hardincap

Thompson speculated that one of the judges is writing a dissenting opinion. Hopefully it's millet not brown

see cherzeca's post above anyone else think we may be assuming too much about what these docs contain? granted the govnt has acted as if it contains damning information but we dont know until we know

no redactions? would have liked to get some clues on what is in these docs

Berko admits on wealthtrack Fannie is a zero if he loses court cases, contradicting his previous statement that Fannie is not a binary outcome based solely on legal victory

hard to see brown going against Ps, and hard to see millett going FOR Ps. ginsburg, id lean FOR Ps, but its less clear

i take this back. berko seems to think theres something in the docs sweeney reviewed that clearly makes the case for the Ps. if so maybe govnt will give up the fight and settle

settlement is wishful thinking. these bureaucrats have no skin in the game, and have backed themselves into a corner with their dogmatic fannie must die rhetoric. yes, emails made public will be embarrassing, but does the public really care about 8 years ago? most ppl have no idea what fannie even does. the Ps have tried to rile the public to no avail. that said, we can still wish.

its only been 4 months. i think abnormal in this court is 8-12 months. thats the scenario hume was really talking about

doesnt mean anything, imo. f&f will change dramatically one way or another, which means gretchen will have something to write about. we need to stop giving unwarranted significance to nonevents, ie this and spec about possible settlement

cooker & kirk sent a letter to perry clerk saying pag case doesnt matter because its not a direct claim.. but the way i read the opinion is the judge did treat it as a direct claim and concluded that HERA transferred it away. Which is it?

that would be problematic for the takings case whats interesting is judge Cacheris seems to be saying those rights were indeed transferred: it seems the same reasoning can be applied to breach of k claims. hume had this to say about that in one of the briefs: so either the appeals judges order for a narrower interpretation of HERA that preserves contract rights, or it really comes down to a takings case in sweeney's court. hopefully the former because the latter would be years away. im not as optimistic as luke though

@cherzeca i hope thats right, but im reminded of this statement by lamberth: "It is a slippery slope for the Court to poke holes in, or limit, the plain language of a statute, especially when, as here, the plaintiffs have not asked the Court to weigh in on the statute’s constitutionality." @luke i was joking, but given how slowly things seem to be going in sweeney's court, i dont expect anything substantial to come out for quite some time

agreed, but the takings case is like 5 years away :(

the pag opinion discuss this direct vs derivative distinction on pg 17 and concludes on pg 19: pag fails as a direct claim because that right to inspect records was transferred away by HERA breach of k direct claims would suffer the same demise if similarly, the right to dividends was transferred away by HERA (despite lockharts statements on the contrary)

pag didnt seem to have a strong case to begin with: jacobs/hindes in contrast argues that the nws assumes powers that never existed under dcgl i worry though that breach of k claims will suffer the same demise, as "all rights" is interpreted to include stockholders' rights to dividends

carney speculates millett is writing opinion, since brown just wrote and ginsburg is senior. any thoughts on whether this matters?

i finally read this. we really could not ask for a better judge than brown.

im guessing longer, due to the complexity of the case

@luke i dont think price action pre-lamberth was purely coincidence theres an awful lot of berkowitz followers in fnma and i have to think him exiting commons had an influence on the stock falling

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2016/08/08/the-dc-circuit-should-invalidate-the-net-worth-sweep-of-fanniefreddie-assets/#28905e342c40

where does bruce report that change of holdings? it would be listed under "SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS" if it was still a part of his portfolio, as it was in previous years' reports

fairholme sold out of fannie and freddie commons and added a bit to preferreds http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2016SemiAnnual.pdf

watt's letter to community groups:

class p's brief will be out next wednesday

agree w/ merkhet. it doesnt matter what the rate is anyway