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.
You are welcome camaro4me.
No, no idea of a time frame.
Judge Schiltz's comment at the end of the motion hearing transcript on 1/12/2018 (p. 154).
I'll take the motions under advisement. We'll get
an order out when we can. I don't think it will be anytime
soon. There is a ton of stuff for us to research and think
about here. I imagine it will be a while before I can get
an order out, but we'll do the best we can.
Source:
Motion Hearing Transcript
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Bhatti/17-cv-02185-0057.pdf
Hi Blushing green, the article is a partial analysis and brief commentary and opinion on a select issue in the Bhatti v. FHFA/Treasury (violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution). Also, the author attempts to suss out the Judge Schlitz's leanings in the case by pointing out a few comments made in the oral argument transcript. And by explicating the merits of the Plaintiff's Appointments Clause claim, the author has expectations that Judge Schiltz may find Defendants in violation of the Appointments Clause, in line with SEC v.Lucia, and thus, vacate the Net Worth Sweep.
The article demonstrates the author's Bhatti case knowledge and displays intellectual prowess and mastery of the relevant case law. The author's hopeful expectations for and belief that Judge Schlitz shouldrule in favor of the Plaintiffs in accordance with the "judicial sustenance" given in SEC v. Lucia is wishful thinking, an entitlement all can engage in.
Judge Schlitz will rule as he is, personally, as do all judges. We only need to wait.
The new capital proposal at this point is meaningless.
The FHFA is seeking comments on the proposal and the FHFA has not decided which of the two alternatives offered will be selected or if both will be enacted.
So no useful, practical comment can be made.
It is common financial sense and ordinary practice for any large financial institution, and certainly for those with financial regulators like the GSEs, to have capital requirements. The regulator sets the requirements.
Similar percentages and those higher have been bandied about for years in papers, hearings, conferences, etc.
Further, even if one or both alternatives or a composite one is selected, the selected rule(s) will not be effective until the conservatorships end. When that will occur is also unknown.
When Watt makes a decision or the next FHFA Director does so, at that time, there is something to work with.
Right now, this is Watt's parting pie in the sky.
Source:
FACT SHEET: PROPOSED RULE ON ENTERPRISE CAPITAL
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/PublicAffairsDocuments/Proposed-Rule-Enterprise-Capital-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Capital - Start at page 15 - Regulatory Capital Requirements
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/Documents/Capital-Module.pdf
This is taken from the FHFA EXAMINATION MANUAL - https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/ExaminerResources/Pages/Manual-and-Supplemental-Guidance.aspx
Sorry, though checked nearly everyday, those two post were missed. The response is in now.
Gains were first realized by trading shares using an initial sum of money until a 210% profit was earned in 2008. Then, an investment was made with part of those profits, while the initial sum and profit remainder was placed back into the stock account.
This investment is not traded and is subject to the whims of the market. In other words, the current investment is do or die. The investment has only provided gains so far, but nothing remarkable yet.
The share price could go south and there could be a loss of the entire investment. It also could head north for much greater gains.
As far as timing goes for this investment, it was initially thought that the GSEs would be released a few years after the investment was made. However, that was mistaken. The Obama Administration saw the windfall coming and took full advantage of that windfall though the net worth sweep in 2012. Free money to the US Treasury to use as desired. There is no wonder in the resistance and foot dragging in court and in Congress on this account.
The outcomes of the court cases that ensued after the net worth sweep and the lack of congressional and FHFA action slowed the time to release. All of this coupled with a large dose of unremitting uncertainty pushed the share price into a downward trend beginning with Millett/Ginsburg Decision in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on 2-21-2017. Now the slow acting Congress and snail like US Treasury today have put the GSEs' future position and role in the financial sector on the back burner until 2019. At the moment, the GSEs are still cash cows milked by the US Government.
The next signal moment will be when President Trump nominates the next FHFA director. President Obama nominated Watt in May 2013 and Watt was confirmed by the Senate in December 2013. it can be expected that President Trump will nominate the new FHFA Director this year.
Where (in your opinion based on facts known) do you see the GSEs headed?
The GSEs, as companies, are headed where they say they are headed. This information is clearly presented in their recent 10-K and 8-K financial reports (see below). The GSEs are going forward with business as usual and with profitability hampered by the SPSPAs and market conditions they are fully aware of in the foreseeable future.
Even so, since the GSEs are in conservatorships and under the aegis and control of the FHFA and US Treasury, the future company structure and operations are unknown. The companies' organizational and financial structure and the scope, type and extent of business and financial operations may be variously determined legislatively by Congress alone, administratively by the US Treasury, FHFA and the Trump Administration, or in some combination of legislative and administrative solutions. All of this can be influenced or not by proposals made by think tanks, housing finance lobbyists and experts, past and future court dispositions, and a host of other outsiders.
