investorG

I wonder if this even gets argued. Granted the effects are huge money and wide ranging but in light of the comment period ending for the capital rule, a PSPA that can change with the stroke of a pen, why would the gov even want to argue this case? It seems a whole lot of time, money and risk gets taken off the table for all parties involved with a final PSPA amendment. Very tight tight time line here with capital rule comment period ending, election, arguments in SC and inauguration. Crazy 4th Q coming. If Trump wins, the case probably goes through verdict. If Trump loses, let's hope it doesn't even get argued.

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.

imo the APA claim is the appropriate way to address the NWS misdeed rather than the technicality constitutional angle. Should have been over 3 years ago with ginsburg's about face but it wasn't meant to be. in addition mnuchin still fighting the APA claim in court post-collins en banc -- esp in light of the CBO report suggesting a 4th amendment sr pref adjustment passes the test -- is an embarrassment on the trump administration and a good indirect reason why they are favored to lose the election.

The odds of Tsy sending $125bn cash to FnF are below low. Only potential way I see would be for an immediate buyer of their pref stake / warrants for a similar amount such that there was no net $$ sent. Why does a 4th amendment need a capital rule finalization? Hopefully I'm missing something.

This is a fair conclusion. I'd add in the risk involved as another factor making it so. The common is well below autumn 2016 prices. The jr pref has done a little better to date but the current valuation is laughing at the perma bulls on this site and other social media outlets. If I read it correctly, the CBO report suggested in a footnote that the sr pref is adjustable if it serves the purpose of advancing exit from conservatorship. Thus there has been no excuse not to settle Collins for the past 12 months with a 4th amendment post en banc and the Tsy report. The ink is not yet fully dry on this administration's team's efforts and this could all possibly change but at this point and these prices, fatpitch's conclusion is mostly accurate.

Less confident. Mnuchin has been fighting for the NWS for 3.5 years in court even after the Collins en banc and Calabria's $240bn capital rule is sabotage against the companies / American middle class.

Calabria-Mnuchin are racking up bonus points for housing anti-stimulus 3 months ahead of their boss's election. Instead they should have a meeting and sign a 4th amendment rather than weakly wait for potential action post November -- it's called 'lame' duck for a reason.

August is here. This is the month that a 4th amendment should happen. Biden - Warren will probably fire Calabria in January for cause. The Seila oral arguments reinforced that the parameters to justify his firing are vague. While Calabria may not be literally forced from the building until the courts rule, his powers would be greatly reduced during limbo. Mnuchin and Calabria should act bravely this month. A 4th amendment does not need the capital rule finalized, that is a separate track. A consent decree can happen in the lame duck if necessary. Good luck, everyone.

Yes. Unfortunately he's probably correct given the past patterns.

ACG (no) vs. Craig Phillips (yes) on capital rule comment period extension.

Another day just like the prior thousands -- plenty of people wanting to sell at distressed prices. The window for a 4th amendment is now potentially open through Labor Day. Waiting for a lame duck is weak. Paulson closed his hedge fund, there's no strong political reason to wait. The advisors have been on the field long enough to make it happen with a couple extra zoom conference calls. Mark Calabria's FHFA release, Sep 30 2019: "FHFA commits to working with Treasury in the coming months to amend the share agreements and further advance broad housing reform....Now is the time to act." I wish everyone good luck and a great weekend.

Thanks for sharing. I won't guess on the SC but if we get to a verdict, Mnuchin would have dropped the ball on perhaps his most important legacy item. Unless he wants to be remembered for sanctions and the PPP.

Thank you. It's not as clear to me that the few comments in Seila that relate to backward relief are as transferable to Collins as you claim but there's no point in arguing that. What if Calabria wants to settle but Tsy doesn't? After all it's their 190bn not FHFA's.

Possible but unlikely. The collins case appeared on the conference distribution list for a 3rd time today. I'll stick with a prediction of Yes on the ACA (split circuits and cleanest approach) and No on the constitutional (to avoid dangling calabria's status for a year plus). Good luck everyone. GVR on const; no action on APA. what you betting IG? Is this case even settle-able? I could see the APA side settling if they had denied on the constitutional side but now that they have granted on both does it have to go thru to verdict next june so that the SC can rule on if the head of the FHFA is fire-able at will? or could they settle the APA claim and still go thru with the constitutional side?

