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.
Oh jeez, here we go again.
Fat chance. With the nonsensical hysteria surrounding "commons to the moon", the commons will likely go up a little before they come right on back down to reality. No damages, no takings. All just dreams.
Your votes are worth as much as your shares
Oh yeah, definitely. Must be his votes that keep this in conservatorship
She's doing a great job. Ackman should be able to buy a couple dozen donuts with all his commons.
Of course. The USG files claims and expects to get paid before anyone with junior claims. Happens in every case. No different than this 'conservatorship'.
Well if they go from a nickel to a quarter it will feel like going to the moon.
That's swell. Because you can always say "but Ackman bought commons"...when they slide into the abyss. Ackman bought commons before the NWS and bought JPS afterwards.
The matter has already been decided.
Nobody with a brain shorts penny garbage. Ackman got it wrong. Wrong.
The Court agrees with FHFA that the non-delegation doctrine is not implicated in this case, because FHFA was not exercising governmental power when it agreed to the Third Amendment. See Herron v. Fannie Mae , 861 F.3d 160, 169 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (stating that, as conservator, FHFA "step[ped] into Fannie Mae's private shoes," "shed[ ] its government character," and "[became] a private party" (citation and quotations omitted; some alterations in original) ); U.S. ex rel. Adams v. Aurora Loan Servs., Inc. , 813 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that FHFA's conservatorship over Fannie and Freddie did not transform them into governmental entities because the conservatorship "places FHFA in the shoes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and gives the FHFA their rights and duties, not the other way around"); see also U.S. ex rel. Petras v. Simparel, Inc. , 857 F.3d 497, 502-03 (3d Cir. 2017) ("We conclude that the [Small Business Administration], when acting as a receiver under the circumstances here, was not acting as the Government."); United States v. Beszborn , 21 F.3d 62, 68 (5th Cir. 1994) (rejecting double-jeopardy claim because earlier lawsuit was pursued by the Resolution Trust Corporation "in its private, non-governmental capacity as receiver").
The Third Amendment is simply a contractual arrangement that FHFA entered into on behalf of two private entities-Fannie and Freddie-in its capacity as their conservator. As other courts have noted, "[r]enegotiating dividend agreements, managing heavy debt and other financial obligations, and ensuring ongoing access to vital yet hard-to-come-by capital are quintessential conservatorship tasks ...." Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin , 864 F.3d 591, 607 (D.C. Cir. 2017), pets. for cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 978, 200 L.Ed.2d 247 (2018) (Nos. 17-578, 17-580, 17-591). In other words, these are the types of activities that any conservator would typically undertake, not exercises of governmental power.
I don't know and I don't care. Fools and their money as they say.
Why would anyone buy this for 50 cents and wait 20 years for a $1 that will be worth 25 cents at that time?
Well there ya go Robert. Already decided that angle. Thanks f man
ROBERT! I just cited from WV v EPA. The majority opinion. Get it? No? Then go back and read in red again....straight from WV. Collins said all was kosher...within the statute. Once again, you're barking up a tree that doesn't apply.
Robert, what's wrong? Did I pp in your cheerios? You were on the NonDelegation Doctrine kick and thought it was the last gasp savior....wanted a case....I gave you one from the Supreme Court.....says you're barking up the wrong tree.
NOW you're on to 'major questions'. Robert, you need to go back to the case I cited. Congress can delegate....'major stuff' if you will....to FHFA...which they did.
You seem to be confused. Conservatorship v Nationalization. You still have your commons...goin to the moon...worth $10, 100, 1000.....I keep hearing that every day. That's not nationalization now is it? No taking has happened, according to the CoFC. No nationalization.
You want a case... COLLINS. Been there and done that. It's not a question of whether or not the major questions doctrine was applicable, it's a question of whether or not an agency has operated OUTSIDE of the statute that created it. In Collins, the SC said it hadn't.
WV v EPA:
Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to "clear congressional authorization" for the authority it claims. Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 324, 134 S.Ct. 2427. Pp. 2607-2610.
NWS all legal and within statutory bounds....according to the SC.....major questions doctrine inapplicable.
Robert. You need to understand the difference between congress creating statutory guidance and an agency creating regulations that have nothing to do with the original statutory guidance.
WV v EPA is not applicable
488 U.S. 361 (1989) Supreme Court:
We also have recognized, however, that the separation-of-powers principle, and the nondelegation doctrine in particular, do not prevent Congress from obtaining the assistance of its coordinate Branches. In a passage now enshrined in our jurisprudence, Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, explained our approach to such cooperative ventures: "In determining what [Congress] may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination." J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 406 (1928). So long as Congress "shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power." Id., at 409.
Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. See Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, Wage and Hour Div. of Dept. of Labor, 312 U. S. 126, 145 (1941) ("In an increasingly complex society Congress obviously could not perform its functions if it were obliged to find all the facts subsidiary to the basic conclusions which support the defined legislative policy"); see also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 274 (1967) (opinion concurring in result). "The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality, which will enable it to perform its function." Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 421 (1935). Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly 373*373 delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority." American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U. S. 90, 105 (1946).
You are incorrect. I'm not backing you up.
New claims can only be brought in new cases, not on appeal or remand (with limited exceptions). Jurisdictional arguments can be brought for the first time on appeal.
Ackman is not a god, he got this wrong. That hasn't changed.
A whiff on your part. There are exceptions, you just failed to understand what exceptions and when they apply.
To your point, the government can do whatever it wants....but not without consequences. They could crush JPS in conservatorship....it would be illegal....but they could.
And if they did this, then an exit from conservatorship would be impossible. Illegally crushing JPS is exactly what would make this un-investible....forever.
So you want a safe space for pumpers? The only way to release within 20+ years is with a SPS conversion. Reality.
No, all rights in the GSEs "except for their right to payment, resolution, or other satisfaction of their claims, as permitted under subsections (b)(9), (c), and (e)."
Read the fine print.
I would like to add.... as a common shareholder....you have no right to payment.
It's sense not cents. It seems you can't comprehend why a senior-to-common conversion is the ONLY way forward unless you want to wait 20 years.
Common sense is not that common.