rros

I couldn't get where this was coming from (and I think neither did counsel), but my guess was that it was a cynical criticism of the D's position. may be wishful thinking I do not think you are thinking wishfully. It all sounded like being cynical. In the same context he added why Treasury would invest their money in something that was assessed worthless from the start. The "zero now" may be his own personal conclusion after deciding Treasury engaged in mass robbery. Can't add anything, Chris. I agree with everyone. Tough not to hold a bit of hope. Judges in Saxton sounded like they did their homework (I want to listen to it again haha). Anybody remembers Iowa? the judge asking what was Fannie Mae about (or something like that)? Like others, I am hoping the well-reasoned dissent by J. Willet adds some wind from the back.

Did you mean John Paulson above or Henry Paulson? Aha! I see you are not a long timer.

I just heard the Saxton oral argument from May for the 1st time. I kind of gave up on litigations but Willet's dissent was a bit of fresh air and thanks to Merkhet I found Saxton. Judge Kelley really sounded like painfully aware of the dilemma looking for some way out of the inevitable. Hopefully, Willet's dissent gives the three judges some food for thought and feel encouraged to take a stand. I am glad I listened to Saxton's. In case someone missed it http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2018/5/171727.MP3 But then, we have been disappointed before.

When Ted Olson argued the Perry case Judge Brown also had the same doubts as Judge Kelly and questioned Olson along those same lines... "what if it was just a bad economic decision (to adopt the nws)? Then, she wrote the dissent. I believe Olson's response at the time was that parties were "sophisticated investors" (as in no room for errors or incompetence). Not sure how this was handled in Saxton.

I read Judge Willet's dissent more carefully this time. Although it is refreshing to read from a judge -even as dissenting in a ruling- the same interpretation of HERA most of us reached back 8 to 10 years ago, we should not forget government succeeded in convincing courts that the FHFA can move seamlessly from Conservator to Receiver, as a chameleon. I was particularly impressed at how the Judge approached the incidental powers matter as a way to debunk this belief. Yet, I am not sure if the strength of his arguments can prevent further blurring and confusion by the government. Both Krimminger and Calabria, writers/ contributors to HERA/FIRREA, already added this same interpretation to some of the litigations to no avail. If the authors of the law could not convince judges, who will? Will judges be more open to listen to this truth from a peer? On this note, how many here believe Paulson's machiavelic true plan was temporary support (Willet's reference to optimistic start of the Conservatorship) to later dissolving the entities (carried on by Geithner via the nws strategy, Willet's reference to the darker turn of events)? Was Paulson referring exactly to this situation in today's bloomberg article?

Maybe that's the answer. Judges aren't accountants (or finance people). So perhaps they really, really don't get it. On Judge Willet's own words: "Admittedly, judges are not experts at Byzantine financial dealings or long-term market strategy".

I am sorry, Emily. But I am having a hard time connecting the dots... who do you think wants to keep the nws, Treasury or Watt? And who would like to see it gone among both? And how does this ruling affect that?

Thank you, Chris. Just conjecture... it is apparent no judge wants to rule in a way that will lead to a windfall for us. Even if one judge does, it becomes background noise to mute the effect. This could become the greatest hurdle.

Could someone (Chris) explain this line in the opinion "We are satisfied that the Shareholders’ injury is fairly traceable to the FHFA’s unconstitutional structure" or "the Shareholders’ injury stems from the continued harm caused by the FHFA’s ongoing conservatorship without executive oversight" and then ruling "We leave intact the remainder of HERA and the FHFA’s past actions— including the Third Amendment. In striking the offending provision from HERA, the FHFA survives as a properly supervised executive agency". What happened to our injury?

Commitment fee is for the unused part of the credit line. A paid-for guarantee fee, if narrow, would be for specific mbs guaranteeing interest payments on loans. They are different and they can co-exist.

Isn't it fabulous to have members knowledgeable in one specific field? Thank you!

But SCOTUS already said they would not hear our case, no?

Vilifying bad boys hedgies by a judge doesn't get the response it used to. What the world has become!

Bartiromo: "There's been a conversation on Twitter and has been for a long time that President Obama needed money for Obamacare and he would take from all the agencies and he took from Fannie and Freddie. Is that true?" Mnuchin: "It's true. They used the profits of Fannie and Freddie to pay for other parts of the government while they kept taxpayers at risk." The suspension doesn't appear to involve subsidies. It looks like it's a redistribution program between insurers that has been stopped.

There are risks with Conservatorships. Risks brought up by Watt and Mayopoulos in a few occasions. Because of no capital, both companies operate on a short leash being overly conservative on how they deploy credit. Why take even low risks extending credit with no money of your own to support that? This greatly affects the real estate market. Yes, all is well in the land of the rich but here, in South FL, banks are requesting 20% down and things aren't moving. At some point, hopefully we are still on this planet, Treasury's self-interest may collide with economic reality.

I agree with most longs here that the risk that the GSE are dismantled is very low. The reason, imo is that the GSE’s have been providing liquidity to the mortgage market for a long time, the system work and messing it up and hurting the housing market is not worth taking. I believe the risk for investors is that the politicians are incentivized to keep thing exactly how they are right now. The NWS is very profitable for the government, so I would not expect it to give it up without an adverse ruling that absolutely forces them to do so. I am starting to agree. Which is linked to how this investment could become worthless in terms of time value of money. The NWS has proven to be Administration-agnostic. Both Republicans and Democrats will tend to keep it once in office.

