Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Except for the lawyers who billed a ton of hours
Thanks for your explanation.
So, all this work that was done on the payment and interest schedule was a total waste of time. Just delay tactics.
the last filing said that only those who owned shares on nws day are eligible and such rights to damage do not travel with shares . i do not think this logic would hold but may be beyond lamberth pay grade to decide on his own. could be in limbo for a long long time. it also begs the question : so defendants have figured out that there are no legacy owners left from pre net worth sweep and thus have to pay nothing.
you are buying more ? why? what do you know? 16 years and everyone has been wrong.
FNMA/FMCC
Fire Yellen
Fire Sandra Thompson
End The Conservatorship
Make Reparations to GSE Shareholders
Fight to Make it Right
Fight to Right the Wrong Done to Shareholders
Fight, Fight, Fight
Funny how you forgot to include your world renowned unsubstantiated gse commons pps in your 0.05. value opinion
Lmao.
Fnma
There is no reason now for you to forget to post that, not so long ago, it was posted on a daily basis.
DC Jury Decides GSE Shareholder Contracts Breached
Aug. 17, 2023 5:44 PM ETFederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation PFD 8.375% NCM (FMCKJ) Stock, FNMAS StockFMCC, FMCCG, FMCCH, FMCCI, FMCCK, FMCCL, FMCCM, FMCCN, FMCCO, FMCCP, FMCCS, FMCCT, FMCKI, FMCKK, FMCKL, FMCKM, FMCKN, FMCKO, FMCKP, FNMA, FNMAG, FNMAH, FNMAJ, FNMAK, FNMAM, FNMAN, FNMAP, FNMAT, FNMFM, FNMFN, FNMFO, FREJP185 Comments
Glen Bradford profile picture
Glen Bradford
4.69K Followers
Summary
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders win legal victory as jury finds FHFA acted arbitrarily in entering into Net Worth Sweep.
Pending equity restructuring includes warrants, common shares, junior preferred shares, and senior preferred shares.
There are significant, follow on implications for other cases now that a jury has decided that the government breached the implied covenant of good faith.
Male Judge In A Courtroom Typing On Laptop
AndreyPopov/iStock via Getty Images
As of August 14, 2023, Fannie Mae (OTCQB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTCQB:FMCC) shareholders have a new legal victory to celebrate. After a decade of uphill legal battles, shareholders have finally notched a win, but the potential impact to outcome is much more significant than the monetary damages awarded by the jury which decided:
FHFA, in its role as the Conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in entering into the Net Worth Sweep, thereby violating the reasonable expectations of holders of Fannie Mae junior preferred stock, Freddie Mac junior preferred stock, and/or Freddie Mac common stock
Question #1 Verdict
Question #1 Verdict (glenbradford.com)
Fannie and Freddie have been retaining earnings since 2019. Fannie and Freddie have more net worth than ever before in history since their guarantee fees have roughly doubled during conservatorship. There are four components to their pending equity restructuring:
Warrants (Government Owned).
Common Shares.
Junior Preferred Shares.
Senior Preferred Shares (Government Owned).
I only recommend owning junior preferred shares because they have dilution protection in an administrative reform outcome and the strongest legal claims in a court-led outcome.
Investment Thesis
This either gets resolved via administrative action or court action. This marks the first major FHFA loss in court where a jury unanimously decided that FHFA breached the implied covenant of good faith built into the contract rights of shareholders.
Outside of administrative reform, courts will resolve this. This jury awarded damages of $611M to shareholders. Judge Lamberth did not let plaintiffs present the expectancy reliance damage model which would have opened the door to damages closer to the outstanding par value of junior preferred, $34B+. Nearly every available damage model is designed to pay out face value to preferred shareholders, expectancy, restitution, reliance, etc. The damage model that went to trial is extremely controversial. FHFA has 60 days from the verdict to file notice of appeal. If I was Arnold and Porter I would be recommending to their client that if they wanted to proactively end the conservatorship now would be a good time to do so. Should they pursue appeal and go the court route, they risk facing a damage model that actually fits the breach of contract that a jury has decided they committed.
This court ruling in my view only helps the case for administrative reform. In an administrative solution, since the companies are retaining earnings --- receivership is off the table and junior preferred would be made whole in the process. The companies would likely turn on junior preferred dividends to settle the pending litigation while they move forward with recapitalization and release. Junior preferred would trade up to face value.
