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.
No US president can do anything about GSEs. congress can, Treasury and FHFA Director are in charge. Trump put both in office, put out exec order, SM was just a snake from the garden
Wrong! Warrants were issued to keep PPS depressed as stated by Mr.Woeffel of FASAB. Is still working 15 years later. Already scrubbed from the internet by AI.
Why would WB all of a sudden change his tune and be interested in the GSE's? DEMS have dramatically altered their mission. Nothing has changed with them or Gov attitude towards them. He fueled their demise and holds strong positions in direct opposition to them. I see no discussions between him and the current admin. Pipedream.
Warren B priming the pump. Salivating like a lion over a lkill.
Warren can’t wait to get his grubby hands on Fannie and Freddie. He’s sitting on over $100 Billy and he needs to put that cash to work. He is purposely waiting to invest in re-ipo where he will dump billions in these cash cows!!
A man once said the following, but remember there is complete bias involved in GSE analogies.
Anything that is bad for the juniors is at least as bad for the legacy common. Anything that is good for the legacy common is at least as good for the juniors.
This statement is not fact, and worse yet does not exist in real world corporate structures. Commons own the company, preferred only make claim is in receivership or BK. They are 2 completely different contractual structures.
Anyone wanna guess when common stock price overtakes FNMAS? clowns or fantasy Ps will not get a response. They have never been right in court or on stock prices.
Yet another major bank collapse. First Republic Bank taken over by FDIC and sold to JPM. Largest bank collapse since 2008.
Biden Admin enacts subsidizing high risk mortgages at the expense of those with high credit scores.
A little-noticed revamp of federal rules on mortgage fees will offer discounted rates for home buyers with riskier credit backgrounds — and force higher-credit homebuyers to foot the bill, The Post has learned.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will enact changes to fees known as loan-level price adjustments (LLPAs) on May 1 that will affect mortgages originating at private banks nationwide, from Wells Fargo to JPMorgan Chase, effectively tweaking interest rates paid by the vast majority of homebuyers.
Mike won’t ever be Director, but not for a reason other than he would do the right thing. Which is something none, absolutely none have done to date. U have to have no ethics to be Director of FHFA.
in my 20+ years of investing, one thing has been obvious. volume and float is key to any stock movement. when there is a lot of volume and the stock goes up, the float is getting dried up, then if the demand is still there, the stock movement up can accelerate with almost no volume. where are the GSEs? i dont know outstanding vs float. so recently going up or down a couple pennies on average or below volume, it could mean anything from lack of real interest or the float is drying up. so lets see if real, good news, makes the stock shoot up, or does it just fade as in interest by a few longs and shorts nibbling for the penny swings or not.
Nothing in the history of man took 14 years to fix something that is not broke. As a matter of fact they have made it worse. Only the US gov could extort, loan shark, steal, and say it’s in the name of taxpayer after steeling 300 billion from private corporations
De-dollarization attempts will remain contained and constrained for a long time to come, Goldman Sachs says
De-dollarization attempts will remain contained and constrained for a long time to come, Goldman Sachs says
Phil Rosen
The dollar won't lose its dominance on the world stage for a long time, according to Goldman Sachs. Threats to the greenback will remain contained and constrained, the bank said on Friday. Strategists wrote that de-dollarization is "lots of talk (again), not a lot of action." Attempts at de-dollarization will remain contained and constrained for the foreseeable future, according to Goldman Sachs.
In a Friday note to clients, strategists wrote that de-dollarization is "lots of talk (again), not a lot of action." Goldman acknowledged a recent uptick in media and online interest in the dollar's strength, but in the bank's view, there's little to be concerned about.
"[P]art of the Dollar's declining share can likely be attributed to regular market forces as Treasuries fell and Asian central banks sold their Dollar holdings to counter the stronger Dollar last year," strategists said.
In addition, the bank said sanctions imposed on Russia, Brazil's plans to set up yuan clearing agreements, speculation about the yuan's use in commodity trading, as well as the US banking and debt ceiling crises aren't enough to displace the role of the dollar in global reserves or in trade, even if they do spur more countries to diversify their currency holdings.
