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.
I agree. I don’t know where this partial payment talk is coming from
"Partial payment talk" comes from the following:
1. The Fifth Circuit en banc majority did not invalidate the net worth sweep. There is no legal reason or authority that says the net worth sweep must stop now. FHFA and Treasury can do as they like until the net worth sweep is legally invalidated and vacated. FHFA and Treasury can end the sweep, do a partial sweep, or sweep the entire 2nd quarter net worth. Time will tell.
2. The Treasury Housing Reform plan clearly states that an administrative step to take in recapitalizing the GSEs and ending the conservatorship is to increase the capital reserve buffer beyond the current $3 billion while paying Treasury an unknown amount of monetary compensation.
Wow, so nothing is certain at all. If Calabria wants to keep his for-cause removal protection, as evidenced in his letter to the en banc panel, he might need to get this case settled very quickly before the entry of judgment can be made.
Yes.
Of course, someone else could always bring up the same issue in another court and hope to eventually force SCOTUS to rule on it due to a circuit split, but that's a ways down the road.
Yes. Uncertainty rules until it does not. Since the en banc decision on September 6, 2019, the same day the en banc judgment was entered, there has been no activity in the Atlas' court.
But what if the case is settled before Judge Atlas ever makes that entry of judgment? Would things stand as they were as if the case had never been filed, i.e. the FHFA director can only be fired for cause?
The rendition of judgment has already occurred with the en banc ruling. After the rendition of judgment, there is an entry of judgment. The entry of judgment is the official recording of the rendition of judgment by the court clerk who signs and files the judgment which then becomes an official record of the rendition of judgment. It is court clerical action. See: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-vii-judgment/rule-58-entering-judgment/ and https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_36
If the entry of judgment is not made by the court clerk, then the rendition of judgment given is not official and not enforceable. In this case, the removal for cause provision would still stand and the FHFA Director could only be fired for cause.
Again. much appreciate your generous effort.
It is my pleasure.
Surprising to me after the court ruled Trump could replace Leandra English at CFPB with Mick Mulvaney despite her being the statutory successor and Mulvaney having no experience at CFPB. However, I also seem to recall the definitions of "for cause" were different under Dodd-Frank and HERA, so maybe that explains it. Maybe, too, she just decided to resign since she was not wanted by Trump. No need to dig into that... I will just chalk it up to this Administration always seeming to get their way.
She resigned and dropped the case. Removal for cause was not involved. No firings.
See this link for basic details:
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/english-v-trump/
A fine weekend to you, Sir.
Thanks, again.
Thanks, Enjoy.
Obi, thanks for all the effort you put into this conversation on discharge of Agency Directors.
You are welcome.
I recall the campaign to dislodge DeMarco, but I also seem to recal the view that Obama had authority but chose not to exercise it. Could be wrong, too. It was a long time ago.
How is it that Obama failed to exercise his authority?
The authority Obama had at that time was to fire DeMarco for cause or nominate a new director. As noted in the 2012 news, it was Obama's failure of will to fire Demarco for cause despite the great and continuous outpouring of aggrieved parties in the administration and out clamoring for his termination for cause. Obama did not act.
Was it a choice not to exercise authority (removal for cause) or a lack of will and conviction? Since it was an election year (November 6, 2012), is it conceivable that, perhaps, Obama not want to muddy the electorate waters by publicly siding and acting on a clearly partisan issue? Who knows? It is known that he did not act.
Regarding FHFA Director nominations, Obama's first nomination was in 2010, Joseph Smith, a North Carolina banking regulator. However, Smith failed to be confirmed in the Senate due to Republican opposition. In May 2013, Obama, after his electoral win, Obama nominated Mel Watt as FHFA Director. Watt was opposed by Republicans who prevented a first attempt of confirmation. Even so, Watt was confirmed by the Senate seven months later in December 2013. Republican opposition forced Democrats to vote out the ability to filibuster Senate nominations and to bring in a simple majority vote to confirm nominations.
DeMarco left FHFA in April 2014 after serving a full term as Acting Director.
There is no statement made by Obama that he chose not to exercise his power and authority. He had the chance to fire for cause in 2012 having wide Democrat support. However, there was a simple absence of effective action to attempt to fire DeMarco for some unstated reason. Perhaps, the inability to win a for cause removal (what did DeMarco due that was a cause for removal?), the protracted nature of such a legal gambit or the possible loss of social capital in the looming Presidential election in November 2012 by being openly partisan.