Fannie Mae Q2 2023
Fannie Mae made $5B in Q2 2023. The SPS liquidation preference was $185B and the net worth was $69B. Fannie Mae CEO Priscilla Almodovar declared Fannie Mae has been transformed on the quarterly call:
You know, this fall marks 15 years since Fannie Mae was placed in conservatorship. A lot has changed since that time. Today, Fannie Mae has been transformed. Fannie Mae is safer and stronger, thanks to years of work to improve the resiliency of our business and our steadfast focus on strong risk management. Because of this, we continue to be a stabilizing force in the market and to deliver on our mission, like we did through the COVID-19 pandemic, and how we're doing now through this challenging economic cycle. We are committed to being a reliable source of liquidity and stability to the housing finance system in the United States.
Fannie Mae has more money than they ever have had in history and the government still has them in conservatorship.
Freddie Mac Q2 2023
Freddie Mac made $2.9B in Q2 2023. The SPS liquidation preference was $111B and the net worth was $42B.
Freddie Mac has more money than they ever have had in history and the government still has them in conservatorship.
Shareholder Attorney Provides Context On Size of $611M Legal Win
The lead attorney for the shareholders compares the $611M legal victory to the $32B that shareholders invested as reported by National Mortgage Professional:
The government deserved and would have received, without the net worth sweep, a huge profit on its investment. But it was not entitled to 100% of all profits forever. That was not the deal made in September 2008. Private preferred shareholders invested over $32 billion, of which $20 billion was at the behest of government regulators during the housing crisis years of 2007 and 2008.
If FHFA allows this verdict to be appealed, it risks losing an upsized reliance damage model of $32B when it is in a position to resolve this now for much less. This puts FHFA is in a unique position to cap their litigation losses before they potentially balloon. They have about 60 days to appeal or pursue other options.
2023 Stress Tests
August 10th, FHFA released the 2023 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results. The stress test results result in Fannie and Freddie making a combined $9.9B even if equity prices fall by 45% and home prices decline 38%. Under these conditions, FHFA does forecast that if they are able to use their discretionary accounting authority to write down Fannie and Freddie's assets like they did in 2008, the companies would lose $8.4B. Even with the loss the companies on a combined basis since they have been able to retain earnings since 2019 would have a net worth of $88.9B in this worst case scenario.
My perspective is that guarantee fees doubled during conservatorship and it is much harder to drain a bathtub when you pour in water as fast as it drains out, which is basically what happens to achieve these stress test results whereas in the past earnings were half what they were today and you could accumulate a few years of losses --- now even if the economy falls apart Fannie and Freddie stay afloat on earnings alone.
Meanwhile, FHFA currently has a Capital Framework which says they are undercapitalized and holds them hostage in conservatorship, but it looks like they are trying to do something about it.
FHFA put out an RFI and the intellectually honest submissions (I was able to find one exception by the guy who signed the net worth sweep that a jury ruled to be a breach of contract) all seem to call for a reworking of the ERCF which makes sense in the context of these stress test results. I walk through a handful of these submissions below and the growing chorus for admin reform now supported by this legal ruling.
FHFA's RFI On GSE Single Family Mortgage Pricing Framework
In May 2023, FHFA put out a request for input for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Single-Family Mortgage Pricing Framework. The basic purpose of this RFI is to solicit industry feedback on how it should match pricing up with the capital requirements imposed by the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework - ERCF. The industry has responded with comments and feedback. The overwhelming response to the FHFA RFI has been to streamline the capital rule and step aside.
Urban Institute
The most notable shift in my opinion coming from this RFI is the more administrative reform positioning coming from Urban Institute. Urban Institute has really evolved their perspective to be more supportive of a utility model and raising new third-party capital which is a positive shift in support of administrative reform. Urban Institute forecasts a need for Fannie and Freddie to raise private capital:
In either case, they will need to raise private capital, which will require a return attractive enough for whichever of the two models is chosen.
Urban Institute says that the ECRF needs to be revised lower:
The GSEs' approach to pricing strikes us as reasonable, but it suffers from a capital framework unnecessarily tethered to the Basel framework. The risk-invariant components and complexity of that framework are arguably appropriate for large banks, given the number and complexity of the risks they manage, but they make little sense for Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac. Applied to the GSEs, they exert unnecessary upward pressure on pricing, pressure that has been borne by the GSEs thus far but, at some point, will be passed along to the consumer. Before that happens, the FHFA should revise the requirements, removing a headwind to homeownership and better aligning the GSEs' pricing with their risk.