The latter paragraph provides the main sources of uncertainty about the future of the GSEs. This tangible uncertainty created by political, legal, and administrative indecision fosters the endless and fruitless speculations made by financial pundits and bloggers, fiscal ideologues, political party platform representatives, housing finance reformers and affordable housing advocates, social, political and banking associations, investors and investor organizations, judges, lawyers, reporters, traders, forum members, etc.
This uncertainty also undermines the GSE stock price value and trading volume and promotes speculative, short term trading and shorting that dominates the daily OTC market.
Speculations on the future of the GSEs cannot be taken any farther. Speculations have become repetitive, circular and biased and are now more akin to entertainment than to pertinent, useful information.
Sources:
FNMA
10-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052218000107/fanniemae201710k.htm
8-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052218000108/fanniemae201710kpressrelea.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052218000108/q42017creditsupplement8k.htm
FMCC
10-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000102621418000020/a20174q10k.htm
8-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000102621418000021/a20174qerexhibit991.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000102621418000021/a20174qerexhibit992a01.htm
Indeed.
Hi Blushing green, just fine here. The GSE stocks are in the doldrums. Trading is artificially based on positive and negative events and unrelated to the fundamentals of the GSEs. Court dispositions have not been supportive and court decisions, when negative in disposition, have only helped to drive the price downward and to push trading into a stagnant position. The Trump administration is moving very slowly on housing finance reform and little is said concretely about the when and the way the unsustainable conservatorships will be ended. An end is promised along with preserving the 30 year mortgage. There are just "options" or various solutions that are never spelled out (see hearing record below). Congress and conservative think tanks have continued with proposing fiscally unsound solutions. The GSEs, as companies, trudge on.
The next points of change will be more court dispositions and the nomination, confirmation and appointment of a new FHFA Director by December 2018 as Watt's term as FHFA Director comes to an end in January 2019.
Source:
THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing entitled, “The Financial Stability Oversight Council Annual Report to Congress.” January 30, 2018 10:00 AM
https://www.c-span.org/video/?440283-1/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-testifies-senate-banking-committee
View:
Tester-Mnuchin - 44:24:00
Corker-Mnuchin - 1:00:00
Crapo- Mnuchin - 2:07:46
The Dow climbed ("bounced") 330.44 points on Friday after declining significantly on 2/2, 2/5, and 2/8. The 2/9 bounce indicates, to some, that DJIA hit a bottom and bounced back up.
Date Open High Low Close* Adj Close** Volume
Feb 09, 2018 23,992.67 24,382.14 23,360.29 24,190.90 24,190.90 735,030,000
Feb 08, 2018 24,902.30 24,903.68 23,849.23 23,860.46 23,860.46 657,500,000
Feb 07, 2018 24,892.87 25,293.96 24,785.44 24,893.35 24,893.35 504,620,000
Feb 06, 2018 24,085.17 24,946.23 23,778.74 24,912.77 24,912.77 823,940,000
Feb 05, 2018 25,337.87 25,520.53 23,923.88 24,345.75 24,345.75 714,450,000
Feb 02, 2018 26,061.79 26,061.79 25,490.66 25,520.96 25,520.96 522,880,000
Feb 01, 2018 26,083.04 26,306.70 26,014.44 26,186.71 26,186.71 410,620,000
Thanks.
Alive and observing the current market volatility and correction that added to the downtrend of the GSE stocks. Let's see what happens next week after the DJIA 330.44 bounce.
Date Open High Low Close* Adj Close** Volume
Feb 09, 2018 1.91 1.97 1.86 1.89 1.89 4,357,907
Feb 08, 2018 1.96 1.97 1.90 1.91 1.91 2,422,500
Feb 07, 2018 1.98 2.07 1.92 1.95 1.95 2,501,800
Feb 06, 2018 1.88 1.94 1.87 1.93 1.93 6,339,100
Feb 05, 2018 2.00 2.07 1.91 1.92 1.92 4,747,400
Feb 02, 2018 2.06 2.06 1.99 2.00 2.00 3,292,200
Feb 01, 2018 2.06 2.07 2.04 2.06 2.06 1,655,500
Jan 31, 2018 2.08 2.12 2.04 2.07 2.07 2,370,800
Yes. Still here.
Sock: Reclusivity and frugality.
Happy Holidays to you and yours cfljmljfl!
Frankly not much insight or interpretation is needed for the stated modifications (amending) of the SPSPAs.
