Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 4284877 times)

allnatural

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15720 on: June 29, 2020, 08:20:59 AM »
rolg, if they find that CID was ratified, doesnt that mean that the CID action survives? if not why even bother remanding it and just say the CID action is void. the way i read the backwards looking remedy portion is that this all comes down to whether the challenged action (NWS in our case) was ratified or not by the new director. if it wasnt, it gets voided. did calabria ever ratify the NWS, not one sweep was made under his watch.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 08:22:42 AM by allnatural »


Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15721 on: June 29, 2020, 08:33:19 AM »
https://twitter.com/HoldenWalker99/status/1277620777534263296
Collins distributed for conference on 7/1. $FNMA $FMCC
"You are life, You are life, in You death has lost its sting.  I'm running to Your arms, I'm running to Your arms.  The riches of Your love will always be enough, nothing compares to Your embrace.  Light of the world, forever reign." Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADuWzd7x25c

Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15722 on: June 29, 2020, 08:41:45 AM »
I'm starting to wonder if SCOTUS might issue a final ruling on the NWS after all (over the APA claims, not constitutionality) because there has already been a circuit split on that issue.

Perhaps they might wait until Atlas actually strikes down the NWS due to it violating the APA, but she would be doing so at the Fifth Circuit's direction. Would SCOTUS have to wait for what basically amounts to a couple of rubber-stamp rulings (Atlas striking down the NWS because the Fifth Circuit said so and the Fifth Circuit upholding it because they have already ruled on it)? Can they?

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15723 on: June 29, 2020, 08:46:24 AM »
I'm starting to wonder if SCOTUS might issue a final ruling on the NWS after all (over the APA claims, not constitutionality) because there has already been a circuit split on that issue.

Perhaps they might wait until Atlas actually strikes down the NWS due to it violating the APA, but she would be doing so at the Fifth Circuit's direction. Would SCOTUS have to wait for what basically amounts to a couple of rubber-stamp rulings (Atlas striking down the NWS because the Fifth Circuit said so and the Fifth Circuit upholding it because they have already ruled on it)? Can they?

I expect them to decline the constitutional side because the Seila ruling fits with the collins en banc judgement on constitutionality .

I expect them to accept the APA claim as it's clean and well disputed.

It would then be up to Trump, Mnuchin, and Calabria to appropriately move in 2020 and settle the pending Collins litigation to address election risk.   

Otherwise, check in again with the SC in a year from now.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3271
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15724 on: June 29, 2020, 08:58:39 AM »
https://twitter.com/HoldenWalker99/status/1277620777534263296
Collins distributed for conference on 7/1. $FNMA $FMCC

there was no ratification argument by govt in collins (at least I dont recall one).  so maybe scotus will clarify its seila holding since collins didn't muddy the waters with a ratification question.

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15725 on: June 29, 2020, 01:55:38 PM »
With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15726 on: June 29, 2020, 02:18:39 PM »
With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

Perhaps we'll know more Thursday.   

If the SC takes up Collins constitutional then he's got some wiggle room because that suggests the SC thinks Collins constitutional is different than Seila. 

If SC declines (or GVRs) Collins constitutional then the 5th circuit en banc stands which makes him fire-able in about 6.5 months.

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3364
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15727 on: June 29, 2020, 02:31:24 PM »
The Supreme Court Monday morning backed the president’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, but let stand the agency's operating architecture.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the CFPB’s leadership structure — headed by a single director who is removable by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance” — violates the constitution’s separation of powers, because its director held too much unchecked power.

But the court did not go extreme to invalidate the entire consumer agency. Instead, the court held that the CFPB director’s removal protection can be separated from other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the bureau. In a nutshell, it means the bureau's past enforcement activities would remain intact.

I am muslceman. I have more muscle than brain!

DRValue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15728 on: June 29, 2020, 02:42:20 PM »
The Supreme Court Monday morning backed the president’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, but let stand the agency's operating architecture.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the CFPB’s leadership structure — headed by a single director who is removable by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance” — violates the constitution’s separation of powers, because its director held too much unchecked power.

But the court did not go extreme to invalidate the entire consumer agency. Instead, the court held that the CFPB director’s removal protection can be separated from other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the bureau. In a nutshell, it means the bureau's past enforcement activities would remain intact.

Swap out CFPB with fhfa and that's what we'll get. A now constitutional thief.
[E]xpedience does not license omnipotence.

Not Investment Advice. Do Your Own Research.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3271
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15729 on: June 29, 2020, 03:39:03 PM »
I have read Seila now, after having just skimmed it before.

the collins 5th C en banc concurring opinion seemed to think that severance, or forward relief, somehow trumped or negated backward relief.  It is clear from the Seila Roberts opinion that this is wrong...the opinion points out that the CID had a constitutional defect which would cause the Court to grant the backward relief, but the govt argues that the CID was later ratified by a cfpb director.  there is a live dispute as to whether this ratification event in fact occurred, and there is a legal question as to whether this could ratification act could cure the CID's constitutional defect. 

the question as to ratification doesn't come up in Collins.

I expect scotus will GVR the Collins unconstitutional claim and let the 5th C read the opinion and apply it to Collins.  I dont see how any reading of Seila leads to a denial of backward relief in Collins.  whether it goes on to grant cert to the Collins APA claim is doubtful since the const claim would grant Ps the relief they seek (invalidate NWS).  indeed, scotus may reserve on the APA claim to let the 5th C redo the const claim. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 03:43:11 PM by cherzeca »