Lower capital requirements and raise new third-party capital is the path forward according to Urban Institute.
Community Home Lenders of America
The CHLA argues in its letter that the objective of the capital rule is for Fannie and Freddie to exit from conservatorship:
Second, while CHLA supports a key underlying objective of that capital rule - the exit of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship - given the current political realities, such exit appears to be a remote, if not non-existent, possibility. In an ideal world, we would either roll back excessive fee hikes to raise capital or move forward to exit from conservatorship. Instead, arguably, we have the worst of both worlds.
The CHLA seems to think that the Biden administration is unwilling to let Fannie and Freddie recap and release and exit from conservatorship. Note that they may have submitted this letter before the legal ruling came out.
After the legal ruling came out, Rob Zimmer said that this legal ruling cements the future of Fannie and Freddie being recapped and released despite not knowing the exact timing of when:
Rob says this legal ruling cements R&R
Rob says this legal ruling cements R&R (Twitter)
Rob Zimmer seems to have reviewed the bulk of the responses to RFI etc. Rob's comments align with CHLA's Scott Olson's from last year too:
My personal opinion is that the best approach is for Fannie and Freddie to exit conservatorship under a true utility model using the housing mission tools of HERA, a vigilant FHFA that makes sure the GSEs do not take on dangerous levels of risk to maximize shareholder profit, and an explicit federal backstop to establish MBS investor confidence.
CHLA is very supportive of administrative recap and release and believes it is an eventuality --- just a matter of when.
Mortgage Bankers Association
The Mortgage Bankers Association is telling FHFA that the ERCF shouldn't be based on Basel III. Fannie and Freddie are not banks! They should have a simple capital requirement that is based on actual risk. This reads like a nudge to lower the capital requirements. Seems like there is consensus from most interested parties on this topic:
MBA RFI Feedback Ending
MBA RFI Feedback Ending (FHFA)
Prior CEO of MBA David H Stevens declares this court ruling a landmark win for GSE Shareholder interests and had this to say on HousingWire:
The victory in Berkley vs. FHFA is sweet for shareholders, notably in that it's their first one since the beginning of conservatorship, said David Stevens, a former Federal Housing Administration commissioner and Mortgage Bankers Association president.
"Whether this sets the tone for a new direction for the conservatorship is yet to be seen," Stevens said. "But without question, a political leadership that oversees these two companies in Washington will be likely focusing on options ahead. While the jury awarded less than what was asked for by the plaintiffs, it is without question victory for the shareholder interest. What happens next will be interesting."
David H Stevens has come full circle this year as he is advocating for administrative reform to end the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie as a means of solving their political problem brought on by making the FHFA director a political appointee thanks to the SCOTUS ruling in Collins vs. Yellen.
Center for Responsible Lending
The CRL has replied, arguing that the ERCF needs to be considered and recalibrated to take into consideration the actual financial risks of Fannie and Freddie:
The case for reconsidering the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework ("ERCF") is clear and compelling.
...
Developments over the past two and a half years have made it even clearer that the ERCF is seriously flawed.
...
The ERCF stands as an obstacle to progress on these fronts. Given the stress test results, the developments since the adoption of the ERCF that have reduced the GSEs risks, and the multiple fallacies of the ERCF itself, FHFA should reconsider the amount of capital required by the ERCF and the ERCF's definition of what constitutes capital.
...
And, so long as the GSEs are expected to achieve a "reasonable rate of return" on an unreasonably large capital base-currently over $300 billion- it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the GSEs to pursue such initiatives at the scale needed to fulfill their mission.
Independent Community Bankers of America
The ICBA has replied calling for FHFA to work with the U.S. Treasury to restructure its ownership stake in Fannie and Freddie in order to attract:
ICBA therefore strongly urges the FHFA to establish a revised single-family pricing framework alongside a roadmap for the Enterprises to raise outside equity, eventually exit conservatorship, and to do so with a clear vision of their ongoing role in the secondary housing market.
...
Absent any changes to the preferred stock purchasing agreements (PSPAs), this means that they will then be required to resume sweeping any excess earnings to the Treasury, effectively making it impossible to exit conservatorship. ICBA has long argued that a perpetual conservatorship is unacceptable and unsustainable.
...
Without acknowledging that the GSEs need to prepare to exit conservatorship, there is little incentive to materially change to ROE to a rate that would make them competitive for investor funding as semi-private companies. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the GSEs remain undercapitalized according to the existing ECRF and that the government's ownership of the Enterprises remains unresolved. As mandated by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), FHFA must therefore collaborate with the U.S. Treasury to begin the process of resolving the government's ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
After nearly fifteen years of conservatorship, ICBA is greatly concerned that the lack of progress in resolving this issue by FHFA and the Treasury endangers the safety and soundness of both Enterprises and could pose a threat to the stability of the mortgage market.
The ICBA call for Treasury to work with FHFA to resolve its equity interests in Fannie and Freddie aligns with charting their path out of conservatorship.
NAFCU
NAFCU provided a comment letter which speaks for itself:
Until the FHFA can articulate its expectations for returns while supporting high capitalization and low rates, the FHFA should not control guarantee fees for the GSEs. NAFCU supports allowing the GSEs to ultimately be removed from their conservatorships and recognizes that goal would be delayed by substandard returns.
The GSEs need to make returns that support their capital requirements according to NAFCU in order to ultimately exit conservatorship.
National Association of Realtors
NAR targets ROE based on utilities:
Furthermore, the FHFA should formally adopt a return on equity (ROE) appropriate for market utilities, implement a cap and floor on ROE, explore an explicit government guarantee, and must establish a robust and durable process for establishing appropriate returns at the Enterprises during conservatorship and after.
NAR also focuses on life after conservatorship:
The FHFA should continue its important work to develop a process that sets a band of returns for the Enterprises' cost of capital to use in establishing their g-fees and pricing outside of conservatorship.
NAR also says that the capital required by the ECRF is excessive:
These implied ROEs are appropriate to the Enterprises but were achieved for the wrong reason; the level of capital in ECRF is excessive.
If the FHFA adjusts the ECRF so that the companies can hold less capital than their current ECRF, then NAR will be happy.
Housing Policy Council
This letter is signed by Ed Demarco, the guy who signed the net worth sweep that the jury just ruled to be a breach of contract and was submitted the same day the jury ruled that his actions breached the shareholder contracts.
Ed Demarco argues that the Basel III Proposal Conflicts with the FHFA ERCF. Further, he notably recommends increasing guarantee fees to support the ERCF. I couldn't find any other comment letter where someone else is arguing for increased fees like Ed Demarco of the Housing Policy Council appears to be:
The FHFA commentary on the recent pricing changes focus in part on the need to generate sufficient returns to satisfy the capital standards set forth in the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (ERCF). HPC is on record supporting the ERCF, recognizing that small adjustments may be necessary. The current framework reflects the substantial research and analysis performed by FHFA and the Enterprises as well as extensive commentary from stakeholders. The existing ERCF was promulgated following a full comment period, which provided the opportunity for meaningful input from all sectors of the mortgage industry. No standard will ever fully satisfy every housing stakeholder, but this ERCF represents a well-developed compromise. We recommend that FHFA retain the ERCF and require pricing levels that will allow the Enterprises to earn FHFA's targeted rate of return in accordance with the ERCF, over a reasonable period of time.
Leave it to Ed Demarco to argue for additional increases to guarantee fees that completely ignore the recent stress test results and the doubling of guarantee fees during conservatorship. His perspective seems to have fallen out of step with Urban Institute.
Breach of Contract Damage Models
If you have not been closely following the developments, it is worth noting that Judge Lamberth rejected all four damage models presented by the plaintiffs - namely, expectancy, restitution, reliance, and the lost share alternative - prior to the trial. The plaintiffs are now seeking to appeal these decisions with the aim of obtaining a damage model that aligns more closely with their actual financial loss due to the net worth sweep.
During the trial, Judge Lamberth allowed one specific damage model to proceed, resulting in a relatively modest damages amount of $611 million. However, this outcome has stirred controversy due to the nature of breach of contract damages models, which are designed to restore the injured party to their pre-breach state. In the context of junior preferred shares, this would involve receiving a payout close to the face value. While the plaintiffs achieved a favorable outcome in the trial, the damages awarded were notably smaller than what one would anticipate in a breach of contract case, where the typical outcome is closer to a payout that would be closer to the original value of the contract, or "par." I've heard estimates anywhere between 8-18 months for the duration of such an appeal.
