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.
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.
Does FNMFO still trade??? $105,000 redemption value.
Agree. The fact that the ruling was three to one is surprising to me.
You will be blocked going forward so I won't see your posts.
Glen Bradford says we won. That's all I know at this time.
What is Professor Thacker's full name and where does he teach? Do you have the same info for the other witnesses. Is the expert witness testimony available somewhere? I used to work at NERA Economic Consulting, but on "public utility" issues.
What is Professor Thacker's full name and where does he teach? Do you have the same info for the other witnesses. Is the expert witness testimony available somewhere? I used to work at NERA Economic Consulting, but on "public utility" issues.
No, Demarco was never nominated. My lawyer cousin said less than 10% are granted. 1% is probably too low, 10% too high.
Do you know anything about that Wazee Fisher case? Bryndon Fisher?
Umm, what's that Wazee Fischer case about? Claim: takings, unjust enrichment. En Banc petitions?
The SPSPAs are pretty clear on the possibility of dilution for the commons.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
The SPSPAs are pretty clear on the possibility of dilution for the commons.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Tsy has warrants so they can own 80% of the common stock. If they ever agree to let FnF recapitalize they are going to exercise those warrants. So there will be a lot of dilution of the commons.
That is the best-case scenario. If this doesn't happen, nothing will happen.
As far as the F&F preferred stocks, they would do ok vis-a-vis the best-case scenario I identified above.
Tsy has warrants so they can own 80% of the common stock. If they ever agree to let FnF they are going to exercise those warrants. So there will be a lot of dilution.
That is the best case scenario. If this doesn't happen, nothing will happen.
As far as the preferreds, they would do ok vis-a-vis the best case scenario I identified above.
Odds improved because the CFPB case is ahead of SCOTUS? Even this very conservative SCOTUS is going to have a hard time dealing with this case though. For FHFA, SCOTUS already agrees with the principle. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will agree to a remedy that gets rid of the 3rd Amendment.
FNMAM vs FNMAN
There seems to be a fairly wide price differential between these two. $2.70 vs. $3.51.
I suppose that the closing transactions could reflect that someone bought FNMAN at the ask price and someone else could have sold FNMAM at the bid price. Plus, wide bid-ask spreads.
Quantum online
FNMAM
Fannie Mae, 5.81% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series H
Ticker Symbol: FNMAM CUSIP: 313586885 Exchange: OTCBB
FNMAN
Fannie Mae, 5.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series L
Ticker Symbol: FNMAN CUSIP: 313586844 Exchange: OTCBB
I'm copy-and-pasting from the plaintiffs' brief dated 2.1.23 because: why not? It's fun to read.
Plaintiffs plausibly allege a violation of the Appropriations Clause. Plaintiffs allege that “FHFA’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by empowering it to act without oversight from Congress through the appropriations process.” ROA.1177. This violation arises from FHFA’s unusual self-funding structure. “HERA grants the Director full control over FHFA’s funding with no oversight from Congress through the normal appropriations process.” ROA.1181. “The Director has the power to establish and collect assessments directly from the entities that FHFA regulates, not only for expenses but also to maintain a working capital fund. The Director alone determines the amount of those assessments.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Meanwhile, “Article I of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power over the purse,” through the appropriations power. ROA.1213 (cleaned up). The Constitution’s grant of the appropriations power to Congress “precludes the operation of an executive agency headed by a single person wielding significant executive power other than through funds periodically appropriated by Congress.” ROA.1177. And FHFA exercises extraordinary power over the American economy. “FHFA regulates the massively important housing finance market and is funded through assessments on the entities it regulates and that FHFA’s single director sets with no congressional oversight.” Id.
Recent precedent of this Court strongly supports Plaintiffs’ Appropriations Clause claims. In CFSA v. CFPB, this Court held that the CFPB’s funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause. The Court explained: “The Appropriations Clause’s ‘straightforward and explicit command’ ensures Congress’s exclusive power over the federal purse. 51 F.4th at 637 (quoting OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424 (1990)) (emphasis in original). The Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to FHFA, given its unusual status outside of the constitutionally prescribed appropriations process.
