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.
Family mang and No Name are misplaced in their thinking
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).
Challenging the NWS and Nationalization and drawing attention to the federal government overreach here is important.
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.
You do know that these "capital rules" are all made up by people. And people can change their minds or get educated or realize that its excessive.
Converting the seniors into warrants for even more common shares than the existing warrants allow for is an interesting way to handle Treasury monetizing its FnF equity stake. Treasury could exercise the warrants piecemeal in the future and sell them off a bit at a time. They could even sell off pieces of the warrants themselves and avoid ever owning a single common share, which would pre-emptively defeat any challenge regarding majority ownership, voting rights, or balance sheet consolidation.
Thank you for finally agreeing.
Please provide all of us the proof that commons can be crushed in conservatorship. I've been in this for 15+ years, there is nothing in HERA or the conservatorship law that specifically stipulates that statement of yours.
Government assumed all shareholders rights.
That would be JPS too, so no contract claims, just like commons can't vote.
However, the government can easily amend HERA to get any end effect that they want, it's been proven out, and court approved. If they say, lets screw those hedge fund JPS gluttons, you can bet they will with another law created by FHFA and treasury to amend HERA, because courts are turning a blind eye to non elected law making entities creating law as they go.
JPS crowd keeps claiming this is an administrative bankruptcy...but, but, but, but, but not so when it concerncs JPS! Lol. We get it, you guys are all about only bad things can happen to common and JPS are aphrodisiac nirvana, lmao.
JPS keep believing that commons ARE in an "administrative bankruptcy"(but, oh no, not JPS, can't happen, we're special) and commons are looking at billions and billions of share dillution, and JPS are in a "restructuring" for a 150% par win! or billions of common share conversion at penmies that will miraculously be worth fortunes AFTER Jps converts!
Or some other wild fantasy, but administrative bankruptcy is only happening to commons, mind you....lol ha ha ha You guys and your sticky nonsensical logic. Don't ya's ever get embarassed? Pick one and stick with it, stop tossing different babble around like fulcrum security, admin bankruptcy, restructure, blah, blah, blah. The more worthless babble the more unbelievable.
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.
Stop already, just admit that you are wrong and move along on the topic.
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.
The government can crush the jps as the see fit. Will they, yes. Because if they don't then they'll allow all the hedgefunds to be enriched from a smart investment and because they can.
What will it look like?
Again, if the government consents to crush shareholders they'll crush all shareholders because they can.
I've read many say... blah blah blah... jps have a contract... can't violate that have to adhere to the contract... well, the government ... can do and will do whatever it wants; without regard to this contract. Why because they can and have done so in the past... remember the Senior Debt holders of the car companies, that had a "security" intterest get nothing??? And they give the unions a %'s of the company?? Yep, contract ... contract didn't mean a thing.
So, how can governement do this... anyway they want... becuase the judges have already said they ascended to ALL the rights of the shareholders... all being all.. so, yep, they can redeem the shares at say 1/1000 of face as one example or convert $50 pref to 0.67 common share... again... they can do it...
All they have to do is propose it and agree to it on behalf of all the jps shareholders... and there is nothing anyone can do about it.... sorry JPshareholders... your "contract" isn't worth ... shinola...
The best hope you all have... is to bond with commons to get the gse's out of this mess and release them without the warrants and sps paid in full at a minimum.
The damages for taking would be the loss suffered from the day the takings occurred.
So... if cramdown happens today.... and it drops from 47 cents to 1 cent... you'd get back a grand total of 46 cents...
To vegas ya go...
How about giving up on arguing for the SPS cramdown and focus on the merit of a JPS conversion to common shares to help meet the common equity requirements for exit?
The SPS cramdown does not help the JPS.
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.
TH speculates what he wants to happen in fairy tale world.
He wants the Seniors written down and/or the liquidation preference written down out of the goodness of the government's heart. Government doesn't have a heart.
He also wants an actual act of congress...changing the statutory capital requirements.
Let's get real. Neither will happen.
Oh yeah, he's still on this delusional kick that Treasury will write down the Seniors for zilch. Anybody with this position should be ignored, especially when they are trying to sell books.
Well what did he say? What's his big prediction?
Tim? Tim Howard? How many times does he have to be wrong for people to realize he's out of his element?
What did his super duper blog say today?
Reported and ban recommended. Good riddance.
What is this talk of a 6 year statute of limitations? Wasn't it yesterday you said there is no statute of limitations? Both of my replies were conveniently deleted.
SO what is the new legal theory? The NMS payments weren't signed off by the director?
Nobody cares
Yes, JPS will get smashed, commons all upside. Sell JPS, buy commons.
I am arguing that this fee arrangements is prohibited by the Charter Act. I am claiming that this overreach by the Treasury is an illegal exaction arising from common law.
Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Show me any law that allows the Treasury to increase the taxpayers debt to provide the 200 billion commitment. When did Congress amend the Charter Act to allow Treasury and in the future the Federal reserve to assess fees on FNFA not in relation to FNMA corporate debt obligations? The answer to these questions are important. I truly want to be shown Im wrong before I submit my claim and ask that the SPSPA be nullified.
Just chalk this up as one more time you've been wrong on this board. It'll be a refreshing change from your crayons.
Commons going to the moon!!!!! Load up the truck! Bet the farm! Ackman was right!
If I post enough of this will you quit following me around like a teenage girl?