Expectancy
The concept of "Expectancy" entails restoring the non-breaching party to the state they would have been in had the breach not occurred. This involves considering the repayment of the liquidation preference that would have been received and factoring in the principal amount along with pre-judgment interest at a rate of 6%, approximately equaling 150% of the principal.
Restitution
"Restitution," on the other hand, centers around ensuring that the breaching party returns any net benefits acquired through the contract. This involves deducting any gains obtained by the non-breaching party as a result of the contract.
Reliance
The principle of "Reliance" seeks to reinstate the plaintiff parties to the position they were in prior to entering into the contract.
The reliance damages model were in my view incorrectly not addressed by this Jury because Lamberth prevented them from going to trial twice due to timing issues, not because they were not a valid damages model.
CapWealth's Pagliara on American Banker
In response to this ruling, some have speculated that FHFA will appeal, but FHFA said they will review and determine post-trial options according to American Banker:
"FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are disappointed in the verdict," an agency spokesman wrote in an email to American Banker. "FHFA will review the verdict and determine post-trial options."
In fact, GSE Shareholder Tim Pagliara says not so fast:
But a move to challenge the verdict would not be a risk-free proposition for the FHFA, Tim Pagliara, chief investment officer of the financial advisory firm CapWealth, said.
"If the government appeals the verdict, it could backfire and the $612 million verdict could balloon to over $30 billion because the government could be forced to pay 100% of the preferred stock that they breached the contract on," Pagliara, whose clients are GSE shareholders, said. "There is controversy surrounding the damage model that the jury was allowed to consider in the trial that was just completed."
I believe Tim Pagliara is referring to the reliance damages model that Lamberth prevented from going to trial twice which effectively equals par less cumulative dividends.
Tyler vs. Hennepin
GSE Shareholder Plaintiff Bryndon Fisher points to Tyler vs. Hennepin as a means to try and get his case heard in the federal circuit arguing that his case was wrongly decided and this new Supreme Court ruling changes everything.
I applaud Bryndon Fisher's legal efforts. Below is the overall most recent litigation calendar from the end of last month:
July Litigation Calendar
July Litigation Calendar (Twitter)
You will note that Oral arguments in Collins vs. Yellen are early next month.
Risks
Fannie and Freddie shareholders could continue to lose all the lawsuits and the government could keep them in conservatorship despite eventually retaining enough earnings to be adequately capitalized. The world could fall apart and become unrecognizable with more devastating economic consequences than outlined in the 2023 Stress Test and the companies could be placed into receivership where existing shareholders are zeroed out. Common shares could be diluted out of any material upside in any equity restructuring.
I think the biggest risk is really one of time. I've been in this trade since 2014. I thought that this would get resolved by the original Lamberth ruling that went completely opposite to my interpretation of the law. What is ironic is that the day before the 8 Jury members unanimously decided FHFA breached the contracts, they requested to have the law provided to them so they could read it for themselves. It is nice to see a panel of 8 Americans read the law and interpret it the same way I have in a world where no court seems to agree with prior FHFA director Mark Calabria's interpretation of the law.
Summary and Conclusion
The current Biden administration has been silent on the issue for restructuring its equity position in Fannie and Freddie but I suspect that will not be the case during the rest of the Biden admin and I believe that this jury verdict opens up a path for moving forward with an administrative initiative to release Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship. The overwhelming response to FHFA's RFI has been to set the ECRF to be more in line with current guarantee fees in a post-conservatorship environment and to solicit input from US Treasury. I found a family office note that summarizes the impact of this legal ruling nicely:
Family Office CIO Note
Family Office CIO Note (Twitter)
I recommend junior preferred shares because in any equity restructuring that happens outside of receivership they are made whole in addition to having strong enough legal claims now that they have won breach of contract to have a path forward of seeing par under a reliance damages model.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
This article was written by
Glen Bradford profile picture
Glen Bradford
4.69K Followers
Glen Bradford MBA contributes to Seeking Alpha primarily to read people's negative feedback so that he can avoid generating unnecessary losses. "Uncertainty will certainly work for me." - Glen Bradford March 2009.Glen wishes you a bright sunny warm day filled with smiles, laughter, and love.The Supreme Court got it wrong, which is sad, but it's not over yet.
Show more
Show more
Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of FMCCG,FMCCI,FMCCJ,FMCCK,FMCCM,FMCCN,FMCCO,FMCCS,FNMAO,FNMAP,FNMFO,FREGP,FREJN either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
the payout has nada to do with the wealth behind that direction, which will be use more and more, unless they buy out commons or transfer them to the new IPO at say $15 or above. Its coming, and not a thing the clowns can do about it. and no, no reverse split like the dummies pretend will happen in their cellar fantasies.
