bruce berkowitz

This week marks the 5-year anniversary of the U.S Government placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. Bruce Berkowitz, Fairholme Capital Management, reveals why he believes shares of Fannie and Freddie should be returned to the private sector.

Bruce Berkowitz rare interview below


thanks very much, carl. you know, this week marks the fifth an verse writ of the placing of fannie mae and freddie mac into conservatorship by the u.s. government. today the gses are making billions and seeing deliver more money to the u.s. treasury than received in aid. the question now, what happens to the mortgage giants. my next guest has taken a large position and preferred shares of both fannie and freddie to the belief they should be rufrd to the investor. bruce berkowitz is joining me now. nice to see you. nice to see you. let’s talk fannie and freddie. here you are decided to buy the preferred shares of the two gses even though under some plans in congress, it could be worthless. why? i have a somewhat different viewpoint if preferred is a contract to pay a dividend. that’s what we’re entitled to. and the companies together make about $40 billion a year. earnings power. they can more than afford to give a big win to the government, taxpayers, and to make everybody whole in the ownership structure. i like the preferred because the market does proceed both fannie and freddie to be near death and that makes no sense to me. and you can buy the preferred at such discounts you get unbelievable promised yields. so i expect those prefers to pay the dividends again. dividends from profits. and then go back to par, essentially, if they — if that were to occur. most of them should go to par. and make an enormous amount of money as well as other hedge funds that own the preferred shares. 200,000 tax paying shareholders want me to do. i know, but, but, nobody else in government is talking about at being a possibility. even the likes of senator corker, for example, or any of the plans that we’ve seen at this point for reforming the gses, figging out what we’re going to go, include returning these preferreds or turning back on the dividend. here’s what i think. we’ve done it with aig, bank of america, invested in goldman sachs, morgan stanley, cit after the 2008 real residential real estate debacle. so we, you know, fair home, we buy companies, essential, critical, systematically important companies that look like they’re down and out. absolutely essential to the economy. and they’re going to stay. it’s no different with fannie and freddie. we own the craft. the government made an investment 2008, brilliant investment. excellent. the government is unbelievable hedge fund. they do extremely well. t.a.r.p. has done well. you can’t argue with what happened in 2008. you can with 2012 when they made this decision to not pay the dividend but swept all the profits to the u.s. treasury. third amendment. suing on that. that’s what’s going on right now. i don’t understand the 2012 amendment, the sweep amendment. the 2012 amendment is based as if we were still in 2008. i really don’t understand it. and the lawsuits about protecting our property. for all i know there could be a typo in the third amendment. i really don’t understand this — the common sense of it makes no sense to me that you can just snap your fingers and take everything. that has not played out. the lawsuits for fair home capital, we stand alone, is just, you know, we’re property owners. this is america. so what’s going to happen here, bruce? i guess the common sense construct in my mind. the housing, the residential mortgage market is incredibly important in this country. 30% of family’s net worth. 20 something percent of gdp that creates employment. yohave to have it. fannie and freddie, very valuable franchises. 12,000 plus talented employees of both of these firms. they’re actually essential to the running of our mortgage market. now, because fannie and freddie have a public mission funded by private capital from fairholme and others, they have a very unique place. for example, in the last five or six years the company has lost about $500 billion. but that’s their mission. when everybody else runs in time of crisis, fannie and freddie stand up and keep the mortgage markets running even if it’s unprofitable to do so. 90% of the mortgage market. they are the mtgage market. until private capital starts — the only private capital right now is fannie and freddie. they are the private capital market. they have been. there’s always been a debate about them. so there’s no middle class housing. there’s no american dream. there’s no cornerstone of the american dream and housing. there’s no 30-year mixed mortgage without fannie and freddie and no alternative. fannie and freddie, they are the system. you are relying on the u.s. government, particularly the congress, perhaps, to act r rationally, some would say. that is a big bet. common sense was not prevail in washington, d.c. very often these days. a lot of investors here counting on you, counting on something that doesn’t happen. right now when i look at the bloomberg machine i do not — and the ownership list, i do not see the u.s. government. they have the right to make — 79.9% in war rans. they could make an enormous amount of money. and they should make, for the taxpayers should make a very nice return on their investment. and then private capital, which put taxpayers before themselves. making sure that taxpayers pay in full with a profit before taking a penny. so as long as we’re doing the right thing, doing what is right for homeowners, it’s right for taxpayers. fannie and freddie have accomplished their mission. they did it. mission impossible, accomplished. so now it’s time for them to be resuscitated, rehabilitated. let the equity build up in the companies and prepare for the next rainy day. this is the nature capitalism. we take ood ideas to a large extremes. correct the logical extremes, go back to where we were and that’s what makes it such a great country. i want to talk about some of the other holdings you have in your $8 million fairholme’s fund. aig, you’ve been a huge holder of this lo not long after the crisis, not long after the government came in. it’s been a big win for you. you suffered some tough years. why do you still own this thing after having had the appreciation you’ve had? why is it 50% of your fund? it’s done well, the position. but besides that, you know, investing is all about, you know, comparing. what you giver sus what you get. when you look at today’s stock price with aig, it’s still selling significantly below aly question dags value. at some point the stock market price at aig will meet the book value of aib which i take as a proxy

1, 2  - View Full Page