
亿万富翁投资人比尔·阿克曼上周日晚间通过X平台发文,呼吁投资者别再为伊朗战争焦虑,并建议买入房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)的股票。周一,这两家旨在支撑抵押贷款市场的政府支持企业股价大幅上涨。
阿克曼写道:“全球一些最优质的企业,目前股价极其低廉。不要理会主流媒体。这是历史上最不对称的战争之一,最终将对美国和全球产生积极结果,而且我们有望迎来一笔可观的‘和平红利’。”
随后,他几乎以一句“顺带一提”的口吻补充道:“房利美和房地美的股价低得离谱,这是最典型的不对称机会。它们的股价可能上涨10倍,而且这一目标指日可待。”
阿克曼的推文显然成为唯一的催化剂:周一盘中,房利美股价一度飙升41%,房地美涨幅一度达到34%。这是自去年5月特朗普提出将这两家机构私有化的设想以来,这两只股票的最大单日涨幅。
阿克曼的这番表态显然引发了强烈反响。CNN的“恐惧与贪婪指数”显示,当前投资者已处于“极度恐惧”状态。已进入第六周的伊朗战争持续冲击市场:受霍尔木兹海峡紧张局势影响,油价大幅飙升。伊朗半官方媒体法尔斯通讯社报道称,当地可能实施过路费制度,并对以色列实施封锁;与此同时,美股上周及本周一均遭遇抛售。不过,对那些眼看投资组合不断缩水的投资者,阿克曼传递的信息很明确:别慌。
不少投资者似乎对他展现出的信心笃信不疑。但阿克曼并非中立观察者。事实上,他正是这笔交易的最大受益者。他旗下的潘兴广场资本管理公司(Pershing Square Capital Management)是房利美和房地美最大的普通股股东,合计持股超过2.1亿股。过去十多年里,他一直重仓这两家公司,并积极推动其实现私有化。
他喊话的时机也难免引人质疑:周一恰逢2026年第一季度的最后一个交易日,这对对冲基金而言尤为关键。股票在季度最后一个交易日的收盘价,将直接体现在向投资者披露的业绩报告中。在这一天最大持仓恰好出现约40%的暴涨,这至少可以说是“相当巧合”。
阿克曼此前也有类似操作。2024年12月30日,即第四季度倒数第二个交易日,他曾发布一篇详细投资论述,将政府支持企业(GSE)交易称为自己2025年的最佳投资策略。该帖获得490万次浏览量,并推动相关股价出现类似幅度的暴涨。
不过,阿克曼指出的估值落差确实令人侧目。房利美去年实现净利润144亿美元,房地美为107亿美元。而在周一股价上涨之前,两家公司合计市值仅约100亿美元,这意味着它们一年的盈利规模,已超过自身市值的两倍。
因《大空头》(The Big Short)闻名的投资人迈克尔·伯里也对阿克曼表示支持,并回应其帖文称:“我必须强调,这种情况在当前市场环境下是极为罕见的。”伯里还在另一条帖文中进一步谈及美国房地产市场,认为房利美和房地美长期处于政府托管状态,是住房供应不足的重要原因之一。此外,他还将问题归因于人为压低的利率,以及新冠疫情期间美国政府投放的6万亿至7万亿美元大规模现金刺激。
伯里写道:“问题是政府造成的,而如今的政策仍在阻碍自由市场自行解决问题,其中包括让这些政府支持企业在托管状态下低效运转。”
围绕两家政府支持企业的看多逻辑一直很明确:市场押注特朗普政府将通过IPO将房利美和房地美私有化,且最快可能在今年年底之前完成。自两家公司在2008年被政府接管以来,这一判断就反复出现,但始终未能兑现。2025年9月,也就是私有化预期最为高涨的阶段,受阿克曼及其支持者推动,房利美股价一度触及约15.30美元的高点。但即便经历了周一的上涨,两只股票仍较该峰值下跌近60%。在去年11月的ResiDay住房会议上,白宫住房事务主管比尔·普尔特曾表示,将在2025年第四季度末或2026年初作出IPO相关决定,但至今仍未落地。
也有批评人士认为,仓促推进私有化可能带来新的风险。例如,加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)经济学家韦斯利·尹指出,这一过程可能推高借贷成本,并重新制造导致“大衰退”的条件,即允许营利性公司获得由政府背书的零风险融资。他对政府是否真的会冒险重蹈覆辙提出了质疑。
在去年12月的一篇帖文中,阿克曼也曾以较为谨慎的法律措辞承认其中的不确定性。他写道:“最终结果仍存在高度不确定性,如果选择投资,应将仓位控制在可承受的损失范围内。”
但到了上周日晚间,这样的提醒已经消失。阿克曼写道:“不要理会看空者。”(财富中文网)
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
亿万富翁投资人比尔·阿克曼上周日晚间通过X平台发文,呼吁投资者别再为伊朗战争焦虑,并建议买入房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)的股票。周一,这两家旨在支撑抵押贷款市场的政府支持企业股价大幅上涨。