FNMA common is not legally part --- it is all JPS and FMCC common only. If it all "holds up after appeal" and maybe a higher common pay out - for stepping on our rights --- I am sure that a FNMA plaintiff will file suit.
Mr. Pro Se, Bradford can speak for himself in this message board.
In layman's terms as always, obviously.
This dude(#Obama)/the other dude(#Trump), 2 sides of the same coin.
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) August 23, 2024
Common Equity (wealth owned by the shareholders) swept, either through:
-Cash div (10% and NWS divs)
-SPS LP increased for free, equal to the NW increase.
Both,capital distributions restricted.
Layman.#Fanniegate https://t.co/dQGrRWcbtu pic.twitter.com/RfqpnMKHYV
The FIFTH clue that points to the repayment of the SPS fast, is what annoyed the plotters and made them initiate the conspiracy, posting the old news with Judge Lamberth's final judgment of March.
It was posted early in the morning, here, and it prompted navy cmdr/Guido/pro se plaintiff's honest mistakes.
This FIFTH clue dynamites their case in the Lamberth court, because it explains the true reason why the 10% dividend was switched for the NWS dividend.
Notice that the plaintiffs requested damages in an amount equal to the one-day share price drop on the 3rd amendment-day that approved this NWS dividend.
None plaintiff calls it "dividend" to begin with.
It's been proven that it's all part of the same Separate Account plan, otherwise both dividends are capital distributions restricted (along with today's SPS LP increased for free), and both dividends are the same breach of the conservator's statutory mission: Put FnF in a sound and solvent condition, measured with the capital ratios (Financial rehabilitation).
A dividend depletes capital (Changes in Equity operation). This is why it's restricted. Earnings are kept by the companies (Retained Earnings account. CET1 and core capital). A dividend is a distribution of Earnings.
The hedge fund manager Gary Hindes denounced the NWS dividend with a breach of the conservator's statutory mission, notwithstanding that the 10% dividend that he advocated for, was the same statutory violation he was outraged about. Duh!
Likely, after reading my comments denouncing it, Hindes was instructed to amend his complaint and remove any reference to statutory violations, so that they can skip this part of the Power where they were failing, and continue to peddle the idea that a 10% dividend in congressionally-chartered private corporations with low cost borrowing from the UST, is just fine, and even during a conservatorship. He was told that they will move on, because the Supreme Court had been activated to twist the conservator's Incidental Power instead.
The rogue Guido attempted to pass it off as the final ruling we are waiting for, with regard to the FHFA's motion for JMOL or JNOV.
Bummer, so its not final?
and the jury even asked for a copy of HERA on the last day before the deliberations, when the law in force is the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act, as amended by HERA. Duh!
Even if Lamberth certifies the verdict, I believe that Hamish the plaintiffs lawyer of record has stated that an appeal would probably be made as far as the damage awards because he thought that they were demonstrably low. Just my understanding.
Forget about the whales, let’s get professional on this matter. Do you have any plan on our way forward ?
I been waiting for some months, yet no compensation is announced. Hope you can have some updates on the status, many thanks.
You are mistaken...It is most definitely a YES
1) All holders of junior preferred stock in the Federal National Mortgage Association
(known as “Fannie Mae”) as of December 7, 2021, or their successors in interest to the
extent shares were sold after that date and before any final judgment (the “Fannie Mae
Preferred Class”);
(2) All holders of junior preferred stock in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(known as “Freddie Mac”) as of December 7, 2021, or their successors in interest to the
extent shares were sold after that date and before any final judgment (the “Freddie Mac
Preferred Class”); and
(3) All holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of December 7, 2021, or their
successors in interest to the extent shares were sold after that date and before any final
judgment (the “Freddie Mac Common Class”)
How does Lamberth define final judgement in his 3/20/24 opinion...
“Final judgment” for purposes of each the definitions of the Classes means the judgment of
the Court after (1) any and all appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the
“Court of Appeals”) have been adjudicated, or the time for appeal to the Court of Appeals has
expired with no appeal having been taken, (2) any and all petitions for writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) have been adjudicated, or the time for filing
petitions for writ of certiorari has expired with no petition having been filed, and (3) if any
petition for writ of certiorari is granted, any and all appeals to the Supreme Court have been
adjudicated. See ECF No. 140-1 at 6 (Class Notice Stipulation).
