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.
Hi Fully Diluted,
Hal is outed.
Sorry 10bambam, I'm afraid I can't do that.
There was a date error noted by KylieM in this post - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149152148 and an admission of error made in a subsequent post.
HAL could not make a date error. So Obi, in making a date error cannot be HAL as 10bambam pointed out.
Thanks 10bambam.
Hi Embers,
Mutually signed- old boys club
Substantially different than that according to Henry Paulson.
Just because there was an agreement this agreement did damage the shareholder by impacting the price of the stock they owned.
Yes. And agreements of all types in other publicly trading businesses have an effect on the share price. Consider the negative impact on share prices by merger/acquisition agreements that foster uncertainty and are done without shareholder approval. See: https://www.learningmarkets.com/how-mergers-and-acquisitions-affect-stock-prices/
Consider also the events that took place.
Saturday, September 6, 2008 - Conservatorships began
Sunday, September 7, 2008 - SPSPAs signed
Monday, September 7, 2008 - Warrants issued
Monday, September 8, 2008 - FNMA and FMCC share prices drop from Friday, September 5, 2008 prices of $7.04 and $5.10 to Monday, September 8, 2008 prices of $.73 and $.88. Volume increased from 83,613,900 and 85,500,000 to 585,901,400 and 370,053,100 respectively.
What event or events determined this sudden volumninous sell-off? What about the huge sell-offs prior to these dates?
Sadly, it seems like there is precedence for this type of robbery.
The loss of share price is a result of trader sentiment in response to news (conservatorship) that was considered negative. Some people made a killing in the sell-off. Others, running scared, lost big. The GSEs did not lose a penny. And the sell-off began much earlier after the dividend given on Oct 29, 2007. So where did the sell-off really start and what events contributed to it?
The government actions were like the mafia forcing a company to make bad deals with their friends (for political reasons in this case) and then coming back and telling them they were in bad shape and needed a special loan and the mafia was going to become a 79.99% "owner" of their company.
The GSEs did not need a bailout. But government threats and subsequent fear ruled the Board of Directors. Henry Paulson details this in his book. It is not a secret. “Mr. President, ... we’re going to move quickly and take them by surprise. The first sound they’ll hear is their heads hitting the floor.” and so on.
No loans were made. The federal government does not own the GSEs. The GSEs are not on government books.
A big load of crap. If we are still in the good old boys and mafia era with business, then shame on our country, politicians, and judges!
A number of unsavory affairs and outcomes.
Hi YanksGhost,
Thanks very much for your reply. There have never been any easy solutions to resolve much of anything since 2008!
You are welcome.
1. One additional request, if you would be so kind. The SPSP Agreement most all of us have seen is the version signed by Treasury and FHFA. So far rulings have been that under HERA that "contract" is not "self-dealt" and thus illegal. I think most all of us understand that position, whether we agree with it or not remaining a separate issue.
Yes.
2. My question is in your earlier work are you aware of any predecessor agreement that may have been signed by the Boards of Directors prior to their being discharged and replaced?
No.
3. My reason for asking is that so much information was revealed during the Sweeney Court's lengthy slog through discovery that offers potentially damaging refutation to the "normal" context of the terms in the Agreement that a possible conspiracy case might be brought, say under RICO provisions, alleging a criminal conspiracy that radically affected investor's in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As you know, The RICO Act is concerned with racketeering and criminal enterprises. The RICO Act directly involves the offices of the Attorney General and federal investigators and prosecutors who must bring a criminal indictment based on actual evidence. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96. Without substantial, credible evidence of racketeering or criminal enterprise that violates the statutes of the RICO Act, nothing can be done.
4. I'm not asking you tp detail the merits or mechanics of such a filing (which I know would be difficult and possibly impossible), just the possibility that the boards may have signed the SPSPA in some fashion, even as a deal sheet as took place in AIG/Starr, which would render any such further action moot. If no Board executed affirmation of the Agreement was executed. at least the possibility of a new action seems viable.
Not aware of any incriminating evidence of that type.
Thanks, again, for your contribution to all of us here.
You are welcome.
Hi chessmaster315,
Thanks for your comments.