Your statement "Ok we are sitting in a pretty position then". Here is one way you can get closer to zero while everything else remains the same. If you buy at current prices and prices stay put for 30+ years, given inflation (specially if high inflation becomes the norm) and cost of opportunity, your purchasing power when you sell will be half of today's or worse. Time value of money. I am 8 into that count and by the time warrants expire -2025?- I will have to add another 7, provided that's the master plan by any Administration. It's been 10 since the Conservatorships were instituted. And Mnuchin seems to have a hard time keeping promises.

In my view, and court rulings aside, there is only one bet for us to win or lose: Mnuchin deciding to railroad everyone on the upside just like Hank Paulson did on the downside. Recap will breed air into equity no matter what and it will not interfere with reforms of any kind this year, next or whenever. Including taking us out. Except this will become costly. There is a long list of laws, regulations, rules, rulings that will support such decision and very few that will prevent it. It's only the political decision that hasn't been taken yet. And it is a downer Treasury did not come out forcefully supporting Mulvaney in this particular issue. That was a perfect opportunity. Hank Paulson could easily persuade G. Bush. And his decisions were made in the midst of a crisis. Mnuchin may have more roadblocks with his boss and circumstances may not be as favorable.

I don't mean to sound snarky, but it took me 2 minutes to find this. The investment thesis might be sound but perhaps the confirmation bias has lead you to believe the right thing to do is what makes you money? https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/1405 I don't think you sound snarky, more like a troll. Nothing in that article supports your contentions. And yes, you are going to need more than 2 minutes of research. And most likely, develop your own analysis while stop reading other people's opinions. May lead to better judgment.

Courts never rejected the argument. They stopped right before saying the action cannot be reviewed. If it is ever reviewed, it does not stand a chance. I am sorry, I was never aware government could change the agreement. Please post the entire clause that specifically says so because in 10 years I could not find it. In fact, they used a subterfuge to specifically avoid changing the agreement because they knew they wouldn't be able to defend that action. That subterfuge was making a fixed dividend into a flexible one, wiping out equity. So far, the government has succeeded in having that change stick.

I don't buy it. Both companies went into conservatership and the government spent 238 billion dollars backstopping both businesses. This doesn't include the more than 100 billion dollars that were spent buying debt and their mortgages. At the peak their combimed market cap came out to somewhere around 170 to 200 billion dollars and combined they were no where near that value during the recession. At the time, the New York Times said this bailout "could turn out to be the biggest and costiest bailout of private companies ever." Sure the government made out like bandits after the fact but thats like punishing WEB for quadrupling his money bailing out BAC. The reason the government didn't take a 100% share is not because they couldn't people would have sold their shares for pennies on the dollar, but because it reeks of socialism when government nationalizes a business and thats not politically feasible. Thus I think it was well understood that the government owned the thing. Maybe they shouldn't have rewritten the contract, I dont know about the thesis on the thing, but I think everyone was aware that this was basically a nationalization in everything but name. Your opinion or Allnatural's about the merit of the bailout -whether justified or not- are really irrelevant including anyone's opinion on whether shareholders should have been part of the recovery or not, never deserving a penny back. I think the central issue Allnatural is trying to raise is that the success of the bailout was based upon agreements. Since you like to base your arguments on law, rules and regulations or basic agreements (bankruptcy code), his/her central point -and the shareholders' fight in courts- is that those original agreements that were conducive to a successful outcome were not followed 100%. There is this one little wrinkle, the nws, that was not part of the original agreements that led a multitude of investors/shareholders buy equity in the companies. This minuscule change came about 4 years after the bailout when both companies were already posting profits making everyone who invested between 2008 and 2012 based upon the original agreements that sustained the companies as privately owned with residual equity to be had, a bagholder. It is really too bad that people like you are not happy that the original agreements and their authors could not foresee a happy outcome for shareholders (but many here did see it). We were on the road to become whole, all based upon government agreements when this little tweak attempted -successfully to this date- to rob the upside from us.

Yes, thank you. I removed my post.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/senators-gardner-and-warren-release-bipartisan-marijuana-bill.html How is it possible that marijuana gets so much love from politicians so fast, left and right -literally- and we, shareholders, continue to remain as invisible to the world as air? Seriously. Not one Senator is joining our fight. I know, the mj thing came about because of heavy grass roots push (which means being on the right side and acquiring those votes). Our community is small and weak, has no voice or is so tepid that's not worth listening to. We really are nobody's in the courts, in Congress, among people. Chuck Shumer, Warren, etc. These bills are picking up sponsors faster than how my first ex-wife would roll her joints.

Looks like you linked to the video that came after... here is your link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-28/trump-s-fannie-freddie-plan-needs-clarity-key-republican-says Doh! Thanks. Fixed the original. Thank you.

Thank you, Luke and Chris. I never paid too much attention to this lawsuit so thank you for helping me understand it better. Looks like there may be some meat. I still find it unimaginable that -after this long and after so many setbacks- someone will have the guts to nullify the nws (as a remedy). In the best Pavlov conditioning fashion, I am bracing for yet another disappointment.