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

[allnatural]

rolg, if they find that CID was ratified, doesnt that mean that the CID action survives? if not why even bother remanding it and just say the CID action is void. the way i read the backwards looking remedy portion is that this all comes down to whether the challenged action (NWS in our case) was ratified or not by the new director. if it wasnt, it gets voided. did calabria ever ratify the NWS, not one sweep was made under his watch.

[Luke 532]

Collins distributed for conference on 7/1. $FNMA $FMCC

[Midas79]

I'm starting to wonder if SCOTUS might issue a final ruling on the NWS after all (over the APA claims, not constitutionality) because there has already been a circuit split on that issue.

 

Perhaps they might wait until Atlas actually strikes down the NWS due to it violating the APA, but she would be doing so at the Fifth Circuit's direction. Would SCOTUS have to wait for what basically amounts to a couple of rubber-stamp rulings (Atlas striking down the NWS because the Fifth Circuit said so and the Fifth Circuit upholding it because they have already ruled on it)? Can they?

[investorG]

I'm starting to wonder if SCOTUS might issue a final ruling on the NWS after all (over the APA claims, not constitutionality) because there has already been a circuit split on that issue.

 

Perhaps they might wait until Atlas actually strikes down the NWS due to it violating the APA, but she would be doing so at the Fifth Circuit's direction. Would SCOTUS have to wait for what basically amounts to a couple of rubber-stamp rulings (Atlas striking down the NWS because the Fifth Circuit said so and the Fifth Circuit upholding it because they have already ruled on it)? Can they?

 

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.

[Guest cherzeca]

Collins distributed for conference on 7/1. $FNMA $FMCC

 

there was no ratification argument by govt in collins (at least I dont recall one).  so maybe scotus will clarify its seila holding since collins didn't muddy the waters with a ratification question.

[orthopa]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

[investorG]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

 

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.

[muscleman]

The Supreme Court Monday morning backed the president’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, but let stand the agency's operating architecture.

 

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the CFPB’s leadership structure — headed by a single director who is removable by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance” — violates the constitution’s separation of powers, because its director held too much unchecked power.

 

But the court did not go extreme to invalidate the entire consumer agency. Instead, the court held that the CFPB director’s removal protection can be separated from other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the bureau. In a nutshell, it means the bureau's past enforcement activities would remain intact.

 

 

[DRValue]

The Supreme Court Monday morning backed the president’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, but let stand the agency's operating architecture.

 

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the CFPB’s leadership structure — headed by a single director who is removable by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance” — violates the constitution’s separation of powers, because its director held too much unchecked power.

 

But the court did not go extreme to invalidate the entire consumer agency. Instead, the court held that the CFPB director’s removal protection can be separated from other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the bureau. In a nutshell, it means the bureau's past enforcement activities would remain intact.

 

Swap out CFPB with fhfa and that's what we'll get. A now constitutional thief.

[Guest cherzeca]

I have read Seila now, after having just skimmed it before.

 

the collins 5th C en banc concurring opinion seemed to think that severance, or forward relief, somehow trumped or negated backward relief.  It is clear from the Seila Roberts opinion that this is wrong...the opinion points out that the CID had a constitutional defect which would cause the Court to grant the backward relief, but the govt argues that the CID was later ratified by a cfpb director.  there is a live dispute as to whether this ratification event in fact occurred, and there is a legal question as to whether this could ratification act could cure the CID's constitutional defect. 

 

the question as to ratification doesn't come up in Collins.

 

I expect scotus will GVR the Collins unconstitutional claim and let the 5th C read the opinion and apply it to Collins.  I dont see how any reading of Seila leads to a denial of backward relief in Collins.  whether it goes on to grant cert to the Collins APA claim is doubtful since the const claim would grant Ps the relief they seek (invalidate NWS).  indeed, scotus may reserve on the APA claim to let the 5th C redo the const claim. 

[Guest cherzeca]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

 

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.

 

[investorG]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

 

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.?

[Guest cherzeca]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

 

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

[Luke 532]

Capital rule to be published tomorrow in Federal Register...60 day clock for comments is now ticking.

[Guest cherzeca]

Capital rule to be published tomorrow in Federal Register...60 day clock for comments is now ticking.

 

8/28 cut off date.  I would think fhfa moves rather quickly after that, based upon comments, and based upon feedback from MS and JPM

[investorG]

With Calabrias recent statement he must be getting legal advice from someone (milbank?) that he is not fireable based on this ruling. If he truely was why make a fool of yourself with a statement like that?  Multiple times he has made a point that he will serve his 5 year term knowing this case was before the SCOTUS.

 

At a minimum he can contest its applicabilty to FHFA in some fashion to drag things out right?

 

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.

[muscleman]

The Supreme Court Monday morning backed the president’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, but let stand the agency's operating architecture.

 

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the CFPB’s leadership structure — headed by a single director who is removable by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance” — violates the constitution’s separation of powers, because its director held too much unchecked power.

 

But the court did not go extreme to invalidate the entire consumer agency. Instead, the court held that the CFPB director’s removal protection can be separated from other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that established the bureau. In a nutshell, it means the bureau's past enforcement activities would remain intact.

 

Swap out CFPB with fhfa and that's what we'll get. A now constitutional thief.

 

Now Calabria's job is in danger if Trump loses re-election.

I can't believe even clear cut matters like this can be a 5-4 vote. This means the 4 liberal judges actually believe that there can be federal agencies whose director can't be fired by the US president.