Watt's financial concern about the capital buffer going to zero on January 1, 2018 was addressed by Treasury forging an agreement that modifies and further amends the SPSPAs. The agreement was signed by Mnuchin for Treasury and by Watt for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
The central modification of the SPSPAs made by Treasury establishes a conditional $3 billion capital buffer to offset "income fluctuations in the normal course of business." This $3 Billion capital buffer will be automatically and immediately reduced to zero when there is a failure by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to declare and pay a full quarterly dividend.
One additional modification brought about by the two agreements for each GSE was the addition of $3 billion dollars to the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock.
As far as the immediate future goes, we will see by March's end how this new modification of the SPSPAs will affect the continuing network sweep, DTA write offs and ordinary income fluctuations.
Notes:
Fannie Mae Modification Letter Agreement
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/GSEletteragreemenfnmat12-21-2017.pdf
Treasury Department and FHFA Modify Terms of Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0242
Statement from FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt on Capital Reserve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Statement-from-FHFA-Director-Melvin-L-Watt-on-Capital-Reserve-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac.aspx
action8101, what is meant by "recent developments." Specifying the recent developments that are of interest would clarify the target or targets.
Season's Greetings to you and yours Travel5!
Will do.
Still moving around....
what in your opinion is % chances about Supreme ct accepting our case?
The Supreme Court of the United States is commonly said to review and resolve cases that involve opinion conflict in the lower courts, ambiguity and uncertainty in the law, and constitutional issues that impact the nation and the people. However, this is a post hoc explanation of cases accepted for review. We do not know the specific criteria and biases that law clerks and Justices in the cert pool use when reviewing, recommending, and voting to grant a petition. (Even so, the Perry Capital et al. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari emphasizes the first two criteria). So we are "blind" as to what actually happens in a cert pool.
The Supreme Court grants petitions to about 1-2% of the approximately 7500 petition submitted per year. Depending on actual numbers of petitions submitted, approximately 80-100 petitions are granted annually. The Perry Capital would have to be within that 1-2%. There is no way to actually estimate the percent chances since Supreme Court Justices do not reveal their reasons for voting for and against taking cases.
Thanks Obi, missed u, thought u threw the towel in
Your are welcome and cannot throw in the towel on this one.
Notes
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/Perry_Capital_Certiorari_Petition_as_filed.pdf
Supreme Court Procedures
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
Cert Pool
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cert-pool/
Thank you.
Still alive and invested...
You are welcome BG.
Glad to see you posting again obiterdictum!
Thank Blusing green for asking. I do not have much to say about the current situation at this point since the patterns of behavior of the major actors have remained the same.
Do you think SCOTUS is different enough than the lower courts to not take this easy way out, as you put it?
Yes.
And in your view have all of the dismissals and affirmations so far been examples of such a hands-off approach?
Since the Lambert decision, courts have been sticking to the letter of the law rather than seeing the intention and purpose of the law. If a writ of certiorari is granted to a petitioner, perhaps the Supreme Court justices will render a majority decision ex legibus.
See:
Supreme Court Reversal Rates: Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
Letter of the Law (litera legis)
https://thelawdictionary.org/letter-of-the-law/
Spirit of the Law
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/spirit-of-the-law/
Ex Legibus
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ex-legibus/
Blushing green, Judge Sleet displayed a bias, as have all other District judges, by favoring the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. This divide is always present in jurisprudence and is not unbridgeable.
However, when a judge decides to go with the letter of the law in favor of government defendants, and does so in spite of a glaring violation of statutory power resulting in the unparalleled confiscation hundreds of billions of dollars from private companies in conservatorships, it becomes clear that the goal is to preserve the federal government status quo and to force plaintiffs to move up the ladder of courts and away from them. They avoid being consequential jurists and take the easy way out by using poor precedent as the base of their decision making and opinion.
We can only look to the superior judicial discretion present in the Supreme Court of the US for relief.
Hi Travel5 - all is as well as can be.
For the week, the prize is exhaustion.
The seemingly attentive look FnF are getting will be short lived since the parties that can make changes, positive and/or negative, are, for the most part, inactive, unempowered, biased and/or ignorant. The legal front is led by sub par judicial discretion of sitting judges and conflicting interpretations of documents by the legal parties. The Treasury Department still has made no public moves that indicate a clear direction. FnF are still in an economic and political limbo. The market prices of the common FnF stock remain in a sub $2.99 slightly downward trend that began after the Millet and Ginsburg decision on 2/21/2017.
You are welcome Strykerd.
Semper Paratus
Obit
Thank you obit.
You are welcome chessmaster315.
Do you have an opinion on the current legal cases for shareholders against the government,
I support the shareholder suits, the claims made and the prayers for relief made in those suits.
and how likely these are to be resolved in favor of sharholders.