Possible but unlikely. The collins case appeared on the conference distribution list for a 3rd time today. I'll stick with a prediction of Yes on the ACA (split circuits and cleanest approach) and No on the constitutional (to avoid dangling calabria's status for a year plus). Good luck everyone.

Last year, the final opinion came on June 27. Then, on Friday June 28 there was a 'miscellaneous order' that had a ton of grants and declines -- what scotusblog has called a cleanup order list. After that, they went dormant for the summer break. So maybe we have to wait for the final opinion to come out and then look for a clean up order list. Or another day where there's a pre-announced order list incoming.

July 2 will be Cherzeca day on COBF if they pull a GVR on Collins constitutional with a focus on remedy while declining the APA. However we'll most likely receive an APA cert acceptance instead as an 8 year saga of injustice continues.

Ok fine but I disagree. A meaningful stretch to say there's a big difference between FHFA / CFPB to reverse any votes from the 5th circuit on constitutionality in light of the good but simple analysis Roberts wrote in his opinion. And regarding the Supreme Court's busyness, Collins is a major case. Squeeze out some others if they think FHFA is materially different than CFPB (which they likely won't). Especially bc they will probably take the APA case.

Thanks. While they can do what they want it makes little sense to GVR to re-address something both the SC (5-4) and 5th circuit (12-4) agree on - that the agency is unconstitutional. If they GVR, it's probably over remedy and likely quite bullish. However I expect them to take on the APA claim and decline the constitutional one. while I think fhfa=cfpb, that is something that scotus would want 5th C to confirm. in essence, 5th C ruled on removal issue before having scotus guidance. now that the scotus opinion has been written, you can have another go at it. fhfa has already announced that fhfa=/=cfpb, so it is a live issue, even though I think fhfa loses that argument. but yes, if GVR, then that might mean that scotus thinks 5th C should have another go at the remedy. no offense but that's a waste of time because the en banc already ruled 12-4 that it's the same situation as CFPB. There was nothing in the Seila ruling that I could tell that would suggest to 4 or 5 of the 5th circuit en banc judges who already ruled FHFA unconstitutional to change their mind and say wait a minute, FHFA is actually a lot different than CFPB and legit. If the SC wants to differentiate between FHFA and CFPB, then they can take the collins constitutional appeal themselves on Thursday. If they GVR it, should be for remedy. If they decline it, they agree with the 5th circuit conclusion on the (lack of) constitutionality and remedy.

Thanks. While they can do what they want it makes little sense to GVR to re-address something both the SC (5-4) and 5th circuit (12-4) agree on - that the agency is unconstitutional. If they GVR, it's probably over remedy and likely quite bullish. However I expect them to take on the APA claim and decline the constitutional one.

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. this is precisely why it is dangerous to listen to armchair lawyers. investorG: what does GVR mean? grant, VACATE and remand. so if scotus GVRs the Collins constitutional claim, the collins 5th C en banc ruling on the constitutional claim DOES NOT STAND. I mainly expect them to accept or decline the collins constitutional. probably decline. But I was throwing around the (gvr) token in case there are some nuances of the Seila decision that could possibly -- but not likely -- change the outcome of the collins constitutional. guess it will be known thursday.? I expect a GVR. scheduled to know Thursday If it's a GVR rather than a decline does that infer that the SC doesn't agree with the remedy in Collins constitutional of prospective relief only? If so, and you are right on GVR with a decline on APA cert then that could be quite good for the situation and shares. I don't expect this but if this is the correct read I'll certainly root for it.

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. this is precisely why it is dangerous to listen to armchair lawyers. investorG: what does GVR mean? grant, VACATE and remand. so if scotus GVRs the Collins constitutional claim, the collins 5th C en banc ruling on the constitutional claim DOES NOT STAND. I mainly expect them to accept or decline the collins constitutional. probably decline. But I was throwing around the (gvr) token in case there are some nuances of the Seila decision that could possibly -- but not likely -- change the outcome of the collins constitutional. guess it will be known thursday.?

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.

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.

I read it differently. There were 2 votes for immediate backward relief, thomas and gorsuch. the other 7 were in roberts' opinion to apply prospective relief and send the retroactive question back to the appeals courts. Likely you'll disagree, but the stocks do not.