You are welcome.
1. Are you free to comment on "your opinion" of the En Banc case, where we are (appearently) imminently waiting a decision.
Yes.
2. What Im especially interested in is if you think the en banc case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, and whether the Writ of Certiori would be granted.
I do not know.
3. Of the Administrative, judicial, and legislative solutions, the only viable solutions are judicial and Administrative (executive).
Some combination of these will be necessary in the end (e.g. federal charters, federal guarantees or not, new guarantors, etc.).
4. Congress is paralyzed and is unable to act.
Yes.
5. And, an executive solution could well wind up back in the courts.
Not if done within the law and existing contract stipulations.
6. I think the reason this has drawn out so long is due to the enormity of the scale.
Yes. One that is one of the reasons - ~20% of the US economy, 25 billion in annual profits to the government.
7. Someone pointed out that a 125 billion IPO would dwarf Alababa 25 billion.
Yes. There will not be an IPO. The public offering will be a FPO, SEO or ATM or a combination of these as dilutive and non-dilutive.
8. It would appear the "simplest" solution is the best one: Ending the Sweep and allowing recap on their own.
Yes. Both are possible without new congressional legislation.
9. However, this leaves up the option of a "hybrid" solution, where profits are returned to the company, AND some type of IPO would Also recap with the obvious "future earings" be used for recap, via an IPO.
There cannot be an IPO. That already occurred. The public offering will be an FPO, SEO or ATM, etc. or a combination of these as dilutive and non-dilutive and with the end of the net worth sweep, future earnings accrue to the GSEs.
10. A "hybrid" recap..where fannie is allowed not only to keep earnings, but also leverage those future earnings into an IPO to expidite the recap seems most likely.
There will not be an IPO. An FPO or SEO is underwritten in the main by investment banks.
11. However, it makes no sense to me that the courts would continue to allow confiscated funds to "not be returned" to shareholders.
All GSEs monies transferred to the US Treasury and have been spent.
12. A bank robber, if caught with bags of money, would surely be compelled to return these funds to the aflicted bank.
This is a civil case not a criminal one. The analogy does not apply.
13. Its difficult for me to "take my own optimistic bias" out of this, but a remedy surely would mean that shareholders be returned "some portion" or all of NWS overpayments.
To shareholder's directly? Which ones? How will that happen?
14. I dont know if the En Banc is willing to do this, however, and it may boil down to the Writ.
It is a matter of time for the outcomes to appear.
15. The stakes are so high, that at least one side will likely appeal almost any en banc ruling.
That is an option either party.
16. The rarity of Writ's granted is a concern.:
https://supremecourtpress.com/chance_of_success.html
Yes.
Hi Kylie,
Yes, Calabria hopes to complete a plan by 1/1/2020 not 1/1/2019
Thanks. Good looking out.
Hi basesloaded,
FYI
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case Number 1:13-mc-1288 RCL, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC), the plaintiffs requested class certification for the following:
Hi YanksGhost,
The use of warrants and Senior Preferred Stock are part of a legal transaction pattern that was commonly used by the US Treasury during the bailout (TARP and CPP).
See: WARRANT DISPOSITION REPORT – UPDATE JUNE 30, 2012
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/December%202012%20Warrant%20Disposition%20Report.pdf
One reason that the warrants were not challenged by any of the lawsuits is that they are part of a customary legal transaction that could not be argued to be illegal. No actual harm was done, though "perceptions" of harm hypothetically affected share prices. The pricing of the warrants may have been outrageous, but since there are mutually signed agreements, there is little possibility of mounting a successful legal challenge to them in court.
Depending on the civil law of the relevant jurisdiction and type of claim, if the civil statute of limitations is reached, a claim may not be filed or if filed the claim will most likely be dismissed. However, when considering the warrants, the time for equitable tolling, depending on the jurisdiction, could begin when the warrants are exercised since no harm arises for equity owners by the warrants' mere existence.
