james22

Gorsuch: Today, the Court sounds the call to arms and declares a constitutional violation only to head for the hills as soon as it’s faced with a request for meaningful relief. But as we have seen, the Court has in the past consistently vindicated Article II both in reasoning and in remedy. These cases—involving appointment and removal defects alike—remain good law. So what are lower courts faced with future removal defect cases to make of all this? The only lesson I can divine is that the Court’s opinion today is a product of its unique context—a retreat prompted by the prospect that affording a more traditional remedy here could mean unwinding or disgorging hundreds of millions of dollars that have already changed hands. The Court may blanch at authorizing such relief today, but nothing it says undoes our prior guidance authorizing more meaningful relief in other situations. For my part, rather than carve out some suit-specific, removal-only, money-in-the-bank exception to our normal rules for Article II violations, I would take a simpler and more familiar path. Whether unconstitutionally installed or improperly unsupervised, officials cannot wield executive power except as Article II provides. Attempts to do so are void; speculation about alternate universes is neither necessary nor appropriate. In the world we inhabit, where individuals are burdened by unconstitutional executive action, they are “entitled to relief.”

Rule of Law Guy Quick Reaction: I was shocked that SCOTUS did not permit the APA statutory claim to go forward. The constitutional claim portion of the case was presaged by oral argument questioning, so while I do not agree with that outcome either, I cant say that I was totally surprised. On a day on which SCOTUS states that a farmer can exclude from his private property union organizers, SCOTUS also decides that the conservator has the statutory authority to appropriate over $100 billion of shareholder property. Going forward on remand, Collins Ps should argue that all senior preferred distributions from the time Director Watt came on board are subject to invalidation. There is some question whether Ps can only argue that the excess of distributions over the 10% dividend amount should be voided…but I would argue that the POTUS unremovable Director Watt did not have the authority to make any and all distributions on the senior preferred. This remanded portion of the case goes to the Houston federal district court, and however that court decides, it will be appealed to the 5th Circuit, which is already on record as believing that SCOTUS is wrong as to the merits of the APA claim. So while SCOTUS’s decision prevails for pre-2014 distributions, one might think that the 5th Circuit will be solicitous of the Collins Ps argument with regard to the post 2014 distributions. The Lamberth trial goes forward, with Ps arguing that the NWS breached the implied duty of FHFA/Treasury to deal in good faith which was owed to public shareholders. Judge Lamberth has already essentially stated that there was no APA claim, so having SCOTUS agree with him doesnt affect the case moving forward as is. To my mind, Ps should argue that there are exactly zero instances in the history of shareholder capitalism where the terms similar to the NWS have been implemented and upheld…so how could public shareholders have expected the NWS as a possible outcome…and if this is right (and it is), how can the public shareholders have expected that the NWS would comply with this fair dealing duty (understanding that expectations as to what is fair are based in major part on what history and custom informs one to expect). The court of federal claims case survives with added urgency. If congress is permitted to authorize the conservator to appropriate shareholder wealth, then shareholders should receive the fair value of their expropriated wealth as damages. A major issue in this case is whether this claim “runs with the shares”, or whether only 2012 shareholder can assert this claim. TINA (There Is No Alternative to the GSEs) still exists but the public shareholders ownership claims to the GSEs in the future have taken a hit. Dont ask me how the Biden administration can expect to recapitalize the GSEs given this outcome…and therefore one might expect that the GSEs will simply limp along in conservatorship for the next three years, building capital albeit with the Treasury having the right to all of that capital as its senior preferred stock preference increases.

And others are seeing their rights expanded. Maybe I can recoup my losses by looting? Or shoplifting?

Neither Gaby or AGC Analytics have tweeted yet. Sure they're in shock.

LOL

Annual oil extraction CapEx is ~$600 million short. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/20/the-looming-oil-shock/

[Tepper] said that the day Exxon added activist investors to its board was the day to buy oil stocks. He said the addition signaled that drilling "will eventually decrease over time" and supply will follow. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/david-tepper-says-oil-stocks-are-cheapest-equities-every-measure

Yeah, Vanguard has poor timing. They've done this before with VGPMX, selling at the bottom and missing the rally. So much for Bogle's advice to "stay the course." But the Utility component is party what makes VGELX interesting to me. That much more diverse. Vanguard's Energy Index ETF/Fund would probably make for a better Energy bet. But active management might better take advantage of the ESG issue?

ESG investing has had a profound effect on the financial activities of energy companies. By driving down equity prices and raising bond yields, ESG investors have sharply raised the cost of capital for these firms, making it difficult for them to operate. The good news? This is being done by the private sector and is a reflection of market discipline, rather than by some top-down ukase by the federal government, although that may be coming soon. The energy companies that survive will be well-positioned to take advantage of a bull market. Add inflation to that bull market, and energy will be just one of the big beneficiaries. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/the-10th-man/antisocial I've been out for some time, but just got back in (VGELX).

But there might be a brief window to buy or sell immediately after the decision.

Opinions on Mon and Thurs next week.

Same here. Initially 10% back in early 2019, half that now. Think of doubling bet again as we seem so close, but my faith in the Rule of Law has been sorely tested of late.

Elusive.

Looks like we might get a SCOTUS ruling 10am ET tomorrow. *fingers crossed*

Berkowitz went into these lawsuits hearing that it was going to be a brutal fight but even he underestimated how bad it would be: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4417293-tim-pagliara-stands-tall-gse-shareholder-golden-era Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Rule of Law...

PLTR

Still struggling with these: Perhaps a couple broader lessons I've learned: first, to try to do a better job of overcoming my natural aversion to ideas that are popular. One of the mental blocks for me was - "if everyone loves this so much, how can it still be a great value?" Going forward, I'm trying to do a better job of focusing more on an idea's merits and tuning out who likes or doesn't like it. Second, and similarly, I've realized that it's internally inconsistent to A) believe that I have no edge in interpreting near-term price action, and B) prefer buying securities that have fallen over the near to medium-term past than securities that have skyrocketed. As with the previous item, I'm now trying to focus more on the "signal" - i.e. the idea's fundamental merits - and less on the "noise" - i.e. whether it's recently up, down, or sideways. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4229722-small-cap-bear-next To evolve as an investor, I’m eventually going to have to be honest with myself: I got something wrong here. http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2017/09/pmbtdo/

Q. "What's your exit strategy?" A. "What's an exit strategy?"

To find what? Rocket ship emoji’s? Bloomberg terminals have a built in chat function, why is that? I think he's talking about Discording banning WSB. Yeah. "...hate speech, glorifying violence, and spreading misinformation." LOL

I'd like to see the SEC investigate Discord.

WSB ETF!

thanks for posting... excellent Yes, very encouraging. 32:10 "They've [the Government] been unburdened of taking on the tough political challenge of saying this money's been paid back, because the Court's going to do it for them. And they know they're going to lose."

Comment from a PLTR thread today: Settle down boomers and back away. The tards are in control now. Profits, long term outlook? Meaningless. Does the CEO look weird? Does the ticker name have a cool abbreviation? Do we think the share value is close enough to $69 that we can pump it there? The dumber you are, the dipshittier your thinking, the more you can make. Put yourself in the shoes of a man who huffs canned air and passes out in the Walmart parking lot and channel his semiconscious brainwaves into insane yolo's. If your wife and kids aren't berating you every day for putting every last cent on the line, you're not going dumb enough. Haha.

I don't know how big this bubble can become or when it will pop, but if the market goes up 85% this year, I'm going to cash.

Glen is always optimistic, but this seems a good take: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4399735-gses-net-worth-keep-agreement-means-major-equity-offerings