Giving a probability is not something I am capable of doing. Judges have and will exercise personal judicial discretion in these cases, whether as single district judge, an appeals panel or judges en banc. The conditions underlying a judge'sjudicial discretion lies invisibly within a judge and is not readily determinable by a distant, outside observer. In short, we have only to wait and see what the outcomes will be for the undecided cases.
Hi 2cuall, doing well as can be. Thank you.
Hi Strykerd,
1. Complete intraday tick data that include a t-trade sale condition indicator is no longer available for free. Form T trades usually occur as an extended hours trade and these trades are not registered during the day session but in the hours before market open and after market close. A free record of the last 100 trades for pre-market and after hours trades can be found here:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fnma/premarket
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fnma/after-hours
In previous years, the site below was used to obtain tick data for FNMA as posted by NASDAQ/OTC.
http://www.netfonds.no/quotes/paperdump.php?paper=FNMA.O
There is no longer a free data export feature for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX stocks at this site. Before, we could access data like this:
Click: http://www.netfonds.no/quotes/paperdump.php?paper=AKER.OSE
Click the links to the left to view intraday tick data.
2. After that, Yahoo and Google API accessed data was used. See this post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128435470
The Yahoo finance API is discontinued since May 2016. Free Yahoo tick, and minute data is no longer accessible.
3. Google 1 minute intraday code still works. This is not live data. At the end of the day, the entire day's trading per minute can be found. If entered before end of day, data will be provided with a 15 minute delay.
a. As before: Intraday data can be found by using the URL below and altering the three fields seen in bold.
https://www.google.com/finance/getprices?i=60&p=01d&f=d,o,h,l,c,v&df=cpct&q=FNMA
60 = period in seconds
01 = number of days - days are added and separated by timestamps (i.e. a1486132200). a1486132200 - This is UNIX timestamp - delete the "a" and copy and paste the numbers into a timestamp convertor -
http://www.timestampconvert.com/ to reveal the date and time.
FNMA - ticker symbol
b. Click or copy and paste this in the URL locator:
https://www.google.com/finance/getprices?i=60&p=01d&f=d,o,h,l,c,v&df=cpct&q=FNMA
Thank you. Blessings to you as well.
And from you too! All is well as it can be and wish the same to you.
Still alive and invested!
And from you too. There was expectation that the new Administration would hasten the resolution of the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie. However, the new administration is opposed by the Democrats and the Republicans are not united in the Senate and House. Trump has focused on executive orders, international relations, dealing with the allegations of wrongdoing and a somewhat fractious executive branch. Part of the judicial branch has been "disturbed" by the administration's expectations and comments over Travel Ban 1 and 2 and judicial discretion. The economic team (Treasury and Commerce) are moving very slowly. The new administrations's timing to deal with Fannie and Freddie is further away than expected.
Correct. Have not been posting. There has not been much going on of any consequence. More of the same. This condition is reflected in the slightly downward price trend that has been maintained for 81 days. Last post was 5/08/17.
.
OBIT: Why not file an injuction to stop dividend payment to UST?
Injunctive cases have been filed to do just that. Perry Capital is an injunctive case seeking to have the court vacate and set aside the Third Amendment to the SPSPAs and to cease all activities related to it.
Making this payment in June could put not only fnma, but our country in jeaprody.
How can we continue making homeowner loans and refi with this low of capital, being confiscated by the UST? Isnt there enough evidence that this confiscation should be blocked?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-05/fannie-mae-will-pay-2-8-billion-to-u-s-treasury-after-profit.
Since the SPSPAs guarantee 258 billion in back up funds to the GSEs, there appears to be no worries among government officials.
The majority of the US population is uninformed and cannot care about something they do not know about.
Investors think differently.
US Government officials and the Judiciary know about the NWS. There is a difference in how they see the the NWS and how investors see the NWS. The former see the federal government receiving profits due to them via a contractual investment. Investors see confiscation and taking.
Source:
The Effects of Increasing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Capital
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/52089-gse-report-onecol.pdf
You are welcome.
I am looking for some help on HERA 2008. I recently downloading the Bill and working my way through it. I am not a lawyor. What I am looking for is the section which is the basis of the past suites where FHFA is "above judicial review". Any help on referencing the exact section, article and number is much appreciated.
I want to write my senators, who voted for HERA 2008, and ask if they knew this was in the Bill, or did they overlook it.
Should our elected officials pass laws that are above the law?
In general review 12 USC Sec. 4617 and specifically, 12 USC Sec. 4617(f)
Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.
In HERA 2008 see Sec. 1367(f).
Source:
12 USC Sec. 4617
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap46-subchapII-sec4617
HERA 2008
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ289/pdf/PLAW-110publ289.pdf