Other currencies still have to overcome many obstacles to attain the same status as the dollar, strategists maintained, including capital market depth, building trust for access and the accompanying legal framework, trade invoicing, and currency management systems.
Because these factors together are so interlinked, a challenger to the dollar won't arise for "a long time to come."
"While that is a clear risk if the US abuses its 'exorbitant privileges', we see no evidence of that in the data so far (for example, even Brazil's rising share of CNY reserves replaced CAD, not the Dollar), and our strong view is that there is currently no real contender," Goldman said.
While the dollar's status as a global reserve currency has seen a gradual erosion for two decades, its role in international trade remains unlikely to diminish anytime soon, according to a recent note from Eurizon analysts.
The dollar is estimated to account for 88% of all international transactions, while China's yuan holds a 7% share.
there would have be one entity, after an IPO of common shares on a real exchange, at a much higher price than today, and it will include dividends. say 25 to 40 cents per share. every common share will be rolled into the new IPO. they will obviously sell more shares to fund the new entity with transition costs and operating capital. lest we not forget the 200b stolen money, unless handled properly, it will be a brand spanking new target for law suits.
From Rodney, we all knew it was done like this, GSEs were perfectly fine that very same year.
Quote: “Former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO Dick Kovacevich says the federal government's bank bailout during the depths of the financial crisis was an unmitigated disaster and laid much of the blame for the financial crisis on ineffective regulators.
The decision by the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve in October 2008 to make banks take TARP money even if they didn't want it or need it was one of the worst economic decisions in the history of the United States, Kovacevich.” End of Quote.
Quote: “Kovacevich said some might ask, Why didn't I just say no and not accept the TARP money? As my comments were heading in that direction in the meeting, Hank Paulson turned to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke sitting next to him and said, Your primary regulator is sitting right here. If you refuse to accept these funds, he will declare you capital deficient Monday morning. Kovacevich recalled, Is this America? I ask myself.” End of Quote.
Donotunderstand, I appreciate your contribution to our effort in getting out of this prison.
“time of emergency-near “war times” ?
Even in war time real property is compensated under the 5th...
“how do two judges come to the edge of saying we got screwed and then vote with the assailant”
It has been covered a dozen times on this board...
It was explained to you in the post you replied too.
“Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. And IT IS NOT WORKING!
Again,
“Well, why didn't you bring a takings claim?”
JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this seems like a takings claim, why should we stretch out of recognition or stretch or try to draw lines unnecessarily on the question of derivative actions? Page 71
JUSTICE BREYER: I'm -- I'm aware of derivative action of the conservator. In fact, he so -- goes so far that the company's hurt, really hurt, and the shareholders are destroyed, bring a takings claim, but as long as there's a colorable claim, as long as there's a colorable defense, forget it. Apply ordinary derivative law. Page 71
JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, we have brought a takings claim, but that doesn't absolve this Court of -- under the APA, of addressing our challenge to the lawfulness of the agency action. There's no reason to think that – Page 70
Let me interpret MR. Thompson, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'colorable claim' so we can collect Par Value. JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …
The question was asked on this board, “Why did Breyer vote along with the other Justices?” Ha
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
DERIVATIVE. Coming from another; taken from something preceding, secondary; as derivative title, which is that acquired from another person. There is considerable difference between an original and a derivative title. When the acquisition is original, the right thus acquired to the thing becomes property, which must be unqualified and unlimited, and since no one but the occupant has any right to the thing, he must have the whole right of disposing of it. But with regard to derivative acquisition, it may be otherwise, for the person from whom the thing is acquired may not have an unlimited right to it, or he may convey or transfer it with certain reservations of right. Derivative title must always be by contract.
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.
It appears JPS attorney's aren't interested in any legal actions that would result in commons benefiting on their behalf. Perhaps by direction of their clients. No? Certainly would explain all the JPS holders on this board bashing commons. Perhaps they're afraid of commons 'stealing' too much of their pie. Breyer, on the other hand, wants a resolution that would benefit all stakeholders, not just a certain class. Thoughts?
$FMCC. SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP AND THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT PLAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Watch my signature image to see how the Net Worth evolved during conservatorship (the PLMBS lawsuit settlement wasn't included yet) and how the UST backup of FnF works; The dividend on the cumulative SPS coincide with the interests on the amount due to FnF, after applying their special borrowing right from UST. So, it's netted out.
