Although I'm not from Missouri, my attitude towards those who hold themselves out as experts and pundits worth paying attention to mirrors the state's unofficial slogan: "Show me."
To me, it's not the biography or alleged credentials that matter. What counts is what comes out when a person opens his (or her) mouth or puts pen to paper (or, I suppose, keystrokes to screen).
Based on what I've seen so far, Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Weill is proving to be one of my favorite financial commentators. In "Investors Find Love in $260 Billion Black Hole," he covers the farce that has been taking place in one corner of the financial universe.
Some things I’ll never understand.
How can a show called “Flip This House” still be on television? Why didn’t the Utah Jazz basketball team change its name after leaving New Orleans? And why in the world did the common shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae go berserk last month?
The last of those questions is by far the most difficult to answer.
In case you hadn’t noticed, America’s worst financial companies were the market’s best-performing stocks until a few days ago. The price of Freddie’s common shares more than tripled in August, as did Fannie’s, although this week they have given up some of their gains. It was the same story at their fellow ward of the state, American International Group Inc.
While the stock-market values of these government- controlled companies have soared this summer, it’s debatable what those values are.
For instance, you might say Freddie’s market capitalization is about $1.1 billion, based on the company’s $1.64 stock price and the 648.3 million common shares outstanding that Freddie disclosed on the cover page of its latest quarterly report. These are the inputs investors normally use to calculate market caps.
It also would be accurate to say Freddie’s market cap is $5.3 billion. That figure is based on the fully diluted shares outstanding of about 3.3 billion that the company used to calculate its loss per common share last quarter.
Pick a Number
Similarly, Fannie’s market cap is either $1.5 billion or $7.8 billion, depending on which share count you use. (The stock closed yesterday at $1.37.) The larger share counts include warrants issued to the U.S. Treasury that would allow the government to buy 79.9 percent stakes in the companies’ common shares at a nominal cost. As of yet, those warrants haven’t been exercised, and so the shares haven’t been issued.
The situation at AIG is even more confusing. The cover page for its latest quarterly report shows 134.6 million common shares outstanding, which is about the same as the fully diluted share count on its income statement. Yet in a footnote to an Aug. 13 press release, AIG also disclosed a hypothetical share count, assuming that someday it would have to convert a big slug of the preferred shares it pledged to the government into common stock.
Why Pay?
AIG had 697.4 million common shares using that method. Thus, depending on which figure you use, its market cap is either $5.1 billion or $26.5 billion, based on AIG’s $37.95 stock price. All three companies are leaving investors to sort out for themselves which share counts are the right ones to use. Go figure.
The larger question is why anyone would pay anything to own any of these companies’ common shares. Elsewhere in their disclosures, Fannie and Freddie tell you straight up that their common equity is worth less than zero.
Unlike other companies, the two government-backed mortgage financiers publish quarterly fair-value balance sheets showing estimates of the real-world values for all their assets and liabilities. (Fair value is the price at which an item would change hands in an orderly, arm’s-length transaction.) As of June 30, Freddie said the fair value of the net assets attributable to its common shareholders was negative $122.6 billion.
At Fannie, the number was negative $138.1 billion. Together, from the standpoint of a common shareholder, the two companies amount to a $260 billion black hole. The only place you’d find a bigger deficit is the federal budget itself.
No Recovery
By comparison, from 1990 through 2007, before they were seized by the government, Freddie and Fannie reported total net income of $35.9 billion and $59.8 billion, respectively. Even if the companies returned to their former glory, there is nothing in their histories to indicate they have the ability to earn their way out of their present deficits. Hope springs eternal anyway.
As for AIG, the insurance company’s common shareholder equity was negative $35.4 billion as of June 30, once you take away its $44.2 billion of deferred customer-acquisition costs and $6.4 billion of goodwill. Those assets exist only on paper and can’t be sold by themselves.
In effect, what we have here are three extremely expensive Powerball tickets. Perhaps the bet is that the Treasury might bestow a gift on the common shareholders one day, by forgoing some of its ownership rights in the event the companies can’t repay all their debts to taxpayers. Or maybe the recent rally was just the result of a monstrous squeeze on short sellers who were forced to cover their bearish bets. There’s no way to know what’s going on in Mr. Market’s head at the moment.
At least when you play the lottery, the odds of winning and losing are measurable.
Why is it i get the feeling at times that the Institutions are out to get the Investors and even more recently that the Media Financial Analysts have a hidden agenda against us as well? Since when do bloggers need to relay a message by using other Analysts' articles? I sense some form of desperation on your part upon doing so. How does that work exactly? You all mobilize and agree that the article did not have its desired impact on investors so someone else takes a shot at publishing it? For the most part these articles relay the idea that the writers behind them are upset at the New Worldly Ways of today's Investor. Or, rather, that you are desperately attempting to save us from ourselves? In the meantime i would hope that someone would devote himself to making a more professional attempt at convincing us of the mistake of venturing into stocks like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Aig, etc., something along the lines of a true devoted Analyst like Bronte Capital's John Hempton. While you try to come about something well thought up and uniquely yours, i promise to behave while i carry on my day trading antics. Good day.
Posted by: Basile Kardidas | September 04, 2009 at 09:19 AM
John Hempton has a good series on Fannie May and Freddie Mac ( http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2009/08/modelling-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac_25.html ).
Posted by: Tjemme | September 04, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Examples like AIG FNM and FRE are why I think it is dangerous for even the experienced retail trader or investor to short individual stocks, even though I feel that the market is near a top and will at least test the March lows in the next year or so. There is a lot of single name risk, as well as market forces that provide disadvantages to retail investors. Instead, although it is already up quite a bit this year, I still feel that gold is one of the few asset classes that should perform well going forward. It has many fundamental reasons to continue rising, mainly the Fed's all out war on deflation, in which it has put a ton of pressure on the dollar with its easy money policies, as further discussed here - http://www.goldalert.com . All of this money printing is beneficial for the gold price due to the inflationary consequences of such actions
Posted by: jturner | September 04, 2009 at 02:56 PM