Do you have an opinion of the likelihood of a full invalidation of all FHFA actions as Director? The raging claims have been the unwinding of all the provisions in the SPSPA, return of all the money sent Treasury in quarterly SPD distributions, etc.
No opinion is required. The above are unwarranted speculations.
The Fifth Circuit en banc majority's remedy of severing the removal for cause provision is prospective, not retrospective.
Judges Haynes, Stewart, Dennis, Owen, Southwick, Graves, Higginson, Costa, and Duncan's majority decision in summary is below:
I dont think Demarco was the loner in putting the twins in conservatorship in 2009. He was told to do it.
DeMarco did not place the GSEs in conservatorships 2009. The GSEs were placed in conservatorships by James B. Lockhart III in September 2008. https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Statement-of-FHFA-Director-James-B--Lockhart-at-News-Conference-Annnouncing-Conservatorship-of-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac.aspx Lockhart was certainly in relationship with and influenced by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the White House administration.
Moving forward to the present time, is Calabria acting alone?
No.
Who is Calabria taking his instructions to act from?
Concerning the future of the GSEs, and considering the severance of HERAs's removal for cause provision, Calabria works Mnuchin (UST), various persons in the White Administration, the executives and staff of the FHFA and GSEs, members of Congress, interested parties, etc. Calabria is not an organic automaton, a one-way, programmable organic entity. However, there are some who see him in that manner.
There's a gaping hole in Constitutionally illegal structure and its gleefully anticipated rewards to shareholders since the Collins ruling. Not everything FHFA did during conservatorship was directed by a flawed Agency. Edward DeMarco was Acting Director from September 1, 2009 until January 6, 2014. An Acting Director is removable by the Executive branch at will. Consequently, only the actions taken by either Lockhart, Watt or Calabria could be viewed as flawed. This same Acting Director exemption would apply to Otting, as well, except he never really did anything so who cares?
According to HERA at that time, the Acting Director can only be removed for cause.
You are welcome reyprimero.
OTC short reports are for real no accurate at all,....
Correct. Reported, not estimated, short interest is best found at FINRA.
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
Actual short interest is reported every two weeks. The newest report is due today.
https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/short-interest/short-interest-reporting-due-dates
Note: Short interest is reported every two weeks on the 15th day and the last day of the month. However, several days pass before the short interest numbers and days to cover (short interest ratio) is published. During that hiatus between reporting and publishing, the number of shares short in the OTC market will have changed, more or less.
You are welcome captainHB
So its up to FHFA and Treasury to uplist or downlist? Isnt there some condtion that needs to be met? Like having a certain high pps for certain time or something?
It is up to FHFA to relist the GSEs while in the conservatorships. Post-conservatorship the GSEs can relist.
To relist to a major exchange (i.e. NYSE) The GSEs must be able to return to compliance by fulfilling the rules and standards given by the major exchange.
NYSE
Rule 103B. Security Allocation and Reallocation
VI. POLICY NOTES
(B) Relistings
Relistings are treated as new listings and will be allocated through the allocation process pursuant to Exchange Rule 103B, Section III. If the relisting chooses to have its DMM unit selected by the Exchange pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B, Section III(B), and requests not to be allocated to its former DMM unit, such request will be honored. DMM units that are ineligible to receive a new allocation due to its failure to meet the requirements of NYSE Rule 103B, Section II(D) and (E) will remain eligible to receive an allocation pursuant to this section. - See the Exchange Rule 103B - https://bit.ly/2miW2rj
Here is the NYSE listing process:
https://bit.ly/2mdn8ji
Note: DMM - Designated Market Maker - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/designated-market-maker-dmm.asp
I see what you did there...lol
It could have been less repetitious and more "elegant." See below.
lol at least the weasel that “ won’t lose sleep” over shareholder’s right is gone! thank god
Can it be said with all the trouble of moving from Congress to FHFA and then accused of sexual harassment that:
https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-meme/57f3f7cd-09ea-4f40-b06d-0379fb456c9c?
lol at least the weasel that “ won’t lose sleep” over shareholder’s right is gone! thank god
Can it be said with all the trouble of moving from Congress to FHFA and then accused of sexual harassment that:
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/57f3f7cd-09ea-4f40-b06d-0379fb456c9c
yes he said if shareholders win or lose it’s incidental but the question was asked “what do you say to criticism of money going into pockets of hedgefunds”.
he did a good job by fighting off that question
Calabria waved it away saying, "it is not necessarily a concern of mine..."
