, they knew full well that the government was the controlling shareholder and all the risk that entails. Caveat emptor.
    27 Feb 2014, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • papayamon
    , contributor
    Comments (1190) | Send Message
     
    right. you can't have your cake and then eat it too. anyone buying in after the bailout should know this is what would happen. of course the working man gets screwed. this is the state of affairs round the world. your job as an investor is not to fall prey to it.
    27 Feb 2014, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • dgfurr
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    These discussions are inane. If the GSE's were not forced by changing accounting standards they would have never written down values to the ridiculous levels required by the government. Our government should be the last entity to require someone else to boost reserves. The only reason that there was a forced bailout is that the treasury required an usury style dividend and then took new preferred stock to cover it. According to Paulson, they just took Freddie Mac anyway, it was not under duress. Be bitter because you were wrong about the recovery, its not the GSE investors problem that you did not make money, its yours
    27 Feb 2014, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • A. Pushkin
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    This argument is akin to a pickpockets jaded justification for lifting a wallet. " I thought it was too heavy for the owner."
    28 Feb 2014, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • A. Pushkin
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Not hard to make money borrowing at 0 and selling at 4. The classic shell game is in play. Those treasury l endings at zero ultimately must be paid back...by future generations of American taxpayers. Criminal
    27 Feb 2014, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • dgfurr
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    That might be true but the GSE's didn't borrow money @ 0%. They were forced to borrow unneeded funds @ 10%. You obviously do not know that they get money from the markets, not from the Treasury at the discount window. You should understand the subject matter before making uneducated comments. You sound like the TEA PARTY. They don't want to be confused by the facts either.
    28 Feb 2014, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • A. Pushkin
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Please prove that comment.

     

    I have no problem changing a view with a fact based argument.

     

    The GSE's indirectly or in some cases directly benefit from the feds now famous decision to lend money at zero through the bond buyback program and historically by guaranteed subsidized rates from treasury . Period.

     

    The funds are then distributed to the market at through sales agents who then sell the loan to these GSE's and collect the service fees on the loan until its retirement. The banks don't want to hold the note, why take the risk. Sell it to these guys and collect the fees is a much better business model.

     

    The taxpayer ultimately on the hook in the event of default.

     

    It is my contention sir, that without the fed behind the GSE's, the spread between their ability to borrow and lend would be significantly tighter. In fact it would be so tight as to make them disappear...this is what should have happened back in 09. Their cash flow comes at the pleasure of the taxpayer and decisions made by his elected representatives. Why should these agencies continue to benefit from the full faith and credit of the treasury and ultimately the American taxpayer?
    2 Mar 2014, 04:28 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs