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

[investorG]

it took 4 months for sweeney to issue her order on the 56 docs and its been 3 months since the writ. there seems to be a reasonable and growing chance that the government wins mandamus at least in part, just based on the delay.

 

disagree.  part of "delay" of course attributable to holiday season.  but as for predictive tells, the merits are far more important than any time issue.  as for timing, judges view their job as to get the process and result right, and timing for parties' sake is irrelevant.

 

as for the merits, remember that the standard of review on a mandamus writ is whether sweeney made a clear legal error.  this is hard for govt to show since the legal rule she was following was a balancing act, which she performed.  govt's interest in maintaining communication integrity vs Ps' need for evidence.  it would be very surprising for appellate court to say she made clear legal error in the way her balancing analysis came out.  this standard of review is not to perform a de novo second guessing review, but basically to see if she got the rule of law right, and the rule of law here is to perform a balancing act.  the appellate court would have to rule that the privilege claim supersedes Ps's need for evidence, and i just dont think that is the rule of law at issue here.

 

but i also felt strongly that lamberth should have ruled otherwise, so there.

 

there is a date set, per yesterday on gselinks.com, of a sammons request going to the court on mar10 --- does the ruling on the writ come after this mar 10 ruling or non-related? thank you.

[hardincap]

if the merits are as clear as you say, why shouldn't this be decided quickly? say we go another month or so without a decision, so now its taken as long to review the decision as to write it. to the legally untrained observer, this delay would seem to undermine your merits argument, and give credence to an alternative scenario: that somehow the government wins at least in part, or that there is outside interference (can an order be stalled if the Ds are negotiating a settlement?)

[Guest cherzeca]

if the merits are as clear as you say, why shouldn't this be decided quickly? say we go another month or so without a decision, so now its taken as long to review the decision as to write it. to the legally untrained observer, this delay would seem to undermine your merits argument, and give credence to an alternative scenario: that somehow the government wins at least in part, or that there is outside interference (can an order be stalled if the Ds are negotiating a settlement?)

 

who knows if the appellate judges have even gotten to this case yet?  they may have spent no time on it yet...

 

i am just saying that timing is not a meaningful tell.  i think it is more interesting that they didnt ask for oral argument which, given the clear error standard of review, leads me to think there is no big issue here.  contra, they did ask for copies of the 56 docs, which might indicate that they intend a more searching review than one might otherwise think.

 

if the appellate court reverses, this means they got into the details of the docs, and weighed the privilege claim with a very heavy thumb.  i just dont see this as a part of the mandamus standard of review, which normally affords the trial court judge a great deal of deference. 

 

also remember all of these docs will remain under seal.

 

edit:  "can an order be stalled if the Ds are negotiating a settlement?"  this is the type of communication that the public never hears about, but lawyers can always call into a judge's chambers

[hardincap]

thx cherzeca, helpful to get your thoughts as always. its rather disturbing how slow the courts can be. at least the stall and delay strategy has finally run out of road. good riddance

[Seahug]

Are all the junior prefs pari passu in terms of seniority?

 

Over past 2 weeks have swapped FNMAS for the cheaper FNMAH (actually series P, floating minimum coupon 4.5%) and got 18% more shares. Am also adding a bit more of the cheaper prefs. Overall wanted to increase by 20-30%.

 

Although the S will trade highest if there is coupon reinstatement (vs T also. I mentioned this here. In fact T which used to trade at a 10% premium to S, is now cheaper), I believe the most likely scenario is a conversion to equity. I don't believe the jprefs qualify as T1 capital under Basel III. So they would need to be redeemed anyway. In which case, cheaper is better and the pricing gaps between prefs should narrow? Hope this is right!

 

Still at about 8% of port even with the added capital.

[investorG]

for those of you trading, fnma common is at a 7-8pct discount to the liquid preferred (fnmas) on the informal 2:1 ratio. 

 

[Mephistopheles]

for those of you trading, fnma common is at a 7-8pct discount to the liquid preferred. 

 

 

Which liquid preferred?

[investorG]

for those of you trading, fnma common is at a 7-8pct discount to the liquid preferred. 

 

 

Which liquid preferred?

 

sorry man it was a confusing message, i have edited it above.

[Mephistopheles]

for those of you trading, fnma common is at a 7-8pct discount to the liquid preferred. 

 

 

Which liquid preferred?

 

sorry man it was a confusing message, i have edited it above.

 

No prob, thanks

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

Does anyone have comments on this line of thought:

 

"I think it’s possible that someone is trying to take the case en banc and it would be consistent with the extended period of consideration at issue. It is possible, however, that a judge who is not on the panel may be trying to take the case en banc. Panel opinions are circulated to the full court before they are published, so a non-panel judge may have received the opinion (including any dissent) and asked the Court for en banc consideration. Only active judges can vote on whether a case should go en banc, and a majority is needed."

 

"Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing whether any of this is happening. En banc consideration is rare, but this is the sort of case that would receive it, either on a motion by the losing party (the most common way en bancs are triggered) or by a judge."

[Guest cherzeca]

Does anyone have comments on this line of thought:

 

"I think it’s possible that someone is trying to take the case en banc and it would be consistent with the extended period of consideration at issue. It is possible, however, that a judge who is not on the panel may be trying to take the case en banc. Panel opinions are circulated to the full court before they are published, so a non-panel judge may have received the opinion (including any dissent) and asked the Court for en banc consideration. Only active judges can vote on whether a case should go en banc, and a majority is needed."

 

"Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing whether any of this is happening. En banc consideration is rare, but this is the sort of case that would receive it, either on a motion by the losing party (the most common way en bancs are triggered) or by a judge."

 

1. does this refer to fairholme writ mandamus case or perry appeal (or both)?

2.  you never know what judges do behind closed doors, but i have never seen an en banc decision when the oral argument was not held before the entire court.  (of course, there was no oral arg in fairholme)

 

edit: for example, the dc cir ct appeals case attacking the obama reg forcing states to close coal plants etc was argued before the full dc cir appeals ct, because the appeals ct thought it deserved a full en banc consideration on the first go round.  but i dont recall seeing an en banc opinion on a case argued to a 3 judge merits panel. usually en banc opinions are rendered upon a motion for reconsideration

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

My lawyer brought it up (he was a clerk on the 3rd C. Ct of Appeals some years ago). However, I don't want to ask him further questions about this.

 

Even if there is a delay related to en banc in the Perry case, I'm not worried about it. There are 7 Ds and 4 Rs that are active judges on the DC Circuit Ct. If they came out with a bad decision it would be catnip for The Donald and his crew in terms of overturning it administratively.

[Guest cherzeca]

My lawyer brought it up (he was a clerk on the 3rd C. Ct of Appeals some years ago). However, I don't want to ask him further questions about this.

 

Even if there is a delay related to en banc in the Perry case, I'm not worried about it. There are 7 Ds and 4 Rs that are active judges on the DC Circuit Ct. If they came out with a bad decision it would be catnip for The Donald and his crew in terms of overturning it administratively.

 

i just dont think you can have an en banc decision w/o a motion for reconsideration after a merits panel has issued opinion, or where ct decides in advance to hear case en banc in the first instance.  you should ask your guy if he thinks different, as i would be curious to know of examples

[investorG]

will the writ ruling likely come out at the daily 11:00am opinion releases window for the federal court or randomly during the day as many others have? thank you.

[Guest cherzeca]

@invG  random

 

@wayne  if you look at rule 35, it makes clear that while judges can decide to hear a case en banc (by majority), the case is heard en banc, not decided en banc.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/RulesDecember2016FRAPandDCCirFinalC.pdf

 

so no holdup for perry attributable to all of the judges considering the case en banc since it wasnt heard en banc

[Steve_Berk]

The way that it usually works is that the appeals court makes the decision and issues the opinion. They do not disseminate the opinion to the rest of the circuit before it's published. I do not think that the delay in issuing an opinion in perry has anything to do with this going en banc.

 

The standard process is for the three judges to send around drafts. The judges who are in agreement have the most work to do--they have to agree upon language in the opinion. If there is a dissenting judge, he/she can just write whatever without the approval of the others.

 

To those who think this has gone on for a long time, yes, it's been a while, but I don't think it's unprecedented.

 

If this thing is going en banc, then it IS possible that the dissenting judge is already lobbying the rest of the circuit and trying to prep them and rally them to have this heard by the entire circuit. If it's heard en banc then there is yet another round of briefing and even oral arguments in front of the entire circuit of judges.

 

My lawyer brought it up (he was a clerk on the 3rd C. Ct of Appeals some years ago). However, I don't want to ask him further questions about this.

 

Even if there is a delay related to en banc in the Perry case, I'm not worried about it. There are 7 Ds and 4 Rs that are active judges on the DC Circuit Ct. If they came out with a bad decision it would be catnip for The Donald and his crew in terms of overturning it administratively.

