For the past couple of years, a group of America's smartest investors have been betting big on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The adventurous crew include John Paulson's Paulson & Co., Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme Capital, and Richard Perry of Perry Capital. Their strategy is to exploit the remarkable revival of the two bailed-out, formerly loss-stricken mortgage insurers to prod Congress into privatizing them. If that happens, their long shot will produce many of billions of dollars in gains from IPOs that would rival the best of tech debuts for enriching investors.
Those hedge funds are lobbying Congress hard to make Fannie and Freddie independent, profit-making companies resembling the old Fannnie and Freddie. But in recent weeks, the chances that will happen have faded dramatically. New legislation co-sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) would slowly wind down Fannie and Freddie, replacing them with a federal agency that would provide reinsurance for mortgage-backed securities in case of a financial crisis, but leave private investors to shoulder most of the risk.
Faced with a frosty reception from lawmakers, the hedge funds are now deploying a backup plan. On Sunday, Perry Capital announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury, which bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Perry Capital is not seeking financial damages. Rather, it's claiming that the Treasury acted illegally in stripping capital from Fannie and Freddie that should go to folks and funds that hold their preferred and common stock.
The suit challenges an extraordinary change in the original bailout agreement that the Treasury imposed last summer. In 2008, the Treasury recapitalized the two GSEs with a cash infusion in exchange for preferred stock holdings that now total $189 billion. Under the original terms, Fannie and Freddie each paid a 10% dividend to the Treasury on the preferred. But on August 17, 2012, the Treasury canceled that 10% dividend and required that Fannie and Freddie pay all of their future earnings, forever, to the Treasury.
Why did the Treasury enact the so-called Third Amendment that so radically altered the preferred-stock agreement? By mid-2012, Fannie and Freddie were beginning to generate what would become gigantic earnings as the housing market rebounded. If the original agreement remained in place, the GSEs would build far more than $100 billion in retained earnings, and hence fresh capital, in 2013 alone. That would exert pressure for Congress to allow Fannie and Freddie to pay back the government in full, and reemerge as private players. Timothy Geithner was strongly opposed to the rebirth of the old Fannie and Freddie. The "sweep clause" that grabbed the entire windfall in profits was specifically designed to ensure that Fannie and Freddie remained wards of the state that would eventually be liquidated.
On June 3o, Fannie paid the Treasury a $66.3 cash dividend from its earnings for the first quarter -- more than any company had ever paid in an entire year. The Perry lawsuit charges that the extra profits flowing to the Treasury largely belong to private investors. "The Third Amendment ... destroys value in all the Companies' privately held securities and illegally begins to liquidate the Companies," states the complaint. "This blatant overreach by the federal government to seize all the Companies' profits at the expense of ... private investors is unlawful and must be stopped."
The complaint projects that given their earnings power, Fannie and Freddie, if allowed to keep those profits, could repay the entire $189 billion in preferred by next year, including the future interest. Indeed, the pair promise to remain highly profitable for years to come. "They will keep rolling with big profits," says Brian Harris, a fixed-income analyst with Moody's. "They now guarantee around 80% of all new mortgages, and the quality of the loans they've backed since 2010 is excellent."
A major obstacle for Perry and its allies is that the original bailout terms provided no mechanism for Fannie and Freddie to ever repay the government, no matter how much money they earn. The Perry suit alleges that the Treasury and FHFA are violating their obligation to conserve Fannie and Freddie's assets and run them in a financially sound manner, and hence penalizes private investors. It also states that they lack the legal authority to wind down the GSEs.
In effect, the suit challenges the very purpose of the bailout and the government's intentions ever since, which is to ensure that Fannie and Freddie never, ever reemerge as private companies. The chances that would happen were always remote, but the markets aren't saying it's impossible. Both the preferred and common shares are selling at many times their levels a year ago, giving the hedge funds gains that will multiply once again in the unlikely event they win this suit, unlikely indeed.