COMMON EQUITY: $97B ($150ps). It was calculated: Beginning balance, June 2008:$-1.2B +Accumulated Total Comprehensive Income (adjusted for the charges in several Accounting standard changes):$72B +CRT, net (Retained Earnings):$7.7B +73% PLMBS lawsuit, based on the AOCI (unrealized losses in PLMBS) on June 30, 2008, compared to Fannie Mae: $19B It's reflected on the Balance Sheet with a posting of $97B on the Retained Earnings account and the Treasury Stock is reduced to $0 (the stocks repurchased are retired), the other accounts are approximately $0 as seen today. Common Equity as of end of December 2022: $0 common stock par value $0 Additional Paid-In Capital $0 Treasury Stock $97B Retained Earnings account $0 AOCI
Facts from Rodney: 4/15/23 You mention the illegal stock, SPS certificate, statement “cumulative" dividend. A certificate that also states that a dividend is paid out of available funds for distribution. And you think this is legal. You think this is okay? Ha
IT IS ALL ILLEGAL!
LISTEN! IF MR. Fisher can get us out of this prison under the terms he set forth, personally I am all for it.
Barron, has it right!
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.
SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Quote: “This sets the stage for dealing with FHFA since it seems to satisfy the three Thunder Basin work arounds that were created in Axon and Cochran today.” End of Quote...
Help me out?
The executive branch entities are not given the power to hold in-house tribunals, constitutional propriety.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies precedent to determine that Axon Enterprise’s and Michelle Cochran’s structural constitutional claims need not be channeled through the administrative review schemes at issue. I write separately, however, because I have grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.
The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law.
Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA.
The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests. DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.
Barron4664 Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255 Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.
Your talking about a bunch of penny stock guys hiding behind there computers. A lot can’t even fork out $20 for a pacer account so any thought of putting together a lawsuit is all talk in there part except me and Rodney and a couple of others who are willing to Atleast look at the potential.
Trunkmonk, I think you are right, in plain sight of defense not good. Yesterday, I was throwing out thoughts on the subject, asking for others' opinion. I appreciate shareholders as yourself. I did notice the communication vanished; Did you see that? Regards
Well I’m thinking if I was gonna buy a stock, and saw that current shareholders after 14 years, are discussing what they want to propose in court. I wouldn’t buy it. GSEs need solid case, not arm chair thoughts in plain sight of defense.
commons shares in every company are a risk, especially GSEs. some people cant understand this, especially the ones who have no business in the stock market. if they want safety they go with preferred. everyone knows this, but they keep saying commons have no security, and in the same breath preferred should get par. sad sad world for some so in debt they have no life other than to post negatives about common shares. commons wait until either courts decide something, or FHFA and treasury or congress totally mess up by stealing more.
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS (a) PURCHASE AND SALE OF MORTGAGES; SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS; ADVANCE OF FUNDS OR ORIGINATION OF LOANS; SETTLEMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF BORROWERS RIGHTS.— 12 U.S.C. 1719 (1) To carry out the purposes set forth in paragraph (a) of section 301, the operations of the corporation under this section shall be confined so far as practicable, to mortgages which are deemed by the corporation to be of such quality, type, and class as to meet, generally, the purchase standards imposed by private institutional mortgage investors. In the interest of assuring sound operation, the prices to be paid by the corporation for mort- gages purchased in its secondary market operations under this section, should be established, from time to time, within the range of market prices for the particular class of mortgages involved, as determined by the corpo- ration. The volume of the corporation’s purchases and sales, and the estab- lishment of the purchase prices, sale prices, and charges or fees, in its secondary market operations under this section, should be determined by the corporation from time to time, and such determinations should be consistent with the objectives that such purchases and sales should be effected only at such prices and on such terms as will reasonably prevent excessive use of the corporation’s facilities, and that the operations of the corporation under this section should be within its income derived from such operations and that such operations should be fully self supporting. Nothing in this title shall prohibit the corporation from purchasing, and making commitments to purchase, any mortgage with respect to which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has entered into a contract with the corporation to make interest subsidy payments under section 243 of the National Housing Act. Institutional Investor Purchase Standard Operations to be Self-Supporting (2) The volume of the corporation’s lending activities and the establishment of its loan ratios, interest rates, maturities, and charges or fees, in its secondary market operations under this section, should be determined by the corporation from time to time; and such determinations, in conjunction with determinations made under paragraph (1), should be consistent with the objectives that the lending activities should be conducted on such terms as will reasonably prevent excessive use of the corporation’s facilities, and that the operations of the corporation under this section should be within its income derived from such operations and that such operations should be fully self-supporting. The corporation shall not be permitted to use its lending authority (A) to advance funds to a mortgage seller on an interim basis, using mortgage loans as collateral, pending the sale of the mortgages in the secondary market; or (B) to originate mortgage loans. Notwithstand- ing any Federal, State, or other law to the contrary, the corporation is empowered, in connection with any loan under this section, whether before or after any default, to provide by contract with the borrower for the settlement or extinguishment, upon default, of any redemption, equitable, legal, or other right, title, or interest of the borrower in any mortgage or mortgages that constitute the security for the loan; and with respect to any such loan, in the event of default and pursuant otherwise to the terms of the contract, the mortgages that constitute such security shall become the absolute property of the corporation. (b) OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION.—For the purposes of this section, the corporation is authorized to issue, upon the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, and have outstanding at any one time obligations having such maturities and bearing such rate or rates of interest as may be determined by the corporation with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to be redeemable at the option of the corporation before maturity in such manner as may be stipulated in such obligations. The corporation shall insert appropriate language in all of its obligations issued under this subsection clearly indicating that such obligations, together with the interest thereon, are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or of any agency or instrumentality thereof other than the corporation. The corporation is authorized to purchase in the open market any of its obligations outstanding under this subsection at any time and at any price. General Obligations Not Guaranteed by the United States (c) PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASURY; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized in the Secretary’s discretion to purchase any obligations issued pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, as now or hereafter in force, and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds of the sale of any securities hereafter issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include such purchases. The Secretary of the Treasury shall not at any time purchase any obligations under this subsection if such purchase would increase the aggregate principal amount of the Secretary’s then outstanding holdings of such obliga- tions under this subsection to an amount greater than $2,250,000,000. Each purchase of obligations by the Secretary of the Treasury under this subsection shall be upon such terms and conditions as to yield a return at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the last day of the month preceding the making of such purchase. The Secretary of the Treasury may, at any time, sell, upon such terms and conditions and at such price or prices as the Secretary shall determine, any of the obligations acquired by the Secretary under this subsection. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection shall be treated as public debt transactions of the United States. Authority of Treasury to Purchase Obligations Limitations Terms and Rates (d) MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES; ISSUANCE; MATURITIES; RATES OF INTEREST; EXEMPT SECURITIES; ADEQUACY OF MORTGAGES TO PERMIT PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS; STATEMENT IN SECURITIES.—To provide a greater degree of liquidity to the mortgage investment market and an additional means of financing its operations under this section, the corporation is authorized to set aside any mortgages held by it under this section, and, upon approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue and sell securities based upon the mortgages so set aside. Securities issued under this subsection may be in the form of debt obligations or trust certificates of beneficial interest, or both. Securities issued under this subsection shall have such maturities and bear such rate or rates of interest as may be determined by the corporation with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. Securities issued by the corporation under this subsection shall, to the same extent as securities which are direct obligations of or obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States, be deemed to be exempt securities within the meaning of laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mortgages set aside pursuant to this subsection shall at all times be adequate to enable the corporation to make timely principal and interest payments on the securities issued and sold pursuant to this subsection. The corporation shall insert appropriate language in all of the securities issued under this subsection clearly indicating that such securities, together with the interest thereon, are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof other than the corporation. SEC Exemption (e) SUBORDINATED OR CONVERTIBLE OBLIGATIONS; ISSUANCE; MATURITIES; RATE OF INTEREST; REDEMPTION; EXEMPT SECURITIES; DEBT OR OBLIGATION OF UNITED STATES; PURCHASES IN OPEN MARKET.—For the purposes of this section, the corporation is authorized to issue, upon the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, obligations which are subordinated to any or all other obligations of the corporation, including subsequent obligations. The obligations issued under this subsection shall have such maturities and bear such rate or rates of interest as may be determined by the corporation with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury and may be made redeemable at the option of the corporation before maturity in such manner as may be stipulated in such obligations. Any of such obligations may be made convertible into shares of common stock in such manner, at such price or prices, and at such time or times as may be stipulated therein. Obligations issued by the corporation under this subsection shall, to the same extent as securities which are direct obligations of or obliga- tions guaranteed as to principal or interest by the United States, be deemed to be exempt securities within the meaning of laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The corporation shall insert appropriate language in all of its obligations issued under this subsection clearly indicating that such obli- gations, together with the interest thereon, are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or of any agency or instrumentality thereof other than the corporation. The corporation is authorized to purchase in the open market any of its obligations outstanding under this subsection at any time and at any price.