See 3:11-3:33 - https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-wont-170013740.html
Like this?
Did anyone else catch the last bit where Calabria used "of questionable legality" to describe the NWS? WIN!
Yes.
Did you catch the part that shareholders are incidental?
See: 3:22-3:33 - https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-wont-170013740.html
thot someone as up to date as you would be all over privacy badger
Privacy Badger is used as a chrome extension. However, PB does not block ads and does not block many trackers on a page. It does block trackers that follow across pages and that is its only useful function. For example, on the Bloomberg page, PB does not block 6 additional trackers and 7 ads. So all three are used.
Full Bloomberg Video w Calabria for those using Adblock and/or Ghostery
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-wont-170013740.html
The Pershing "reporting" question on 13-D Filings began so many years ago that the details are hazy. I seem to recall that Ackman's legal eagles told him he was a "passive investor" with common share voting rights suspended under GOV conservatorship. I also seem to recall that filings for passive investors that normally would go on a 13-G form that involves OTC stocks are done on a fully diluted basis. This is done because so many OTC stocks have HUGE founder wads of dilutive options. In FNMA's instance, this would be considering the conversion value of warrants. On a non-diluted basis, Ackman would still need to file as his holdings would be above the 5% beneficial ownership threshold. But on a fully diluted basis, he would not be required to file.
May be my bad memory, though.
William Ackman's (Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.) initial purchases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock are found in 11/15/2013 SEC filings on form SC 13D.
See:
Fannie Mae
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443212/0001193125-13-443212-index.htm
Purchase Dates and Prices
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dex992.htm
Freddie Mac
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443208/0001193125-13-443208-index.htm
Purchase Dates and Prices
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000119312513443208/d630961dex992.htm
Amended SC 13Ds for Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. are found here: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001336528&type=sc+13d&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=100
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. GSE preferred holdings were purchased between June 2017 and December 2017...
https://www.pershingsquareholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Annual-Report.pdf
A SEC filing regarding this purchase has not yet been found.
yes
6 or 7 all at FNMA
I believe all of the preferred are callable - as industry standard is to make preferred stock callable after 5 years or 10 max.
Yes. All Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock are currently callable with the exception of two: Fannie Mae's FNMAS and Freddie Mac's FMCKJ.
FNMAS is currently callable on December 31, 2020 and every five years thereafter.https://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/stock-info/series_s_12062007.pdf
FMCKJ is currently callable on December 31, 2022 and every five years thereafter. http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/pdf/FtFPrefStock-oc.pdf
See also:
Freddie Mac Preferred
http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/preferred-stock.html
Fannie Mae Preferred
https://www.fanniemae.com/portal/about-fm/investor-relations/stock-information.html#/sthash.FX5GG9nr.dpuf
To answer the unanswered questions at https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151149349:
I tried about 6 or 7 different JPS symbols at quantom online preferred
and all are callable 2013 or earlier
That is so. And the rest?
http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/preferred-stock.html
https://www.fanniemae.com/portal/about-fm/investor-relations/stock-information.html#/sthash.FX5GG9nr.dpuf
what call protection ?
Ask kthomp19.
According to the Yahoo Finance FNMAS page, FNMAS traded above par from the day it was issued (Dec 18 2007) until Mar 6 2008.
As a matter of fact, what was the highest amount above par during that period? How many days did FNMAS trade above par? Range?
Given its call protection and the fact that FnF (once recapped) will be in a much more stable situation compared to late 2007/early 2008, I would expect it to trade above par after recap and release is done.
How much above par ($25) is possible or probable after recap and release is done?
Understood.
Read the last paragraph
And?
You mean he isn't some hayseed who just fell off the turnip truck? What have we come to guise.
The best bit is his connection to Ackman. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Just "unverified" info that was reported about Clayton and his relationships with individuals and corporations.