[Guest cherzeca]

The way that it usually works is that the appeals court makes the decision and issues the opinion. They do not disseminate the opinion to the rest of the circuit before it's published. I do not think that the delay in issuing an opinion in perry has anything to do with this going en banc.

 

The standard process is for the three judges to send around drafts. The judges who are in agreement have the most work to do--they have to agree upon language in the opinion. If there is a dissenting judge, he/she can just write whatever without the approval of the others.

 

To those who think this has gone on for a long time, yes, it's been a while, but I don't think it's unprecedented.

 

If this thing is going en banc, then it IS possible that the dissenting judge is already lobbying the rest of the circuit and trying to prep them and rally them to have this heard by the entire circuit. If it's heard en banc then there is yet another round of briefing and even oral arguments in front of the entire circuit of judges.

 

My lawyer brought it up (he was a clerk on the 3rd C. Ct of Appeals some years ago). However, I don't want to ask him further questions about this.

 

Even if there is a delay related to en banc in the Perry case, I'm not worried about it. There are 7 Ds and 4 Rs that are active judges on the DC Circuit Ct. If they came out with a bad decision it would be catnip for The Donald and his crew in terms of overturning it administratively.

 

thanks steve,

 

and agree with all but would provide this caveat.

 

whatever politicking may be going on, the full appeals court would only hear perry en banc after issuance of decision if there is a motion from a party, and if that party would be DOJ/fhfa, then one wonders post trump whether any such motion would be forthcoming.

[investorG]

@invG  random

 

 

thank you.

 

on a separate note, whatever odds a person gave for the warrants remaining intact a week ago, i would guess those odds should be lower now after watching the first week of the new administration.  the decisiveness and respect for law.

[Flynnstone5]

@steve_berk @cherzeca

 

I continue to think that Perry judges are waiting for writ decision and possible additional docs fwiw.

 

The question I have is do either of you find it pretty odd that there hasn't been a decision regarding writ? Also, until Sessions is confirmed, are basically the same Obama decision makers still in charge?

[Mephistopheles]

@invG  random

 

 

thank you.

 

on a separate note, whatever odds a person gave for the warrants remaining intact a week ago, i would guess those odds should be lower now after watching the first week of the new administration.  the decisiveness and respect for law.

 

Yea, if they wipe out the warrants that would be fantastic for the common.

 

On the other hand, an issue I've raised a few times: they wipe out the warrants, and wipe out all non-Paulson,Pershing,Perry,Fairholme shareholders, and give the winnings to them 4. Because as you said, no respect for the rule of law and Trump has no shame.

[doc75]

@invG  random

 

 

thank you.

 

on a separate note, whatever odds a person gave for the warrants remaining intact a week ago, i would guess those odds should be lower now after watching the first week of the new administration.  the decisiveness and respect for law.

 

Yea, if they wipe out the warrants that would be fantastic for the common.

 

On the other hand, an issue I've raised a few times: they wipe out the warrants, and wipe out all non-Paulson,Pershing,Perry,Fairholme shareholders, and give the winnings to them 4. Because as you said, no respect for the rule of law and Trump has no shame.

 

I may be wrong, but I thought invG was implying that Trump's actions show decisiveness and respect for the law (not the opposite).  I personally disagree strongly with Trump but I think the executive orders explicitly instruct the border authorities to follow the law as it is written (hence the displeasure with sanctuary cities etc.).

[no_free_lunch]

I would say that enforcing immigration laws is the definition of respecting the rule of law.

[Guest cherzeca]

@steve_berk @cherzeca

 

I continue to think that Perry judges are waiting for writ decision and possible additional docs fwiw.

 

The question I have is do either of you find it pretty odd that there hasn't been a decision regarding writ? Also, until Sessions is confirmed, are basically the same Obama decision makers still in charge?

 

i have no feel for how busy the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is.  if you look at their orders, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders , you will see that they have plenty of patent/trademark/copyright cases to decide.  it has been 3 months since DOJ lodged its notice of appeal, which isnt that long, even considering that the motion to obtain the mandamus writ is supposed to be fast tracked.  again, there was no oral argument requested, and "usually" that is not a good sign for the party that seeks to overturn the result below.

 

edit:  even before sessions is approved (likely next tuesday), DOJ has new assistants in place:  http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/d-day-at-doj-the-trump-administrations-beachhead-team-for-the-justice-department/

[SnarkyPuppy]

Did any news come out in the last 30 min?

[Guest cherzeca]

@pauly

 

i have never looked that closely at a kardashian butt, i do know that i am switching from tequila to gin. senor nieto wont deign to visit, but ms. may just did.