valuecfa

Last time the government tried to argue something similar Judge Sweeney said - With respect to defendant’s claim that the court lacks the authority to affect the exercise of the FHFA’s powers or functions, the court agrees with the case law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which states that the “FHFA cannot evade judicial review . . . simply by invoking its authority as conservator.” County of Sonoma v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 710 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2013); Leon County v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 700 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012) (“The FHFA cannot evade judicial scrutiny by merely labeling its actions with a conservator stamp.”). Thus, rather than turning a blind eye to a case and immediately dismissing it from its docket merely because the case concerns the FHFA, the proper approach is for a court to examine the factual underpinnings and legal contentions presented by the complaint, in order to determine whether the exercise of its jurisdiction is proper. County of Sonoma, 710 F.3d at 994 (“Analysis of any challenged action is necessary to determine whether the action falls within the broad, but not infinite, conservator authority.”). Indeed, “Congress did not intend that the nature of the FHFA’s actions would be determined based upon the FHFA’s self-declarations . . . .” Leon County, 700 F.3d at 1278. For purposes of the instant motion, there is no request by plaintiffs that would potentially restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the FHFA as conservator. Consequently, blanket assertions concerning the court’s ability to conduct these proceedings, especially as they pertain to a discovery matter related to the question of jurisdiction, hold no merit. In other words, I believe Judge Sweeney will take this all the way to trial, and see what discovery brings up.

There are different arguments in the Federal claims case, and of course there will be an appeal of the district court case. But, yes i'm sure the gov will reference certain particulars in the district court decision to Judge Sweeney.

Yup. The district court case (the injunction) was dismissed. We still have the federal claims court case that is well into discovery. A blow nonetheless. Would have been nice to wrap this one up more quickly if injunction was in our favor.

Berkowitz interview on Wealthtrack : Not much new, but worth a half hour of your time. http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/berkowitz-powerful-financials/

Swapped out some prefs for common today. Large decline is common's price is make it attractive again.

I sure hope so! I miss the days of an affordable extended European vacation.

Well you would think that the taxpayer and politicians would be in favor of a > $100 billion dollar windfall to the American taxpayer. It's amazing to me that it is a hard sell. It also seems like a given for the need for fees to change, but that is not a necessity.

Thesis summary Buy FNMA common at $4.00 because: 1. Regan-appointed Judge Lamberth will invalidate the 3rd amendment (3A) via summary judgement in the Perry case soon after his current Blackwater murder trial goes to jury. 2. He will rule based on facts that are not in dispute (which will expedite the time frame and offer investors a quick catalyst). 3. The 3A will be vacated based on either (a) a finding that Treasury violated HERA by invoking the 3A and creating a new security beyond the 2009 time limit. (Note: Even Treasury's own enforcement of tax law deems the 3A a new security), or (b) a finding that the 3A was arbitrary and capricious due to the fact, admitted to by FHFA, that FHFA failed to comply with the APA requirement that they compile an administrative record at the time of the 3A. (Note: FHFA did compile an administrative record at the time of the 1A and 2A.) 4. Vacation of the 3A will put $80bln of excess dividends (above and beyond the 10% as required pre-3A) into question. 5. Perry will pursue the obvious remedy and successfully have the $80bln used to reduced the $117bln Treasury senior preferred currently outstanding. 6. The incremental gain of $80bln will be reduced by $12bln (goes to private preferred to bring them to par) and then diluted by 4:1 (80% of common shares goes to Treasury via warrants) leaving $68/ (1.15*5) about $12/share value for the non-US Govt common shareholders, or a 200% gain. My only dispute with the thesis is that one could buy the private preferred's today and get a return of over 150% and avoid the risk of steps 4 & 5 entirely. In my opinion, the common thesis of 7x - 10x return rests in the fact that the government is doing the taxpayer an incredible disservice by not exercising its warrants and unlocking that value to the American taxpayer. Any future reform can include the existing common as it stands as opposed to wiping it out and starting over, effectively costing the taxpayer over $150 billion. I think logical heads in the Treasury/FHFA/government will eventually prevail and realize the value the taxpayer would sacrifice.

Common Shareholders of Fannie and Freddie, Including Pershing Square and Three Individuals, File Suit against United States Government http://finance.yahoo.com/news/common-shareholders-fannie-freddie-including-003900827.html Is Ichan really going to let Ackman fight this battle for him?, lol

Appreciate the heads up.

Not yet.

How large is uncomfortably large? (If you're okay with sharing that.) Large enough to not want to share :)

I now have a slightly uncomfortably large position in the common. On another note, it's nice to see some statements from the judge that the court will not be mulled over by the government for the sake of being the government.

Happy Birthday!

FDA Advisory Committee Recommends Approval of AFREZZA http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-advisory-committee-recommends-approval-214704328.html Voting was overwhelmingly in favor