Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 4532710 times)

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3517
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15920 on: September 09, 2020, 06:31:13 AM »
the Rop district court opinion is instructive only since it lays out the pathway for FHFA (and the amicus arguing in place of DOJ) to argue that Seila should not apply to collins...because Demarco was an acting director when he signed NWS, and while it is clear that the director can only be removed for cause, HERA does not have a specific removal for the acting director...who stays under HERA until he vacates himself or is replaced by a potus nominated and senate confirmed new director.  but HERA makes clear that FHFA is an independent agency, so that in the context of the entire statute, it is absurd to believe that for an independent agency whose director can only be removed for cause, the acting director can be removed at will where there is no specific removal standard in the subclause relating to the acting director...and where Ps argued that if anything the statutory language would indicate that the acting director cannot be removed period, with or without cause, since his tenure lasts until a successor has been nominated and confirmed. see in particular n.9 to p. 45 of Rop opinion.  collins dealt with this argument and judge willetts answered it in the en banc opinion...see p. 48 of the collins en banc opinion.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 06:37:35 AM by cherzeca »


onyx1

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15921 on: September 09, 2020, 02:01:41 PM »
I'm not sure what to make of this, but Trump just added two 5th circuit Judges to his SCOTUS short list, Judge Duncan & Judge Ho.  Some may remember that despite the two disagreeing on remedies,  both joined Judge Willett's opinion that the FHFA is unconstitutional and the FHFA exceeded its authority in executing the NWS.

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15922 on: September 09, 2020, 04:27:15 PM »
I'm not sure what to make of this, but Trump just added two 5th circuit Judges to his SCOTUS short list, Judge Duncan & Judge Ho.  Some may remember that despite the two disagreeing on remedies,  both joined Judge Willett's opinion that the FHFA is unconstitutional and the FHFA exceeded its authority in executing the NWS.

That probably means they are the conservative judges who don't bend the law backwards to fit their views.
Trump's nomination may be based on review of a lot of cases by these judges rather than just the NWS alone.
I am muslceman. I have more muscle than brain!

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3517
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15923 on: September 09, 2020, 04:33:29 PM »
Ho is great, very conservative (former Gibson Dunn partner, know him a little). Duncan also good.  could have added Willett too and a few others though some are older.  this list doesn't mean much 

edit.  trump also said prior list of 25 is still good...now 24 with Kavanaugh appointed.  Willett one of those 24  https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_of_Donald_Trump%27s_potential_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 04:39:18 PM by cherzeca »

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15924 on: September 10, 2020, 01:04:02 PM »
First public listening session was today. Anyone speak or listen? I looked but couldnt find a link any where to listen when I looked briefly this am.

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15925 on: September 10, 2020, 03:43:49 PM »
First public listening session was today. Anyone speak or listen? I looked but couldnt find a link any where to listen when I looked briefly this am.

Next Wednesday should be interesting at the House FS committee.

Maybe some one can get through to Mr. Calabria that padding bank mkt share and interest spread profits on the back of lower / middle income Americans by setting capital levels @ 6x his own adverse stress test levels is not the preferred policy.

Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15926 on: September 10, 2020, 04:21:19 PM »
First public listening session was today. Anyone speak or listen? I looked but couldnt find a link any where to listen when I looked briefly this am.

Next Wednesday should be interesting at the House FS committee.

Maybe some one can get through to Mr. Calabria that padding bank mkt share and interest spread profits on the back of lower / middle income Americans by setting capital levels @ 6x his own adverse stress test levels is not the preferred policy.

Today's session wasn't all that informative. I didn't catch the whole thing, but it seemed to me to be mostly a rehash of what was in the comment letters. This might have been FHFA's token effort to "extend" the comment period by allowing the talkers to feel like they are being heard. I'm not expecting much from next Monday's session either, though I will still listen.

I am far more interested in what Calabria says, so I agree that his hearing should be interesting and I plan to listen to every second of his part of it.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3517
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15927 on: September 10, 2020, 04:31:46 PM »
First public listening session was today. Anyone speak or listen? I looked but couldnt find a link any where to listen when I looked briefly this am.

Next Wednesday should be interesting at the House FS committee.

Maybe some one can get through to Mr. Calabria that padding bank mkt share and interest spread profits on the back of lower / middle income Americans by setting capital levels @ 6x his own adverse stress test levels is not the preferred policy.

Today's session wasn't all that informative. I didn't catch the whole thing, but it seemed to me to be mostly a rehash of what was in the comment letters. This might have been FHFA's token effort to "extend" the comment period by allowing the talkers to feel like they are being heard. I'm not expecting much from next Monday's session either, though I will still listen.

I am far more interested in what Calabria says, so I agree that his hearing should be interesting and I plan to listen to every second of his part of it.

thanks Midas. I will try to make the low income call, but speaker lineup doesn't look that interesting...Pinto doesn't deserve 10 minutes to discuss low income housing.  I agree Mad Max's committee hearing should be fun

Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15928 on: September 15, 2020, 09:37:58 PM »
@cherzeca

I think it's better to continue our discussion here rather than Tim Howard's blog; I think I got off-topic over there.

When I referred to problems under 4616, I meant only section (b). I'm afraid that a future FHFA director could use those authorities to mess with a consent order by saying that no consent order a previous FHFA director (Calabria) signed could prevent the new director from exercising his/her statutory authority under 4616(b).

The only way around that would be for FnF to hit $152B in core capital, thus exiting "significantly undercapitalized", before Calabria leaves office.

I could be wrong, though; can Calabria really sign away some of his statutory authorities in such a way that a future director couldn't get them back without the companies' consent?

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #15929 on: September 16, 2020, 04:47:43 AM »
Anyone have the link to Calabria's house testimony today?


EDIT: Found it https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=406867

That is quite an interesting title for the hearing. Oxymoron one would say.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 04:49:39 AM by orthopa »