阿克曼写道:“全球一些最优质的企业,目前股价极其低廉。不要理会主流媒体。这是历史上最不对称的战争之一,最终将对美国和全球产生积极结果,而且我们有望迎来一笔可观的‘和平红利’。”
随后,他几乎以一句“顺带一提”的口吻补充道:“房利美和房地美的股价低得离谱,这是最典型的不对称机会。它们的股价可能上涨10倍,而且这一目标指日可待。”
阿克曼的推文显然成为唯一的催化剂:周一盘中,房利美股价一度飙升41%,房地美涨幅一度达到34%。这是自去年5月特朗普提出将这两家机构私有化的设想以来,这两只股票的最大单日涨幅。
阿克曼的这番表态显然引发了强烈反响。CNN的“恐惧与贪婪指数”显示,当前投资者已处于“极度恐惧”状态。已进入第六周的伊朗战争持续冲击市场:受霍尔木兹海峡紧张局势影响,油价大幅飙升。伊朗半官方媒体法尔斯通讯社报道称,当地可能实施过路费制度,并对以色列实施封锁;与此同时,美股上周及本周一均遭遇抛售。不过,对那些眼看投资组合不断缩水的投资者,阿克曼传递的信息很明确:别慌。
不少投资者似乎对他展现出的信心笃信不疑。但阿克曼并非中立观察者。事实上,他正是这笔交易的最大受益者。他旗下的潘兴广场资本管理公司(Pershing Square Capital Management)是房利美和房地美最大的普通股股东,合计持股超过2.1亿股。过去十多年里,他一直重仓这两家公司,并积极推动其实现私有化。
他喊话的时机也难免引人质疑:周一恰逢2026年第一季度的最后一个交易日,这对对冲基金而言尤为关键。股票在季度最后一个交易日的收盘价,将直接体现在向投资者披露的业绩报告中。在这一天最大持仓恰好出现约40%的暴涨,这至少可以说是“相当巧合”。
阿克曼此前也有类似操作。2024年12月30日,即第四季度倒数第二个交易日,他曾发布一篇详细投资论述,将政府支持企业(GSE)交易称为自己2025年的最佳投资策略。该帖获得490万次浏览量,并推动相关股价出现类似幅度的暴涨。
不过,阿克曼指出的估值落差确实令人侧目。房利美去年实现净利润144亿美元,房地美为107亿美元。而在周一股价上涨之前,两家公司合计市值仅约100亿美元,这意味着它们一年的盈利规模,已超过自身市值的两倍。
因《大空头》(The Big Short)闻名的投资人迈克尔·伯里也对阿克曼表示支持,并回应其帖文称:“我必须强调,这种情况在当前市场环境下是极为罕见的。”伯里还在另一条帖文中进一步谈及美国房地产市场,认为房利美和房地美长期处于政府托管状态,是住房供应不足的重要原因之一。此外,他还将问题归因于人为压低的利率,以及新冠疫情期间美国政府投放的6万亿至7万亿美元大规模现金刺激。
伯里写道:“问题是政府造成的,而如今的政策仍在阻碍自由市场自行解决问题,其中包括让这些政府支持企业在托管状态下低效运转。”
围绕两家政府支持企业的看多逻辑一直很明确:市场押注特朗普政府将通过IPO将房利美和房地美私有化,且最快可能在今年年底之前完成。自两家公司在2008年被政府接管以来,这一判断就反复出现,但始终未能兑现。2025年9月,也就是私有化预期最为高涨的阶段,受阿克曼及其支持者推动,房利美股价一度触及约15.30美元的高点。但即便经历了周一的上涨,两只股票仍较该峰值下跌近60%。在去年11月的ResiDay住房会议上,白宫住房事务主管比尔·普尔特曾表示,将在2025年第四季度末或2026年初作出IPO相关决定,但至今仍未落地。
也有批评人士认为,仓促推进私有化可能带来新的风险。例如,加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)经济学家韦斯利·尹指出,这一过程可能推高借贷成本,并重新制造导致“大衰退”的条件,即允许营利性公司获得由政府背书的零风险融资。他对政府是否真的会冒险重蹈覆辙提出了质疑。
在去年12月的一篇帖文中,阿克曼也曾以较为谨慎的法律措辞承认其中的不确定性。他写道:“最终结果仍存在高度不确定性,如果选择投资,应将仓位控制在可承受的损失范围内。”
但到了上周日晚间,这样的提醒已经消失。阿克曼写道:“不要理会看空者。”(财富中文网)
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored businesses designed to prop up mortgages, ripped on Monday after billionaire investor Bill Ackman told investors in a late Sunday X post to stop worrying about the war in Iran and start buying.