(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. Fee Limitation (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGA- TIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— (1) AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE.— (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—In addition to the authority under subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to purchase any obligations and other securities issued by the corpora- tion under any section of this Act, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may determine and in such amounts as the Secretary may determine. Nothing in this subsection requires the corporation to issue obligations or securities to the Secretary without mutual agreement between the Secretary and the corporation. Nothing in this subsection permits or authorizes the Secretary, without the agreement of the corpo- ration, to engage in open market purchases of the common securities of the corporation. Temporary Authority of Treasury to Purchase Obligations and Other Securities (B) EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED.—In connection with any use of this authority, the Secretary must determine that such actions are necessary to— (i) provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and (iii) protect the taxpayer. (C) CONSIDERATIONS.—To protect the taxpayers, the Secretary of the Treasury shall take into consideration the following in connection with exercising the authority contained in this paragraph: (i) The need for preferences or priorities regarding payments to the Government.
(ii) Limits on maturity or disposition of obligations or securities to be purchased. (iii) The corporation’s plan for the orderly resumption of private market funding or capital market access. (iv) The probability of the corporation fulfilling the terms of any such obligation or other security, including repayment. (v) The need to maintain the corporation’s status as a private shareholder-owned company. (vi) Restrictions on the use of corporation resources, including limitations on the payment of dividends and executive compensation and any such other terms and conditions as appropriate for those purposes. (D) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Upon exercise of this authority, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate as to the necessity for the purchase and the determinations made by the Secretary under subparagraph (B) and with respect to the considerations required under subparagraph (C), and the size, terms, and probability of repayment or fulfillment of other terms of such purchase. (2) RIGHTS; SALE OF OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES.— (A) EXERCISE OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary of the Treasury may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with such purchases. (B) SALE OF OBLIGATION AND SECURITIES.—The Secretary of the Treasury may, at any time, subject to the terms of the security or otherwise upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell any obligation or security acquired by the Secretary under this subsection. (C) DEFICIT REDUCTION.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the General Fund of the Treasury any amounts received by the Secretary from the sale of any obligation acquired by the Secretary under this subsection, where such amounts shall be— (i) dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit reductions; and (ii) prohibited from use as an offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions. (D) APPLICATION OF SUNSET TO PURCHASED OBLIGATIONS OR SECURITIES.—The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to hold, exercise any rights received in connection with, or sell, any obligations or securities purchased is not subject to the provisions of paragraph (4). (3) FUNDING.—For the purpose of the authorities granted in this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of Title 31, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of Title 31 are extended to include such purchases and the exercise of any rights in connection with such purchases. Any funds expended for the purchase of, or modifications to, obligations and securities, or the exercise of any rights received in connection with such purchases under this subsection shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such purchase, modification, or exercise. (4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009. (5) AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR WITH RESPECT TO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.—The Director shall have the power to approve, disapprove, or modify the executive compensation of the corporation, as defined under Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. 229.
Section 304 is about purchases, NOT debt obligations funded by US taxpayers which is strictly prohibited. "NOT GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES."
Barron is correct. Treasury was never authorized to provide a $200 Billion debt obligation funded by taxpayers. Charter Act, section 304 is the governing statute in this matter. Charter Act goes out of its way to make very clear throughout section 304 that US does NOT fund debt obligations.
