Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 4479470 times)

blackcoffee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9690 on: April 12, 2018, 11:06:00 AM »
What a great job FHFA has done in 10 years of Conservatorship. $250K Chandelier, stealing shareholders profit, leave 5T entities with 0 capital, enrich large banks, making mortgage market less safe and less sound……sad part is judges agree that they are doing god’s work.

“Based on our work, we have cautioned stakeholders that the safety and soundness of the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cannot be assumed because of the significant shortcomings in FHFA’s supervision programs,” she said.


Honorable Watt is not testifying tommorrow?

https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/041218_oi_memo.pdf

https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=403286

they go out of their way to say nothing of substance at all congressional hearings. Who is really in control here?


Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9691 on: April 12, 2018, 12:36:23 PM »
What a great job FHFA has done in 10 years of Conservatorship. $250K Chandelier, stealing shareholders profit, leave 5T entities with 0 capital, enrich large banks, making mortgage market less safe and less sound……sad part is judges agree that they are doing god’s work.

Watt cannot unilaterally get out of the NWS and he didn't agree to it. What exactly is it that you expect him to do?

Your anger would be much more justified if it were directed at Mnuchin.

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9692 on: April 13, 2018, 04:16:41 AM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it. 

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5352
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9693 on: April 13, 2018, 11:32:44 AM »
^ Simple, he works for the owner, the treasury. I think he sleep very well. And with the full backing of the treasury, there is no issue with soundness either, their rating is the same than the US sovereign. If they ever generate a loss, they will get the cash to plug the hole, in exchange for an IOU. Same than with social security.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9694 on: April 13, 2018, 03:55:45 PM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it.

judge is worried about giving broad remedies.  the separation of powers argument would entail nullifying all fhfa action.  as judge put it to P counsel, you want me to invalidate NWS, and go back to the second amendment which also would be nullified, except you are not asking for that relief.

judge seemed much more comfortable with appointments clause claim, where if judge uses Ps bright line 2 year cutoff for acting directors (borrowed from the 2 years allowed for recess appointments), then only NWS would be invalidated. 

judge also seemed to countenance the nondelegation claim which as he mentions hasnt seen much judicial support for about 100 years.

on the negative, judge seemed to countenance defendants claim that res judicata bars this suit since this could have been brought in perry.  i strongly disagree with this, apparently as does judge's law clerk.

judge is smart and engaged.  if he works as hard on this as i expect he will, Ps have a puncher's chance.

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9695 on: April 13, 2018, 05:34:05 PM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it.

judge is worried about giving broad remedies.  the separation of powers argument would entail nullifying all fhfa action.  as judge put it to P counsel, you want me to invalidate NWS, and go back to the second amendment which also would be nullified, except you are not asking for that relief.

judge seemed much more comfortable with appointments clause claim, where if judge uses Ps bright line 2 year cutoff for acting directors (borrowed from the 2 years allowed for recess appointments), then only NWS would be invalidated. 

judge also seemed to countenance the nondelegation claim which as he mentions hasnt seen much judicial support for about 100 years.

on the negative, judge seemed to countenance defendants claim that res judicata bars this suit since this could have been brought in perry.  i strongly disagree with this, apparently as does judge's law clerk.

judge is smart and engaged.  if he works as hard on this as i expect he will, Ps have a puncher's chance.

thanks.  it sounded like he thought the perry decision was improper but then said you have given me little to work with in this constitutional area to help you (plaintiffs) out.   the 2-year appointments area was perhaps the best area for success, but still there in terms of remedy, he said it would be quite a lot for a judge on his level to set this precedent.   I doubt we win even though he was kind of searching for a way to help us.

Is the Collins appeal the exact same kind of case or does it have other areas?  although I am mistaken, I was hoping the Bhatti case had BOTH the constitutional side and the same arguments as perry.  this would theoretically allow the judge to believe in our cause, decide the constitutional side remedy was a bridge too far, but then just side with the brown view and overturn the NWS in that component of the suit.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9696 on: April 13, 2018, 07:49:51 PM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it.

judge is worried about giving broad remedies.  the separation of powers argument would entail nullifying all fhfa action.  as judge put it to P counsel, you want me to invalidate NWS, and go back to the second amendment which also would be nullified, except you are not asking for that relief.

judge seemed much more comfortable with appointments clause claim, where if judge uses Ps bright line 2 year cutoff for acting directors (borrowed from the 2 years allowed for recess appointments), then only NWS would be invalidated. 

judge also seemed to countenance the nondelegation claim which as he mentions hasnt seen much judicial support for about 100 years.

on the negative, judge seemed to countenance defendants claim that res judicata bars this suit since this could have been brought in perry.  i strongly disagree with this, apparently as does judge's law clerk.

judge is smart and engaged.  if he works as hard on this as i expect he will, Ps have a puncher's chance.

thanks.  it sounded like he thought the perry decision was improper but then said you have given me little to work with in this constitutional area to help you (plaintiffs) out.   the 2-year appointments area was perhaps the best area for success, but still there in terms of remedy, he said it would be quite a lot for a judge on his level to set this precedent.   I doubt we win even though he was kind of searching for a way to help us.

