Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3665108 times)

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10790 on: November 13, 2018, 06:50:43 PM »
Moelis plan backed by Blackstone/Schwarzman...
https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/articles/paulson-blackstone-said-to-back-plan-for-freeing-fannie-freddie
Paulson & Co. and Blackstone Group are among investors backing a proposal...
...was developed by investment bank Moelis & Co...
...Both John Paulson and Blackstone Chief Executive Officer Stephen Schwarzman have acted as economic advisers to President Donald Trump.


Schwarzman hanging out with Trump on the eve of the mid-term election last week...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/-good-night-for-trump-despite-house-losses-sanders-says
President Donald Trump watched election returns Tuesday with dozens of friends in the palatial East Room of the White House, including Republican megadonors Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, and Blackstone Group chief executive Steve Schwarzman.
"I wait for You and my soul finds rest. In my selfishness, You show me grace..." My Hope Is In You by Aaron Shust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugD0i5Y3cw8


cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10791 on: November 13, 2018, 06:57:57 PM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10792 on: November 14, 2018, 03:50:14 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
Thank you, Chris. Nothing like the legal inside view.

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10793 on: November 14, 2018, 06:26:54 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.

Tim Howard's response to cherzeca's comments above...
Thank you. Thatís very good information and analysis. And i agree with you that the en banc rehearing is excellent news for the plaintiffs.

Weíve now seen two reversals of judicial viewpoint on net worth sweep-related opinions in the last month and a half: Judge Lamberthís ruling on September 28 that claims related to the breach of implied covenant in Perry Capital should be allowed to proceed, and now the 5th Circuitís decision to rehear the appeal of the Collins case. In both instances, I suspect whatís happened is that as judges have had time to focus more closely on the fact patterns in these cases, the argument that the net worth sweep was a matter of judgment permissible under HERAĖas opposed to a pre-meditated seizing of two companiesí assets, covered up by a now-revealed sequence of false statements by TreasuryĖ becomes less credible or sustainable, and is now cracking. If so, we may indeed finally have reached a turning point in this saga.
"I wait for You and my soul finds rest. In my selfishness, You show me grace..." My Hope Is In You by Aaron Shust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugD0i5Y3cw8

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10794 on: November 14, 2018, 07:34:25 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
So this... "and a majority of the circuit judges". Does this refer to the 3 judges? Then, this is why you believe 2 out of 3 (Willet and someone else) want a second look at the issue?

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10795 on: November 14, 2018, 07:51:33 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
So this... "and a majority of the circuit judges". Does this refer to the 3 judges? Then, this is why you believe 2 out of 3 (Willet and someone else) want a second look at the issue?

no all active 5th circuit judges

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10796 on: November 14, 2018, 07:55:30 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
So this... "and a majority of the circuit judges". Does this refer to the 3 judges? Then, this is why you believe 2 out of 3 (Willet and someone else) want a second look at the issue?

no all active 5th circuit judges
Oh.. must be the 26 listed here?
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/about-the-court/fifth-circuit-judges

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10797 on: November 14, 2018, 08:17:51 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
So this... "and a majority of the circuit judges". Does this refer to the 3 judges? Then, this is why you believe 2 out of 3 (Willet and someone else) want a second look at the issue?

no all active 5th circuit judges
Oh.. must be the 26 listed here?
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/about-the-court/fifth-circuit-judges

yes but not the senior judges listed there.  see this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10798 on: November 14, 2018, 08:57:28 AM »
Thank you, Chris. If senior judges do not count that will be a lot less.

Patrick McHenry just mentioned GSE's reform on Bloomberg. Said something *must* be done now. When pressed by reporter he said Waters' proposal will not gather enough votes neither anything from the Senate. So his idea is to start afresh. He said he is not dogmatic on any solution but one that can move forward because housing has unmet pressing needs now. Start afresh? We are always on the "start" stage lol.


DRValue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10799 on: November 14, 2018, 09:46:54 AM »
Constitution trumped in the third circuit. Ridiculous.
[E]xpedience does not license omnipotence.

Not Investment Advice. Do Your Own Research.