The corporation shall insert appropriate language in all of its obligations issued under this subsection clearly indicating that such obligations, together with the interest thereon, are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or of any agency or instrumentality thereof other than the corporation.
Taxpayers prohibited from funding such obligations.
Somehow Ps mention capital structure to act smart. None of them are in finance, some live on the beach, some are in debt up their eye balls. And I know I understand capital structure as well or better than any of them. And it has nothing to do with the demise of GSE commons but only an agenda they know little about.
Everything they have done to GSEs to date was either wrong, illegal, fiduciary irresponsible, or just vindictive towards the taxpaying people of this nation through redirecting funds or putting us at risk for NWS and hiring 600 people to sit and do nothing. Some watched tapes of sea cucumbers while others were getting sexually assaulted by what the perpetrator actually stated has immunity to everything and can do anything.
This allows Congress to use its most powerful tool – the power of the purse – to ensure this CFPB is actually about consumer empowerment and not another vehicle for left-wing bureaucrats to advance the power of the administrative state.”
"...administrative state", aka Deep State, the unconstitutional, highly illegal 4th branch of Gov that is operating behind the scenes subverting operations of the other 3 branches. This is democracy??? I think not! We are being hijacked!!!
The TABS Act comes on the heels of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that may dismantle the bureau.
Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) reintroduced the Taking Account of Bureaucrats’ Spending (TABS) Act on Wednesday, which would place the CFPB into the congressional appropriations process and turn it into an independent agency.
According to Rep. Barr, the TABS Act would subject the CFPB to the traditional congressional appropriations process, like many other federal agencies. “Furthermore, the TABS Act would make the CFPB an independent agency named the Consumer Financial Empowerment Agency,” said a statement posted on Barr’s website.
“The CFPB is the most unaccountable and authoritarian agency in the entire federal bureaucracy. I’m leading this legislation to give the CFPB the wholesale makeover it needs to finally be accountable to Congress,” Barr said. “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and prominent legal scholars have been clear that the CFPB’s novel and unique funding structure is unconstitutional by violating the Appropriations Clause. The TABS Act corrects this by requiring the Bureau to go through the traditional federal appropriations. The special treatment the CFPB has been receiving that has allowed for reckless spending and regulatory overreach will come to an end with the passage of the TABS Act. This allows Congress to use its most powerful tool – the power of the purse – to ensure this CFPB is actually about consumer empowerment and not another vehicle for left-wing bureaucrats to advance the power of the administrative state.”
CUNA President/CEO Jim Nussle applauded Barr’s reintroduction of the legislation. “We thank Rep. Barr for his legislation, which supports CUNA’s longstanding position that the CFPB is funded through the appropriations process. The CFPB’s actions and policies impact a massive part of the global economy, and we support actions to make the agency more transparent and accountable,” Nussle said.
“Congressman Barr is a tireless champion of regulatory relief and has demonstrated his commitment to battling burdensome regulatory overreach, Kentucky Credit Union League President/CEO Debbie Painter said. “This bill is another example of those efforts. We look forward to working with Congressman Barr and his team on this bill and others to promote growth and fairness within the financial industry.”
The CFPB has increasingly become the focus of lawmakers and judicial experts as of late. On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear a 2017 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans ruled last October that the CFPB operates outside of what it considers a constitutional imperative that agencies be funded from direct appropriations by Congress.
Last week, officials with NAFCU stated the potential pitfalls if the CFPB were to be dismantled. Ann Petros, vice president of regulatory affairs, said NAFCU opposes a decision “that would upend the CFPB and could put the consumer financial services industry into chaos.”
“What we don’t want is the CFPB dismantled,” Petros said. “It should continue to operate.”
If the CFPB is deemed to be unconstitutional, the actions it spawned might also be considered illegitimate. Petros said this could raise questions of the validity of a host of current lending rules, such as those governing mortgage originations or car lending.
“There would be a question if people could close loans,” Greg Mesack, NAFCU’s SVP of government affairs, said. “It could have a devastating impact on people buying homes, buying cars.”