[Guest cherzeca]

@IG

 

scotus could just decline cert on const claim, which would leave collins en banc in place, and leave the NWS intact at least insofar as that claim is concerned.  I dont expect that.  since there is a conflict split on the APA claim, I dont see scotus denying cert on that, but it may decline to act pending what happens to the const claim.  same remedy requested, so let's finish one claim at a time, in essence.  if GVRs const claim, then that might mean two things in my mind...one let 5th C confirm that fhfa=cfpb in terms of the removal issue, and second reconsider remedy.  but the GVR vacates prior const claim decision, and remand means do the claim over

[investorG]

@IG

 

scotus could just decline cert on const claim, which would leave collins en banc in place, and leave the NWS intact at least insofar as that claim is concerned.  I dont expect that.  since there is a conflict split on the APA claim, I dont see scotus denying cert on that, but it may decline to act pending what happens to the const claim.  same remedy requested, so let's finish one claim at a time, in essence.  if GVRs const claim, then that might mean two things in my mind...one let 5th C confirm that fhfa=cfpb in terms of the removal issue, and second reconsider remedy.  but the GVR vacates prior const claim decision, and remand means do the claim over

 

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.

[Guest cherzeca]

@IG

 

scotus could just decline cert on const claim, which would leave collins en banc in place, and leave the NWS intact at least insofar as that claim is concerned.  I dont expect that.  since there is a conflict split on the APA claim, I dont see scotus denying cert on that, but it may decline to act pending what happens to the const claim.  same remedy requested, so let's finish one claim at a time, in essence.  if GVRs const claim, then that might mean two things in my mind...one let 5th C confirm that fhfa=cfpb in terms of the removal issue, and second reconsider remedy.  but the GVR vacates prior const claim decision, and remand means do the claim over

 

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. 

[investorG]

@IG

 

scotus could just decline cert on const claim, which would leave collins en banc in place, and leave the NWS intact at least insofar as that claim is concerned.  I dont expect that.  since there is a conflict split on the APA claim, I dont see scotus denying cert on that, but it may decline to act pending what happens to the const claim.  same remedy requested, so let's finish one claim at a time, in essence.  if GVRs const claim, then that might mean two things in my mind...one let 5th C confirm that fhfa=cfpb in terms of the removal issue, and second reconsider remedy.  but the GVR vacates prior const claim decision, and remand means do the claim over

 

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.

[Guest cherzeca]

"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."

 

this is what you dont get.  before scotus ruled, 5thC was just doing its best somewhat in the dark without scotus guidance...did a great job as per Willett.  now that scotus has ruled, 5th C can rule in the reflected illumination of scotus guidance...and there is enough of a difference between the two agencies for the 5th C exercise to be meaningful (eg fhfa doesnt directly deal with "private parties", just a few institutions, while cfpb deals with consumers all the time)...though fhfa will lose.

 

"If the SC wants to differentiate between FHFA and CFPB, then they can take the collins constitutional appeal themselves on Thursday."  too much on scotus calendar.  let the 5th C do that work.  that's how appellate practice works. we will see if scotus says anything about the petition or just renders an order

[Guest cherzeca]

5MM share buy of fnmas today at high for the day.  someone gets it.

[investorG]

"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."

 

this is what you dont get.  before scotus ruled, 5thC was just doing its best somewhat in the dark without scotus guidance...did a great job as per Willett.  now that scotus has ruled, 5th C can rule in the reflected illumination of scotus guidance...and there is enough of a difference between the two agencies for the 5th C exercise to be meaningful (eg fhfa doesnt directly deal with "private parties", just a few institutions, while cfpb deals with consumers all the time)...though fhfa will lose.

 

"If the SC wants to differentiate between FHFA and CFPB, then they can take the collins constitutional appeal themselves on Thursday."  too much on scotus calendar.  let the 5th C do that work.  that's how appellate practice works. we will see if scotus says anything about the petition or just renders an order

 

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.

[Midas79]

"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."

 

this is what you dont get.  before scotus ruled, 5thC was just doing its best somewhat in the dark without scotus guidance...did a great job as per Willett.  now that scotus has ruled, 5th C can rule in the reflected illumination of scotus guidance...and there is enough of a difference between the two agencies for the 5th C exercise to be meaningful (eg fhfa doesnt directly deal with "private parties", just a few institutions, while cfpb deals with consumers all the time)...though fhfa will lose.

 

"If the SC wants to differentiate between FHFA and CFPB, then they can take the collins constitutional appeal themselves on Thursday."  too much on scotus calendar.  let the 5th C do that work.  that's how appellate practice works. we will see if scotus says anything about the petition or just renders an order

 

Just to make sure I'm understanding things correctly:

 

If SCOTUS decides to take the GVR route for Collins, the Fifth Circuit would have to re-decide Collins using Selia as guidance. Until they do, Calabria can only be fired for cause. Since that decision could take a while, Calabria really could stay in office under Biden, maybe even long enough to get recap and release done, as long as he doesn't do anything stupid enough to get fired for cause.

 

Then all we really need is for Mnuchin to get UST's part out of the way before the end of January. Cancel/convert seniors, PSPA amendment (end the NWS, remove UST's ability to veto release, plus whatever else they need to do), exercise/cancel/sell back warrants, and settle/moot the cases.

 

I know you have said all this before, I just want to see if I am putting the pieces together correctly.

 

Three questions:

 

1) How long do you think it would take before the Fifth Circuit issues another decision?

2) Could Biden fire Calabria the day after that happens or would he have to wait until SCOTUS either denies cert or upholds the ruling?

3) Is anything missing from my list of what UST needs to do?