“Some of the highest quality businesses in the world are trading at extremely cheap prices,” Ackman wrote. “Ignore the MSM [mainstream media]. One of the most one-sided wars in history that will end well for the U.S. and the world. And we have the potential for a large peace dividend.”
Then he added, almost as an aside: “Fannie and Freddie are stupidly cheap. Asymmetry at its best. They could be a 10X and it could happen soon.”
Ackman’s tweet was the only obvious catalyst as Fannie Mae surged as much as 41% in Monday trading, while Freddie Mac climbed as much as 34%. These were the largest single-day moves for each stock since May of last year, when Trump floated the idea of privatizing the two entities.
Ackman’s post clearly touched a nerve. Investors are feeling “extreme fear” according to CNN’s Fear & Greed Index, as the Iran war, now in its sixth week, wreaks havoc on markets. Oil prices are spiking on threats to the Strait of Hormuz, where, as Iran’s semiofficial Fars News Agency reported, a toll system will be imposed and Israel blocked off; American stocks sold off last week and again on Monday. But Ackman’s message to anyone watching their portfolio bleed was clear: Get over it.
Many investors seemed to take that confidence at face value. But Ackman isn’t a neutral source, in fact, he’s the single biggest beneficiary of the trade he’s recommending. His firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, is the largest common shareholder in both companies, holding more than 210 million shares combined. He’s been in the position for over a decade and has helped lead the charge to get Fannie and Freddie privatized.
The timing also might raise eyebrows, as Monday is the last trading day of Q1 2026, which matters for hedge funds. The price a stock closes at on the final day of the quarter is the price that shows up in performance reports to investors. A 40% pop in your largest position on that exact day is, at minimum, very convenient.
Ackman has previous experience in this regard. On Dec. 30, 2024—the second-to-last trading day of Q4—he published a detailed thesis calling the GSE (government-sponsored enterprise) trade his best idea for 2025. That post got 4.9 million views and sent shares surging by similar margins.
Still, the valuation disparity that Ackman is pointing to is genuinely striking. Fannie printed $14.4 billion in net income last year, while Freddie printed $10.7 billion. Their combined market cap before Monday’s move was roughly $10 billion, meaning both companies earn more than twice their market value annually.
Michael Burry, of Big Short fame, also encouraged Ackman and responded to his post, writing that he “cannot emphasize enough how rare this is in this market.” Burry added extra thoughts on the housing market in a different post, where he blamed Fannie and Freddie’s longtime conservatorship for keeping the housing supply low, in addition to what he called artificially low interest rates and $6 trillion to $7 trillion in “helicopter cash” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Government created the problem and now maintains policies that prevent free markets from reaching a solution, not the least of which is keeping the GSEs inefficiently run while in conservatorship,” Burry wrote.
The bullish case for the GSEs, that the Trump administration will privatize the two via an IPO, potentially by the end of the year, has been the thesis since they went under government conservatorship in 2008, and it has never materialized. Fannie topped out at around $15.30 in September 2025 owing to peak privatization optimism sparked by Ackman and his allies. Even after Monday’s rally, both stocks remain down nearly 60% from that peak. At the ResiDay housing conference in November, White House housing director Bill Pulte said that a decision on the IPO would happen sometime by the end of that quarter or early this year, but that decision has yet to come.
Some critics, like UCLA economist Wesley Yin, argue that a rushed privatization process could raise borrowing costs and risk re-creating the conditions that fueled the Great Recession; namely, allowing for-profit companies access to risk-free government-backed borrowing. He raised questions about whether the government would truly risk repeating that mistake.
In his December post, Ackman acknowledged the uncertainty with some legalese. “There remains a high degree of uncertainty about the ultimate outcome so you should limit your exposure to what you can afford to lose if you choose to invest,” he wrote.
That caveat was gone Sunday night. Ackman wrote: “Ignore the bears.”