Judges will review and decide a claim that is ripe, that is, a claim that is a clear cut legal matter (breach of contract) or a claim for damages based on concrete facts (loss of income/value/property/body part). In a civil claim pursuing such damages, harm must be demonstrably actual. Hypothetical, possible or impending harm does not count. Thus, if there is a claim that that warrants can potentially damage a plaintiff, though it has not harmed anyone at the time of the claim, that claim would be considered not ripe for adjudication. Federal courts adjudicate claims based on actualities and have no constitutional authority to adjudicate claims based on theories.
Thank you chessmaster315. Never left. The uncertainty regarding the current and future disposition of the GSEs and lack of definitive action towards the GSEs by concerned parties, courts, government institutions, and the current administration, etc. did not provide substantial and decisive matters of fact to consider and post.
Now, there are public statements, memos, announcements, and speeches by the FHFA Director, President Trump and the current executive branch administration that there can be administrative alterations to the GSEs political and economic dispositions and conditions. Specifically referred to are ending the network sweep, recapitalization ($100-250 billion), ending the conservatorships, reducing the GSE footprint and increasing competition within the secondary market, among other things (legislative determination of guarantees or not, new guarantors, federal charters).
The last paragraph is mainly about talking and reporting. Actual administrative actions and potential outcomes still remain uncertain. The talk and reporting plus the embedded uncertainty allowed a small increase in FNMA and FMCC share prices. On March 28, 2019, one day after the release of the President's memo on housing reform, FNMA and FMCC share prices were $2.95 and $2.80 respectively. On May 31, 2019, FNMA and FMCC share prices were $3.05 and $2.93 respectively, increases of $0.10 and $0.13. Though raising the average price, these increases are not impressive. Uncertainty is chilling.
The uncertainty arises from the bald fact there is no actual plan to carry out the stated goals. There are no details.
Calabria is waiting for the Administration's official release of a Housing Finance Reform Plan. With that plan in hand, Calabria and Mnuchin and their staffs will make an actual plan to carry out the stated goals. According to Calabria, the completed plan will be ready around January 1, 2019, or so he hopes. In the six months before the new year, there is only speculation about what will happen, when it will happen, and how it will occur.
Perhaps one of the biggest sources of uncertainty is achieving the GSEs recapitalization of $100 to 250 billion. Will this be done through a Follow-on-Public Offering (FPO), or Secondary Equity Offering (SEO) both otherwise known as a secondary public offering on the primary market, or a hybrid public offering (Secondary Offering plus FPO-SEO) and/or perhaps an At-The Market Offering (ATM). What investment banks will underwrite the FPO-SEO-ATM? At what price? Will the FPO-SEO-ATM be dilutive, non-dilutive, or both? Will the GSE's be relisted on the NYSE or other non-OTC markets prior to the FPO-SEO-ATM? How will the Senior Preferred Shares and warrants be treated? These uncertainties and calendar independent nature of these matters chill the trading actions of retail and institutional investors.
Until there is a detailed, feasible plan, "chill out" is the word for some long term investors.
As for the complexities and tottering attempts at political party manipulation and regulation of corporate and retail institutions forming the American economy, vote wisely.
Notes and References
Memorandum on Federal Housing Finance Reform, March 27, 2019
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-federal-housing-finance-reform/
Prepared Remarks of Dr. Mark A. Calabria, Director of FHFA, at Mortgage Bankers Association National Secondary Market Conference & Expo 2019
May 20, 2019
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Prepared-Remarks-of-Dr-Mark-A-Calabria-Director-of-FHFA-at-Mortgage-Bankers-Association-National-Secondary-Market-Conference-Expo-2019.aspx
Fannie-Freddie shareholders may get a payout after a decade of uncertainty, May 23, 2019
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fannie-freddie-shareholder-payout-is-part-of-the-reform-discussion-regulator-says-in-surprise-move-2019-05-21
Hi basesloaded,
The request is not clearly understood and so clarifications are needed.
1. Does "Lamberth litigation" refer to In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case Number 1:13-mc-1288 RCL, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)?
2. What is the meaning of the sentence "If the preferred shares are not converted at par, common shares risk increases substantially."?
3. What common shares risks are being considered?
4. What does this have to do with the Lamberth litigation?
If anyone has a copy of this brief, post a link. Curious what Pelosi and friends think about the case that caused them to file an amicus brief.
BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Collins-Brief-FINAL.pdf
Hi Travel5,
Thanks and all is well as can be.
And you and yours?
Hi mrfence,
Looking forward to cleaving, pulverization and bulldozing.
Hi NORC,
Thanks. All is as well as can be.
Hi SLJB,
No particular thoughts. Just observing the slow-going chipping away of uncertainty fostered by the current administration's and FHFA's public considerations, remarks in interviews, and pronouncements concerning the GSEs.
For me, it is enjoyable to exchange information and ideas. Written expression reveals the remarkable internal workings of the human mind. Does anyone know how a thought arises?
Cubshawk, this bill is unfinished and poorly constructed and written.
Please understand that if there is any money left after distribution to items 1-4 plus other payments from earnings, it will be used to purchase, first, outstanding preferred shares and then, second, outstanding common shares. Shareholders will be bought out and extinguished.
BTW, what does repayment of the Senior Preferred Shares mean? Does it mean a buyback by the winding down GSEs that have ceased doing new business or will they be purchased by the new Issuer? Unclear. Is an additional 10 percent being added to the amounts already paid in during net worth sweep? What is going on here?
Also consider what net earnings will there be after the 5 year wind down? The GSEs' net earnings have not be saved in a vault from September 2008 till now. GSE net earnings have gone to the US Treasury and have been spent by the US Government.
What about debt obligations and creditors? Where do these fit in that ordered list? They will need payments too. The bill states immediately below:
(c) EARNINGS AFTER CESSATION OF NEW BUSI
14 NESS.—Earnings of the enterprises that accrue after the
15 date on which new business ceases (including reserves that
16 are not needed) may be paid in accordance with the sched
17 ule in subsection (b) after all obligations and earnings of
18 the enterprises have been extinguished or received, includ
19 ing the proceeds of sales to the Issuer.
Net earnings are slimming down by adding this.
Does this bill intend that the US Treasury will draw money from its general account to purchase outstanding preferred and common shares from shareholders after the wind down?
How much will be drawn to purchases GSE shares? Can and will monies be drawn?
Will GSEs preferred and common stock share prices rise upon the passing of this bill or fade to zero?
And, what will the GSEs preferred and common stock share share prices be after 5 years of winding down the GSEs? After the 5 year wind down will the share price fade to zero or will it rise?
Will shares be purchased at fair market value?
Or, will there be a tender offer where share prices are set at a fixed amount at premium to the fair market value price or will the offer be a take this or leave it offer?
This bill does not provide answers to any of these questions. There are vague generalities and uncertainties. The shareholders are eliminated and compensation for share owned is not estimable.
1) will no legislation on this ever get passed in the most polarized congress in the history of the United States (sans civil war)?
2) Isn't administrative action the only likely scenario?
1) I do not know. No crystal ball here. A legislative fix, of one kind or another, is possible and the Trump Administration seems a bit fixed on a fairly complex legislative, organizational and policy solution.
2) No, it is not, at least at this time. There are many possibilities, perhaps too many.
See this link for House and Senate bills from 2007 till present on housing finance reform: https://bit.ly/2Dnm3N9
See this link for outside of government views on housing finance reform: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/housing-finance-policy-center/projects/housing-finance-reform-incubator.
For an example given by the Trump Administration, see the section "Reform Federal Role in Mortgage Finance" on pages 75-77 of the Trump Administration (OMB) plan to reform and reorganize the US Government. This plan is essentially an overhaul of secondary mortgage finance in the US that is short on details.
Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf
The basic plan in action now appears to be foot dragging.
Thanks. Fun to be here posting for awhile.
Yes MannSinger. It is both conceivable and practical that an administrative solution carried out by a new FHFA Director, US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and OMB Director Mulvaney under the aegis and direction of President Trump is possible and can be achieved, hypothetically, in a quick and efficient manner.
HERA statutes concerning the conservatorships and the specific SPSPA covenants for ending the conservatorships, the net worth sweep and other financial relations and obligations to the US Treasury allow for recapitalization and release to be done without consideration of US Congress legislation for housing finance reform.