No other investor has played the bailout trade as often and as successfully as the Fairholme funds manager. Will he be able to do it again?
FORTUNE --Ever since the government began bailing out banks and others a few years ago, we have had a debate about who should benefit. The economy? Yes, that's the point. Borrowers? Eventually. Taxpayers? Always, except in the case of small banks and automakers, then no. MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 13, 2013 6:00 AM ET
Bruce Berkowitz and his Fairholme Fund have made a comeback - relying on the same stocks that cost his fund so dearly in 2011.
FORTUNE -- Only a handful of mutual fund managers have ever had the sort of epic run that Bruce Berkowitz (and his investors) enjoyed. In the first decade of this century, his 13.2% annual returns obliterated the S&P 500 (SPX), which averaged 1% yearly losses. He was MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Nov 26, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Sears Holdings one of the top performers in the stock market this year, but that's not because its outlook is bright. What's the end game?
FORTUNE – It can almost be said that Sears Holdings Corp. (SHLD) is one of the best and worst stocks today. The Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based retail conglomerate has been battered amid declining sales and profits. But as CEO Eddie Lampert scrambles to raise cash and calm MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Apr 4, 2012 12:53 PM ET
Bruce Berkowitz's Fairholme Fund is back atop the mutual fund universe after many investors bailed. Will they come back?
FORTUNE -- To say Bruce Berkowitz of the $8-billion Fairholme Fund faced adversity last year is an understatement.
"Time to Sell Fairholme?" asked the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 6 (Its answer: yes).
"Not to pick on Bruce Berkowitz too much," read a Kiplinger.com column on Dec. 8, "but hubris is such a dangerous MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Apr 2, 2012 9:22 AM ET
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan faced questions from investor Bruce Berkowitz -- it was a big gamble, and it seems he broke even on it.
FORTUNE -- Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan seems to understand one of the key lessons of the financial crisis: you have to be open with your shareholders. Now he just needs them to believe what he's saying.
Moynihan took to the airwaves today on a MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Aug 10, 2011 3:21 PM ET
Larry Pitkowsky and Keith Trauner sat out the first bubble. Now the value investors justify why Google is a top holding and Microsoft is more exciting now than a decade ago.
FORTUNE -- Some splits in the mutual fund world are acrimonious, some aren't. This one fell somewhere in the middle. Larry Pitkowsky and Keith Trauner were happy working with Bruce Berkowitz at the Fairholme Fund. The fund's record was enviable MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Jul 25, 2011 8:00 AM ET
Probably not. But that's not stopping the rumor mill from spinning full speed about the investor and the future of the Fairholme fund.
FORTUNE -- The scuttlebutt among some investors at the annual Morningstar investment conference this week in Chicago is that Bruce Berkowitz is toast. All well-known managers go through rough times, especially value investors who buy stocks others hate. But when you're named fund manager of the decade by MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Jun 10, 2011 9:51 AM ET
The investor admitted he misjudged the government's intentions with the insurer. What does that mean for Berkowitz's giant stake?
FORTUNE -- With AIG stock cratering nearly 50% this year, all eyes have turned to investor Bruce Berkowitz, AIG's largest private shareholder. The 52-year-old fund manager looked especially smart last year while amassing 40 million shares of the insurance giant. Back then, AIG shares were skyrocketing and embarrassing hedge fund managers like Steve Eisman MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - May 10, 2011 2:42 PM ET
In the latest development at the sleepy Florida landowner, Florida's former governor has been nominated to join St. Joe's Board.
The news is still swirling around St. Joe Company. Yesterday, investor Bruce Berkowitz announced that he and his partner Charlie Fernandez were stepping down as St. Joe directors after serving for little more than a month. It appears as though Berkowitz was defeated by the board in his attempt to become MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Feb 15, 2011 6:10 PM ET
|Another strong quarter for Smith & Wesson|
|Homeless college students seek shelter during breaks|
|Five things you didn't know about Bernie Madoff's epic scam|
|Don't fight it. Bitcoin has a bright future|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|