It’s expected the Supreme Court will hear the case this fall and announce its ruling in 2024.
(11) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM, RECOVERY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1989.—The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Public Law 101–73; 103 Stat. 183) is amended—
(A) in section 1112(b) (12 U.S.C. 3341), by striking “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” and inserting “Consumer Financial Empowerment Agency”;
(B) in section 1124 (12 U.S.C. 3353), by striking “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” each place such term appears and inserting “Consumer Financial Empowerment Agency”;
(C) in section 1125 (12 U.S.C. 3354), by striking “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” each place such term appears and inserting “Consumer Financial Empowerment Agency”; and
(D) in section 1206(a) (12 U.S.C. 1833b(a)), by striking “Federal Housing Finance Board” and all that follows through “Farm Credit Administration” and inserting “Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Consumer Financial Empowerment Agency, and the Farm Credit Administration”
§1833b. Comparability in compensation schedules (a) In general The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration Board, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Office of Financial Research, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the 1 Farm Credit Administration, in establishing and adjusting schedules of compensation and benefits which are to be determined solely by each agency under applicable provisions of law, shall inform the heads of the other agencies and the Congress of such compensation and benefits and shall seek to maintain comparability regarding compensation and benefits.
(b) Commodity Futures Trading Commission In establishing and adjusting schedules of compensation and benefits for employees of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under applicable provisions of law, the Commission shall-
(1) inform the heads of the agencies referred to in subsection (a) and Congress of such compensation and benefits; and
(2) seek to maintain comparability with those agencies regarding compensation and benefits.
( Pub. L. 101–73, title XII, §1206, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 523 ; Pub. L. 102–233, title III, §302(a), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1767 ; Pub. L. 107–123, §8(d)(3), Jan. 16, 2002, 115 Stat. 2400 ; Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10702(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 516 ; Pub. L. 111–203, title I, §152(d)(3), title III, §367(8), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1414 , 1557.)
Editorial Notes Codification Section was enacted as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, and not as part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act which comprises this chapter.
Amendments 2010-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–203, §367(8)(B), which directed striking out ", and the Office of Thrift Supervision" could not be executed because those words did not appear subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 111–203, §152(d)(3)(B). See below.
Pub. L. 111–203, §367(8)(A), which directed substitution of "Agency, and" for "Board, the Oversight Board of the Resolution Trust Corporation", was executed by substituting "Agency" for "Board" after "Federal Housing Finance", to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the amendments made by Pub. L. 107–123 and section 302(a) of Pub. L. 102–233. See 2002 Amendment note and Change of Name note below.
Pub. L. 111–203, §152(d)(3), substituted "Finance Board, the Office of Financial Research, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection" for "Finance Board," and struck out "and the Office of Thrift Supervision," after "Credit Administration,".
2002-Pub. L. 107–171 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).
Pub. L. 107–123 struck out "the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board of the Resolution Trust Corporation" after "Federal Housing Finance Board,".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Change of Name Oversight Board redesignated Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board, effective Feb. 1, 1992, see section 302(a) of Pub. L. 102–233, formerly set out as a note under section 1441a of this title. Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board abolished, see section 14(a)–(d) of Pub. L. 105–216, formerly set out as a note under section 1441a of this title.
Effective Date of 2010 Amendment Amendment by section 152(d)(3)of Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of this title.
Amendment by section 367(8) of Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the transfer date, see section 351 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 906 of Title 2, The Congress.
Effective Date of 2002 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 107–123 effective Oct. 1, 2001, see section 11 of Pub. L. 107–123, set out as a note under section 78ee of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
1 So in original. Probably should be "Research, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and the".
There is always the excuse handing par to JPS, converting to commons help facilitate offerings. Really, what moron institution cares about diluting commons to make those same commons look more valuable. Insane. How many ways can dumb ideas be said until somebody agrees? That’s the plan for JPS. I’ll stick with commons until JPS are Penny land.
There is always the excuse handing par to JPS, converting to commons help facilitate offerings. Really, what moron institution cares about diluting commons to make those same commons look more valuable. Insane. How many ways can dumb ideas be said until somebody agrees? That’s the plan for JPS. I’ll stick with commons until JPS are Penny land.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