No worries Guido. It's all good. I have lost track of how many times I have been wrong. Sometimes I think if you do the opposite of what I say you would make a lot of money LOL.
You're right Rick. It's my fault. I did try to find sources other than Nico's post. Should have waited before sharing it.
Sub $1 dollar after the election nothing but lies and fake numbers bogus jobs report. Behind closed doors they wanna unload this on trump if he wins they will immediately say the market crash is his fault. Housing market will implode along with commercial real estate
I don't see any Aug.5 Articles, just a Feb 2024 Article
entitled Inflation, Housing Crisis, And GSE Conservatorship: A Path Forward
The only Aug. I see is
Aug. 17, 2023
DC Jury Decides GSE Shareholder Contracts Breached
I don’t see anything after August 5
From what I see on Seeking Alpha,
he hasn't written anything since Feb. 2024
How Kind...Thank You All - It wouldn't have been possible without you, and you,
and you, and You!
Can we still buy and have our shares included?
All Praise Tightcoil,…The Ultimate FNMA Stock Price Predictor
Dang, Viking, I should have known better. I’m getting touchy in my old age. 🤣 I wish I could post the picture but you know who will flag it.
Oh yeah the Train has a new passenger, destination Release of Fannie and Freddie!
You're right Rick. It's my fault. I did try to find sources other than Nico's post. Should have waited before sharing it.
I don't know, I can't access the article because I'm not willing to sign up for a free SA account. I was hoping someone else could read it and summarize. Or if Bradford is around, he could enlighten us.
Bummer, so its not final? Back to sleep. If there is a recession and the pps dips, I am buying more. Go FnF.
I hope you are right.
What did Mr. Bradford say?
Looks for a record date. My question is the record date the date that Lamberth certified the verdict? I believe if we are to get paid, your brokerage firm will take care of the transaction.
Next we need a record date. Are there any appeals?
He did not. Someone on X posted old news from March. I got fooled.
When are we going to see any payout from the lawsuit? Can we still buy and have our shares included? The rights to the payout transfers with the shares. I am 2 years away from 50 yrs old. Its been been a 15 year play. 🧓
Speaking of articles, anyone have a synopsis of Bradford's SA article from 8/17? I don't have an account so I can't read it.
Been busy and must have missed any uncle fester gse judicial link…
Can anyone post the link or is this more bird crapola.
Fnma
Lamebreath certified, right?
Calm down Wings. I was just joking with you. I hold no ill will for you. We go way back to the Stock Twits page and I hold a little less than double in shares. Not that it matters. We are all in this together commons and preferreds until the end!!
We cannot seem to bust through $1.28 today. We are capped. We are cut off. No soup for us. End of the rope. The dough will not rise. Out of steam. Call it a day. Early bird does not get the worm.
Settle in the for the routine guys ... all the gains come immediately in the morning then it either bleeds back down to nothing or stays at the gains you see early in the morning ... the play never changes its scenes nor scenery ... there is a headline alluding to Powell thinking the time has come to lower interest rates though ...
Fnma to the moon and past Uranus.
Keep on reading gse stuff that exists in gov secret account that no one except the poster knows about on daily basis…that doesn’t get deleted makes no sense and that person moderates… something doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Fnma
Sounds good to me.
Listen, I had to post it this way because Shelly removed it, twice. I don’t care What your opinion is, I’ve posted enough over the years and on my StockTwits chat room before they ended them to be credible. I hold 318,211 share of FnF, we don’t need FUD. I would spread FUD either.
A lot of trades at $1.28 for one or two shares. Who does that ? What’s the point ? The commission at Schwab is $6.95.
So people are not allowed to post news they think is relevant even if it's a whopping 5 months old? People should be allowed to discuss any relevant news that affects the FNMA stock. The Lamberth decision was a major piece of the puzzle, for the past 52 weeks.
Oops. You are correct. It was filed on March 20, 2024. Got excited for nothing. Guido’s fault.
There has been no news. Some guy on twitter posted something from MARCH.
Mr. Niagra - How will we get our dough? Mail - into our brokerage account?
Gift Card?
Followers
|
2318
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
16
|
Posts (Total)
|
799275
|
Created
|
07/14/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators not one red cent ~NORC~ stockprofitter Ace Trader jeddiemack FOFreddie Wise Man |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |