FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[merkhet]

Again, I agree with all those things, but the court might not.

[doughishere]

Buddy Sent this to me......the gem is on page 6

 

In 2008, during the financial crisis, the federal government placed the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) under conservatorship and entered into preferred stock purchase agreements with these government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) to help ensure their financial stability. The agreements with the GSEs could affect the federal government’s financial position. As of September 30, 2015, the federal government continued to report about $106 billion of investments in the GSEs, which is net of about $88 billion in valuation losses. Cash dividends paid by the GSEs to Treasury under the agreements totaled $20.4 billion and $72.5 billion during fiscal years 2015 and 2014, respectively. Although Treasury does not believe that any further draws by the GSEs are probable, the reported maximum remaining contractual commitment to the GSEs, if needed, is $258.1 billion. Importantly, the ultimate role of the GSEs in the mortgage market could affect the financial condition of the Federal Housing Administration, which in the past expanded its lending role in distressed housing and mortgage markets.

 

 

Note 8 is pretty good.

 

Contingent Liability to GSEs As part of the annual process undertaken by Treasury, a series of long-term financial forecasts are prepared to assess as of  September  30,  the  likelihood  and  magnitude  of  future  draws  to  be  required  by  the  GSEs  under  the  SPSPAs  within  the  forecast time horizon. Treasury used 25-year financial forecasts prepared through 2040 and 2039 in assessing if a contingent liability was required as of September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. If future payments under the SPSPAs are deemed to be probable within the forecast time horizon, Treasury will estimate and accrue a contingent liability to the GSEs to reflect the  forecasted  equity  deficits  of  the  GSEs.  This  accrued  contingent  liability  will  be  undiscounted  and  will  not  take  into  account any of the offsetting dividends that could be received, as the dividends, if any, would be owed directly to the GeneralFund. Such recorded accruals will be adjusted in subsequent years as new information develops or circumstances change. Based  on  the  annual  assessment,  Treasury  estimated  no  probable  future  funding  draws  as  of  September  30,  2015  and  2014, and thereby accrued no contingent liability. As of September 30, 2015 and 2014, the maximum remaining contractual commitment to the GSEs for the remaining life of the SPSPAs was $258.1 billion. Refer to Note 20-Commitments for a full description of other commitments and risks.

 

 

Financial Audit: U.S. Government’s Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 Consolidated Financial Statements - 2/25/15

 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675425.pdf

[merkhet]

Plaintiffs' Reply for Ceritifcation

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0034.pdf

[Guest cherzeca]

Plaintiffs' Reply for Ceritifcation

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0034.pdf

 

@merkhet

 

very interesting that hindes/jacobs refer to anti-injunction provision not as a "jurisdiction-withdrawing" provision, which govt always has said, and which lamberth followed, but simply a remedy withdrawing provision, and as such, not a bar to proceding to the merits.

 

perry has never put it that way. now, the distinction in hindes/jacobs is that they want the certification to proceed, and there is no reason not to if the court has jurisdiction.  in effect, we can quible about the scope of remedies later.

 

very insightful.

[Guest cherzeca]

Plaintiffs' Reply for Ceritifcation

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0034.pdf

 

@merkhet

 

very interesting that hindes/jacobs refer to anti-injunction provision not as a "jurisdiction-withdrawing" provision, which govt always has said, and which lamberth followed, but simply a remedy withdrawing provision, and as such, not a bar to proceding to the merits.

 

perry has never put it that way. now, the distinction in hindes/jacobs is that they want the certification to proceed, and there is no reason not to if the court has jurisdiction.  in effect, we can quible about the scope or remedies later.

 

very insightful.

 

second point

 

when you charactrize the anti-injunction provision as a remedy-withdrawing provision, rather than what the govt refers to as a jurisdiction-withdrawing provision, this would mean, i take it, that insofar as fhfa has denied in federal court of claims that it is the US, that even if the anti-injunction bar prevents the federal district court from ordering an injunction remedy (and this would be an erroneous ruling in my view), the court could still award damages for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.

[merkhet]

Yea, it was a rather clever response. We will see if the court sides with Steele. It's a waiting game now.

[doughishere]

Explain it like I'm 5?

[Guest cherzeca]

@little dough

 

if court has no jurisdiction because of HERA anti-injunction bar, then there should be no certification of a question of state law. if the court has jurisdiction but just cant issue an injunction, then court can proceed to merits and certify, leaving to a later date the question of what remedies are available under HERA

[doughishere]

whats the difference between "remedy withdrawing and "jurisdiction withdrawing?

 

Like if I had to do a "remedy-withdrawing" is...this..what would I say this is?

 

I think I get the jusrisdiction part. Remedy withdraw is just new.

 

What's certification in this context? Like my passport is a certified legit us passport?

 

[merkhet]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

[muscleman]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

[merkhet]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

 

It means they want to file a brief so that they don't have to file an administrative record.

[muscleman]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

 

It means they want to file a brief so that they don't have to file an administrative record.

 

Aha! So this probably implies that they don't have an admin record at all? If they have, then what's the point of holding back? Or maybe someone producing the admin record at that time was afraid of getting trouble, so he said something not good for the defendants in the record?

 

[Guest cherzeca]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

 

It means they want to file a brief so that they don't have to file an administrative record.

 

curiouser and curiouser.  judge reade is one inscrutable judge. 

[Guest cherzeca]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

 

It means they want to file a brief so that they don't have to file an administrative record.

 

Aha! So this probably implies that they don't have an admin record at all? If they have, then what's the point of holding back? Or maybe someone producing the admin record at that time was afraid of getting trouble, so he said something not good for the defendants in the record?

 

@mm

 

based upon judge reade's holdings in the case, one would think fhfa would be off hook to produce admin record until fhfa's motion to dismiss was denied.  when she denied it as moot, one thought she had denied it on the merits and the fhfa was required to file the admin record.  then clerk put fhfa on schedule for refiling its motion to dismiss, based upon plaintiffs' amended complaint. this would lead one to think that the schedule to file the admin record was also delayed, but this motio appears to indicate that court wants fhfa to file the admin record notwithstanding.

 

fhfa is on record in Perry as saying that it didnt compile an admin record, which has to be put together contemporaneous with agency action...nothing fhfa cobbles together for litigation suffices...although lamberth in perry let fhfa off hook by saying that no admin rec was necessary where court doesnt have jurisdiction...although in hindes/jacobs the plaintiffs point out that the anti-injunction provision is not a jurisdiction withdrawing provision.

 

so this is beginning to look like an advanced civil procedure class

[merkhet]

It's interesting, but I'm still a little skeptical.

 

On the one hand, it seems like the motion to stay the deadline for the administrative record should be granted because the reason for the original stay was that you might as well deal with the motion to dismiss before you deal with the administrative record. No reason to get to administrative record if the whole thing is going to be dismissed anyway. i.e. the original reasoning for staying the production of an administrative record should still be intact

 

On the other hand, if that were the case, why wouldn't the court have just reinstituted its stay on its own accord? Why would the Defendants have to make a motion for it?

 

I'm dying to know what was in Judge Reade's Sealed Order (Dkt. #60).

[hardincap]

it also weird that plaintiffs consented to the motion to stay the deadline.. why would they do that?

[merkhet]

it also weird that plaintiffs consented to the motion to stay the deadline.. why would they do that?

 

They consented to the motion for leave to file the motion to stay the deadline under seal. That's not the same as consenting to the motion to stay the deadline.

[Guest cherzeca]

It's interesting, but I'm still a little skeptical.

 

On the one hand, it seems like the motion to stay the deadline for the administrative record should be granted because the reason for the original stay was that you might as well deal with the motion to dismiss before you deal with the administrative record. No reason to get to administrative record if the whole thing is going to be dismissed anyway. i.e. the original reasoning for staying the production of an administrative record should still be intact

 

On the other hand, if that were the case, why wouldn't the court have just reinstituted its stay on its own accord? Why would the Defendants have to make a motion for it?

 

I'm dying to know what was in Judge Reade's Sealed Order (Dkt. #60).

 

there are two possible explanations: first, the clerk and judge dont talk to each other, so that when judge "denies" motion and doesnt explicitly stay order to produce admin record, clerk just does the literal minimum and doesnt ask next question, and judge is too busy to see whether her court is being run sensibly; or second, judge has decided to move things along and wants everything produced for some reason

[muscleman]

Color me confused.

 

I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record?

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

 

"move for leave to file under seal Defendants’ forthcoming Brief in Support of the Motion to Reinstate a Stay of the Deadline to File an Administrative Record"

 

Could you tell me what this language means? Does it mean the defendants acknowledged that they indeed should file the administrative record, and they will comply with the deadline?

If this is the case, then why did they previously argue that they don't need to do so, but suddenly changed their mind?

 

It means they want to file a brief so that they don't have to file an administrative record.

 

Why would plaintiffs agree with this? Putting a gun to their head to force producing an admin record would be really good for the plaintiffs. Most likely there is no admin record.  ::)

[merkhet]

They didn't agree to allowing for the stay. Look a few posts up. They consented to letting the Defendants take leave to file the motion. They didn't consent to the motion to stay itself. They're different.

[Guest cherzeca]

They didn't agree to allowing for the stay. Look a few posts up. They consented to letting the Defendants take leave to file the motion. They didn't consent to the motion to stay itself. They're different.

 

plaintiffs will contest fhfa's motion to not prodcue admin record; they will not contest fhfa's making their motion under seal

[Guest cherzeca]

meanwhile, fnma's share price up some 20% over last few trading days.  some institutions that got out at end of 2015 may be getting back in? 

[doughishere]

meanwhile, fnma's share price up some 20% over last few trading days.  some institutions that got out at end of 2015 may be getting back in?

 

I wouldent read too hard into that.

[Guest cherzeca]

meanwhile, fnma's share price up some 20% over last few trading days.  some institutions that got out at end of 2015 may be getting back in?

 

I wouldent read too hard into that.

 

the intrinsic value (for lack of a better term) of the GSEs is their litigation value.  pure and simple. 

 

however trading values have a signaling value, and what it is signaling to me is that 30% upside change in trading value means some sort of wind shift in sentiment.  now sentiment means nothing in the face of an adverse litigation result, but i sense that there is some accumulation going on, and nobody is accumulating these stocks without some deep thinking