Trump’s S.E.C. Nominee Disclosure Offers Rare Glimpse of Clients and Conflicts
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/business/dealbook/sec-nominee-jay-clayton-client-list-conflicts-interest.html
You are welcome 10bambam.
Please excuse the very late response.
I saw Calabria say that Fannie and Freddie would trade again. That statement has been making me crazy. Calabria knows that we trade on the OTC. I am questioning in what context that statement was made.
1. Did he mean that we would trade on a major exchange again?
Besides making an error or misspeaking about GSEs stock trading, it is not known if Calabria, perhaps, was referring to relisting and trading on a major exchange.
2. Did he mean that we would trade at our real value again?
Given the words spoken, that seems unlikely.
3. Did he mean something else?
Perhaps. We will not know what that could be without his clarification.
I read on this forum that FnF could apply for uplisting under special circumstances as if there exceptions to the rules.
4. Can we uplist while in conservatorship?
Yes. Relisting can be done.
5. Can we uplist while our share price is lower than normal requirements?
To relist to a major exchange (i.e. NYSE) The GSEs must be able to return to compliance by fulfilling the rules and standards given by the major exchange.
NYSE
Rule 103B. Security Allocation and Reallocation
VI. POLICY NOTES
(B) Relistings
Relistings are treated as new listings and will be allocated through the allocation process pursuant to Exchange Rule 103B, Section III. If the relisting chooses to have its DMM unit selected by the Exchange pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B, Section III(B), and requests not to be allocated to its former DMM unit, such request will be honored. DMM units that are ineligible to receive a new allocation due to its failure to meet the requirements of NYSE Rule 103B, Section II(D) and (E) will remain eligible to receive an allocation pursuant to this section. - See the Exchange Rule 103B - https://bit.ly/2miW2rj
Although I think if news leaked of our application for uplist then share price would not be an issue.
Here is the NYSE listing process:
https://bit.ly/2mdn8ji
Thank you and you are welcome Mr Michael.
You are welcome kthomp19.
You are welcome Potty.
Yes. There is now more countervailing power compelling the executive, judicial, and legislative actors involved with determining the near and distant future of the GSEs to move in a positive direction.
My pleasure.
Do you concur that the En Banc decision "strengthens" the Sweeney case?
Yes.
In what way(s), especially relative to shareholders?
Fairholme et al. made claims that the FHFA, as the United States Government, performed a constitutional taking and illegal exaction by exceeding its statutory authority by enacting the net worth sweep. That is, the net worth sweep resulted in "a massive and unprecedented expropriation of private property" and "a massive and unprecedented financial windfall for the federal government at the expense of the Companies and their private shareholders." see: https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0404.pdf p. 9
The Defendant, United States (UST and FHFA) sought to dismiss these claims by arguing that the US Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction because FHFA is not the United States when it acts as the conservator. And, in order to bring a claim to the US Court of Federal Claims the Defendant must be the United States according to the Tucker Act. https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0020.pdf p. 21-29
Also, a dismissal of the Fairholme et al. claims has been sought by the Defendants who argued that the claims are not direct and the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring a constitutional takings claim because of HERA's succession provision that allows FHFA to succeed to all rights of the GSEs’shareholders when the GSEs were put into the conservatorships. https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0020.pdf p. 30-32
Considering the above, the en banc Fifth Circuit opinion supports and strengthens the Fairholme et al. claims by holding that the Collins et al. Plaintiffs clearly stated a 1) direct claim that 2) FHFA, as the United States, used federal government power to exceed its statutory authority when adopting the net worth sweep and that FHFA is the United States and acted as the US Government. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV2.pdf p. 24-25, 27-42, 50-51.
The en banc majority also held that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured and that the succession provision is not clearly interpretable to be used to "deny review of constitutional claims." This holding demonstrates that the succession provision cannot deny Fairholme et al. Plaintiffs a platform for making their constitutional taking and illegal exaction claims. See: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV2.pdf pp. 45-46.
In these ways, at least, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc holdings strengthen the Fairholme et al. case before the US Court of Federal Claims.
My pleasure.
Here is the audio file of the UI Teleconference on September 11, 2019.
Investors Unite Collins vs. FHFA Legal Updates Teleconference
https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GSE-091119.mp3