Relisting has to do with the GSEs and the stock exchanges (e.g. NYSE). Relisting can be requested of a specific stock exchange before the conservatorships end by the FHFA Director. Or, an attempt to relist can be done by the GSEs Boards after the conservatorships are terminated.
All of this is well understood.
However, there are Democrat and Republican Party issues, both positive and negative, with an administrative solution. For example, though the US Congress (House and Senate) have no direct means to prevent an administrative solution, both parties may threaten and/or exact a severe political price on the Trump Administration for considering and/or enacting that solution. Republican intra-Party unity, which has been developing over the past two years, may suffer serious setbacks that can weaken the GOP's forward momentum. Democrat Party threats, political obstruction and offensive legal tactics against Trump as President and the Administration can attempt to strangle the life out of the Executive Branch for the next two years, if they control House next week.
Indeed, recap, release and relist and housing finance reform can be resolved separately. Will these options be resolved separately given the extremely polarized political dynamics operating within and between political parties?
It is wishful thinking and vivid imagining that what we think and want here matters one iota to the decision-making processes of those leading Congressional members and Administration officials taking the lead in dealing with the future of the multi-billion dollar profit producing GSEs that account for nearly 20% of the US economy.
Time will tell.
Thanks Alex.
If Dems won the house & Waters head of Banking Finance Committee, could this also be the catalyst that causes Trump/Mnuchin to act quickly & administratively?
Polarsun, in less than a week the need to consider hypothetical scenarios, personal beliefs, uninformed speculations and prophecies about the possible outcomes of the midterm elections, changing political positions and the Adminstration's responses to actual outcomes and changes will be unnecessary. The actual outcomes and responses to them will appear, more or less, in a few days and these can be intersubjectively observed.
In turn, consider the answers to these questions in relation to the question of a Democrat Chairperson or Democrat (or Republican) Housing Finance Reform Bill being a catalyst stimulating a quick Administrative move on the GSE's conservatorships.
Who here or anywhere outside of the White House's circle of leaders and confidants is privy to the President's and the Administration's leaders agendas, platform priorities and timeframe for execution?
Does the House and Senate need to first seek the President's view on any substantial bill like Housing Finance Reform in order to avoid a Presidential regular veto?
Will the new House and Senate be able to override a Presidential regular veto with the necessary two-thirds vote in both chambers?
Thanks, and always around Glen, just not posting much...
You are most welcome steadyugo.
Maxine Waters does not recognize the fact that there was no loan made and, therefore, nothing to pay back. Is this simple fact lost?
We can distinguish imprecise and political talk from existing textual fact. Maxine Waters proposal gives a good idea of what she thinks and supports in housing finance reform.
Here is the draft of the proposed bill: https://bit.ly/2ALvYJP
Yes indeed. Hypothetical scenarios always appear with those prepositions and conjunctions.
Could not resist making a comment lumpina on a belief that Maxine Waters as Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee bodes well for the US economy or the government functioning. Her predecessor, Jeb Hensarling, was equally troubling in that position. Bachelor degrees in sociology or economics and political chops are not meaningful experiences for comprehensively managing the committee's mission and jurisdiction.
Elected officials who have little or no experience in operating large businesses and corporations are not best suited for holding or managing the duties and activities of this position.
All one needs to understand where maxine Waters stood on the GSEs and Housing Finance Reform is to read the draft of the proposed bill made in 2014.
You can read it here: https://bit.ly/2ALvYJP.
Preferred and common shareholders are not part of the plan. The GSEs will be eliminated and the only shareholder that counts in this proposed bill is the US Treasury. The plural is used to point to the taxpayers who will not receive a penny.
(2) MAXIMUM RETURN TO SHAREHOLDERS.—
11 The wind down of each enterprise required under
12 this section shall be managed by the Director of the
13 Federal Housing Finance Agency, in consultation
14 with the Administration and the Secretary of the
15 Treasury, to obtain resolutions that maximize the
16 return for the senior preferred shareholder under
17 paragraph (1), to the extent that such resolutions—
18 (A) are consistent with the goal of sup
19 porting a sound, stable, and liquid housing
20 market;
21 (B) are consistent with applicable Federal
22 and State law;
23 (C) comply with the requirements of this
24 Act and any amendments made by this Act;
25 and (D) protect the taxpayer.