Is the Collins appeal the exact same kind of case or does it have other areas?  although I am mistaken, I was hoping the Bhatti case had BOTH the constitutional side and the same arguments as perry.  this would theoretically allow the judge to believe in our cause, decide the constitutional side remedy was a bridge too far, but then just side with the brown view and overturn the NWS in that component of the suit.

collins had "perry" arguments and PHH separation of powers.  bhatti had PHH and appointments clause.  schlitz started into perry because bhatti also raised nondelegation argument, which is obscure but basically says congress cant tell an agency to do what it wants...which is what perry seemed to say

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9697 on: April 15, 2018, 12:48:37 PM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it.

judge is worried about giving broad remedies.  the separation of powers argument would entail nullifying all fhfa action.  as judge put it to P counsel, you want me to invalidate NWS, and go back to the second amendment which also would be nullified, except you are not asking for that relief.

judge seemed much more comfortable with appointments clause claim, where if judge uses Ps bright line 2 year cutoff for acting directors (borrowed from the 2 years allowed for recess appointments), then only NWS would be invalidated. 

judge also seemed to countenance the nondelegation claim which as he mentions hasnt seen much judicial support for about 100 years.

on the negative, judge seemed to countenance defendants claim that res judicata bars this suit since this could have been brought in perry.  i strongly disagree with this, apparently as does judge's law clerk.

judge is smart and engaged.  if he works as hard on this as i expect he will, Ps have a puncher's chance.

thanks.  it sounded like he thought the perry decision was improper but then said you have given me little to work with in this constitutional area to help you (plaintiffs) out.   the 2-year appointments area was perhaps the best area for success, but still there in terms of remedy, he said it would be quite a lot for a judge on his level to set this precedent.   I doubt we win even though he was kind of searching for a way to help us.

Is the Collins appeal the exact same kind of case or does it have other areas?  although I am mistaken, I was hoping the Bhatti case had BOTH the constitutional side and the same arguments as perry.  this would theoretically allow the judge to believe in our cause, decide the constitutional side remedy was a bridge too far, but then just side with the brown view and overturn the NWS in that component of the suit.

collins had "perry" arguments and PHH separation of powers.  bhatti had PHH and appointments clause.  schlitz started into perry because bhatti also raised nondelegation argument, which is obscure but basically says congress cant tell an agency to do what it wants...which is what perry seemed to say

thanks, I wonder why Bhatti and rop didn't throw in both the constitutional arguments and perry arguments. 

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9698 on: April 15, 2018, 12:50:32 PM »
How can FHFA director, the person in the drivers seat, sleep in night knowing he is pushing each and every penny of the very companies HE is supposed to conserve assets of and knowing that companies have paid all of the principal and 10% dividend and more? He works for Treasury or the companies?

it doesn't appear that watt is the center of our issues.  he wrote a shareholder owned utility proposal after all, which might been what stopped the corker bill.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #9699 on: April 15, 2018, 05:44:18 PM »
after reading the first 2/3 of the Bhatti oral arguments, it feels like the judge is sympathetic to our view but doesn't seem to have a mechanism to fix it.

judge is worried about giving broad remedies.  the separation of powers argument would entail nullifying all fhfa action.  as judge put it to P counsel, you want me to invalidate NWS, and go back to the second amendment which also would be nullified, except you are not asking for that relief.

judge seemed much more comfortable with appointments clause claim, where if judge uses Ps bright line 2 year cutoff for acting directors (borrowed from the 2 years allowed for recess appointments), then only NWS would be invalidated. 

judge also seemed to countenance the nondelegation claim which as he mentions hasnt seen much judicial support for about 100 years.

on the negative, judge seemed to countenance defendants claim that res judicata bars this suit since this could have been brought in perry.  i strongly disagree with this, apparently as does judge's law clerk.

judge is smart and engaged.  if he works as hard on this as i expect he will, Ps have a puncher's chance.

thanks.  it sounded like he thought the perry decision was improper but then said you have given me little to work with in this constitutional area to help you (plaintiffs) out.   the 2-year appointments area was perhaps the best area for success, but still there in terms of remedy, he said it would be quite a lot for a judge on his level to set this precedent.   I doubt we win even though he was kind of searching for a way to help us.

Is the Collins appeal the exact same kind of case or does it have other areas?  although I am mistaken, I was hoping the Bhatti case had BOTH the constitutional side and the same arguments as perry.  this would theoretically allow the judge to believe in our cause, decide the constitutional side remedy was a bridge too far, but then just side with the brown view and overturn the NWS in that component of the suit.

collins had "perry" arguments and PHH separation of powers.  bhatti had PHH and appointments clause.  schlitz started into perry because bhatti also raised nondelegation argument, which is obscure but basically says congress cant tell an agency to do what it wants...which is what perry seemed to say

thanks, I wonder why Bhatti and rop didn't throw in both the constitutional arguments and perry arguments.

this is a good question.  just because perry in dc circuit decided adverse on APA claims shouldnt preclude Ps from raising claim in another circuit.  yet if you look at the the APA claim landscape, you have 5th circuit (collins) and 8th circuit (saxton) hearing appeals, and the 8th circuit is the circuit for bhatti (but not rop).  looks to me like the rop judge is taking a powder, waiting on schlitz.

i think in bhatti the constitutional claims were well argued by Ps.  the separation of powers claim will lose in front of schlitz, but that claim will be decided in scotus anyhow (perhaps PHH will ask for cert, need to by end of month).  question is whether schlitz will be bold on the appointments clause claim.