In light of this Court’s holding in CFSA, the only question that remains with respect to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Appropriations Clause claim is whether FHFA can be meaningfully distinguished from CFPB. It cannot. Both are non-independent federal agencies headed by a single Director. Id. at 640 (explaining that “the Director’s newfound presidential subservience exacerbates the constitutional problem arising from the Bureau’s budgetary independence” (cleaned up)). Both agencies do not receive appropriations, thus preventing Congress from exercising direct control over their funding. Compare 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) (providing that FHFA assessments are not appropriations), with 51 F.4th at 638 (discussing analogous statutory provision as to CFPB). If anything, FHFA’s funding structure is more constitutionally problematic than that of the CFPB. While the CFPB’s assessments are limited to no more than 12% of the operating expenses of the independent Federal Reserve, 51 F.4th at 624, the sole limitation on FHFA’s funding power is the Director’s unbounded judgment of what is “reasonable.” See 12 U.S.C.A. § 4516(a). FHFA can thus collect unlimited funds from the Companies with no oversight from Congress. All the while, FHFA exercises sweeping powers over the Companies and the American housing market. ROA.1177. This structure renders FHFA “no longer dependent and, as a result, no longer accountable to Congress and, ultimately, to the people.” CFSA, 51 F.4th at 639 (internal quotation marks omitted).
As to remedy, “[s]o long as this constitutional infirmity in FHFA’s funding structure persists, FHFA lacks constitutional authority to act.” ROA.1177. After all, “[a]n executive agency that lacks constitutionally authorized funding to operate lacks the authority necessary ‘to carry out the functions of the office.’” ROA.1213 (quoting Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1788). “The FHFA adopted the Third Amendment at a time when it lacked constitutionally authorized funding to operate,” ROA.1214, and so “the Third Amendment must be vacated and set aside,” Id.; see also ROA.1216–17 (Plaintiffs’ Appropriations Clause claims brought under the APA).
Because FHFA lacked constitutional authority to act due to the Appropriations Clause violation, it follows that Section 4617(f) does not bar relief. See Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1776.
Plaintiffs have stated a claim that the FHFA’s self-funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause and that the appropriate remedy for this constitutional violation is to vacate and set aside the Third Amendment. Here again, this Court should Plaintiffs in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Constitution.
Do you have a link to the oral arguments Nebraska v Biden?
Totally agree.
6th district, one issue has been remanded back to a district court in Lansing, Michigan.
6th issues. One issue has been remanded back to the district court.
Yes, that was a nice windfall, long time ago though.
Rule of Law guy wrote a nice article on the 5th Circuit case here. https://ruleoflawguy.substack.com/p/the-trump-letter
But now he says that there is no litigation path going forward. I wonder what's up with him?
Does he really think that POTUS will free the GSEs from conservatorship?
But have the projects "really" been cancelled cancelled?
FCEL is working on smaller scale fuel cells in order to compete more effectively re Bloom, esp. in Europe.
FCEL is moving up in the queue and 2027 is coming faster than you would think. The Port Jefferson PPA ends in 2027.
LIPA will need the 40 MW. And it will be cheap relative to the Port Jefferson PPA.
Q. Is there a 2019 version of this slide deck...
Here is the slide deckhttps://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/H-Ghezel-Ayagh-FCE-Electrochemical-Membrane-System.pdf
A. "No. The company has redirected its focus on carbon capture from natural gas plants instead of the coal."
LOL. The Surgeon General did a twitter post on Feb 1, 2020. Roses are red
Violets are blue
Risk is low for #coronarvirus
But high for the #flu
What an irresponsible idiot.
Anyway, here is a simple forecast of covid-19 deaths in the US. It's been pretty accurate thus far.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/
They say peak deaths on April 16, 2020 at 2644. Total on that date 35,303, then 66,408 by end of April, 90,852 by end of May, then 93,400 by end of June.
The forecast uses optimistic assumptions, but it's a decent proxy for a best-case outcome at this point.
It is my understanding that:
The company has redirected its focus on cabon capture from natural gas plants instead of the coal,
But FCEL is not so bad that FCELB is a bad idea???
They need to get Posco etc to not violate their licenses. They need to be able to enter SK separate from Posco etc. 60 days we'll know more.
FCELB pays a 5% dividend, trades at $350, so effective dividend is 14.28%, which rounds closer to 14%.
I don't have any FCEL right now, but I have some Jan 2021 call options for FCEL.
My story is similar. I now have 1,000 shares of FCEL. At 60 cents, I did buy FCEL call options $1 strike price. Made $9,000 profit on $3,000 speculative investment. I was having doubts about selling when I did, but feel good about it now. I have 692 shares of FCEL and plan to keep them for the duration.
Thanks for posting the link to this document.
If FCEL's has conf call on 1/14/20 wouldn't they issue the 10K the same day or the night before?
I saw that one, it didn't seem quite on point, but I suppose it's the "forest" and I'm looking for one specific branch on a very small "tree." Anyway, SCE signed the PPA and I guess that is what matters.
Has anyone seen a commission decision re this proceeding?
Has anyone seen a commission decision re this proceeding?
Tulare COD plus refinancing or sale would free up a lot of cash.
Ummm, this is Thanks week, people are taking time off.
An Amendment of the PPA? Did it affect pricing? This raises more questions than it answers, although it does seem like FCEL is able to live with the changes so maybe ok?