If Maxine Waters becomes Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee after the midterm elections and sticks to the text of her 2014 proposed bill (https://bit.ly/2ALvYJP) and recently stated views of dealing with the financial sector (October 2018), GSE shareholders, as a whole, can speculatively anticipate support of 2019-2020 housing reform plans that have GSE shareholders being marched slowly to a federally mandated financial guillotine to the sound of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs' "Heads Will Roll (
Hi Blushing green, the 9/28/2018 Lamberth Memorandum Opinion was read. Lamberth carries out the legal duties (remand) given him by the Court of Appeals.
Lamberth granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims related to:
* breach of contract (failed to state a claim)
* breach of fiduciary duty (preempted by HERA)
* violation of Delaware and Virginia statutory law governing dividends
(failed to state a claim)
* derivative claims of a breach of fiduciary duty by the FHFA (Class
Action Plaintiffs)(preempted by HERA)
* APA violations.
* Injunctive relief and damages
Lamberth granted the Plaintiffs's claims for:
* breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (a valid claim was stated).
(See page 9)
No opinion on this outcome. Is there anything more to say when injunctive relief and damages are dismissed?
The claim of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will go forward and towards what result? We have to wait to see what that will be.
The next court date for me is unknowable.
The usual waiting is required.
Source:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv1053-82
It is my pleasure.
You are welcome...
The Trump administration eventually will become involved publicly with the FHFA and both GSEs. We do not have any detailed Administration plans for the GSEs. We only know that some form of GSE privatization is a target. This has been stated by Mnuchin (Treasury) and Mulvaney (OMB).
A new FHFA Director needs to be nominated and then confirmed. This is likely to occur by the end of the year and after the midterm elections. Once the new FHFA Director is in place, Treasury and the OMB will engage with the FHFA, the GSEs and perhaps the bumbling Congress.
Administrative action can end the conservatorships. The Congress is not needed for that. The Congress is needed if the GSE charters are to be changed. The basic options are to 1) continue the chartered ties of the GSEs to the US Government with the same missions and conditions or with different missions and conditions or to 2) free them to function as wholly private corporations chartered and regulated by the FHFA or by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), as public utilities similarly regulated by a selected agency or some other corporate form.
Given the current political climate and environment in Washington and the various goings on there, it is not easy to draw a timeline of possible future Administrative and Congressional actions.
The GSE stock prices are not currently based on the financial fundamentals, daily actions and progress of the GSEs. There is a disconnect. A reconnect is expected.
The stock price is tied to news of minor developments, court decisions and rumors. The price is manipulated by market makers who trade by an agreed to financial mandate and also by day, momentum, short and short term traders and who try to make a few bucks when the stock rises and falls.
Thank you Travel5.
As you may know, the combination of high temperature and high humidity can form unpleasant bodily for many. High temperatures contributes to increased sweating and a high moisture content in the air prevents sweat on the skin from evaporating and cooling the body. Our bodies heat up, sweat sits atop the skin, clothes stick and cling to the wet skin, and dehydration and lethargy can set in. High air conditioned cooling, in turn, chills the body. These conditions are unpleasant for me as well.
For those predisposed to profuse sweating in high heat and have not acclimated to these conditions through long time living in coastal areas or who enjoy saunas suffer greatly.
Even so, those people who sweat far less than most are barely affected by these conditions and neither the heat nor humidity threaten their bodily comfort.
There are many ways to stay comfortable in such weather, good fortune to you in finding what works best.
Hi Blushing green - The ruling opinion is clearly stated in the beginning and at the end:
It is a pleasure to make contributions and you are always welcome Travel5.
Happy Fourth of July!
No, I do not have an opinion of which direction the judge is leaning.
Judge Schiltz did not give a definite indication of his leanings. In fact, he considered all of his responses during the hearing to be first reactions subject to "further thinking."
Judge Schiltz says: