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.
// The court does not contradict with Lamberth. In fact, in most ways, the court CONCURS Lamberth's opinion.
Did this case deal with the nature of conservatorship and the actions of the conservator therefore challenging the core of HERA in any way, as the Perry case does? If not, the court had no motives to revise Lamberth view and must have taken it at face value. Our cases are directly challenging Lamberth and HERA.
We are in agreement.
Not sure where that came from but no way the court will award dividends. If they ever come, it will be the result of an indirect action that opens the door for dividends down the road. And that road could still be miles away.
//NWS surplus would go to F/F
and that would mean increased net worth and the possibility of retaining earnings which feed into the Jr. dividends upon discretion of the conservator/regulator/Board.
The point is not that Mel Watt will say no to any dividends to the Jrs. provided there is the needed cushion in retained earnings. The point is that there will be a sea change from not having retained earnings to having them. So the dividends will become a "when" question. It doesn't matter when that "when" takes place.
It would be a surprising turn of events if Treasury disregarding what they thought it was the law -in their own writing- ends up being a valid, legal action.
Any normal human being reading HERA would have reached the same conclusion as Goldstein did in that memo. But as you say, we have to wait for the judges deciding.
Re; judges interpretation of HERA.
Wouldn't be more relevant for them to focus on Treasury's interpretation of HERA? After all, it is THAT interpretation the one they decided not to follow.
Dept. of The Treasury
January 4th, 2011
From: Jeffrey Goldstein
Undersecretary for Domestic Finance
This is how *they* view HERA.
Information Memorandum for Sec. Timothy Geithner
They did not act as a receiver as that would have entailed very specific steps leading to liquidation of assets, even under the cloud of a conservatorship.
What they did is off the books. It was neither a conservatorship nor a receivership.
It was a scheme called limbo where there is a perennial status quo. A semi-conservatorship turned from temporary to a permanent status as the companies cannot exit.
In other words, a de-facto nationalization without the name.
Thus, HERA should not apply. Hopefully, the courts will agree with me too :)
It amazes me that those betting on commons -while expecting a recapitalization- do not understand what you said. In my view, it is not realistic to consider an organic, slow recapitalization via retained earnings and a 4th amendment.
If there is a positive decision to recapitalize and reform or reform and recapitalize those in charge will make sure the recapitalization is part of a "capital restoration plan" as determined in HERA -and this time they WILL follow the law- and that any 4th amendment may be part of a more comprehensive program. In fact, there is a chance the administration may already have such a plan available, launch-ready, just in case some specific scenario develops.
One example of this restoration lies in Shapiro's proposal where he staged a 4-step scheme to build up capital over time. I believe it was 4 installments of 25 billions over a period of a year or several years? If a restoration of capital takes this shape it is not a guarantee that 100 bill will suffice and that amount could double cutting in half Shapiro's estimates of prices per share. And diminishing any return the government may obtain through warrants.
While the Jrs. may face other threats, one that they are not exposed to is recapitalization since they aren't strictly equity. I imagine that is part of the protection a preferred share has. They aren't directly dependent on earnings -but what has been retained- and the counterpart of not participating in the benefits of earnings expansion is that the dilution risk gets removed. For this reason, a forced conversion to common shares seems unlikely as the whole point of being a preferred is exactly not being subject to the perils of common shares. A conversion, thus, must be approved by holders of the Jrs.
A comprehensive capital restoration plan -as per Shapiro- establishes a first stage of 100 bill as enough of a cushion for the companies to exit conservatorships and enough of a cushion to restart distributions to the Jrs. The debate that it may take an eternity to payout the Jrs. is silly. No politician in their right mind -definitely not the FHFA and certainly not the Treasury- will favor a recapitalization that may take 20 years. Provided we finally get one. And provided Obama's team doesn't burn the ships on their way out.
Whale, what's your opinion on Perry's appeal?
This could be true.
But it is also true that there is slightly more than 1 year for this administration to go. What's in it for a judge after that? Judges, since they may outlive Obama's WH, must consider the scope of their decisions in terms of the next administration, not this one. Provided it is correct that they are influenced by politics.
Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096564-uscis-internal-memo-about-ead-for-i140-from-june-2015-a.html
Article with an interesting perspective.
Cognitive Dissonance Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Greed Spite and-Ulterior Political Motives
Thank you for the thorough article!
Leo E. Strine, the new Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court seems like a down-to-earh type of guy.
Here is an interview
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/blt/2015/03/member-spotlight-strine-201503.authcheckdam.mp3
Hip Hop Alexander Hamilton
lol 44
Perry news..
Government asking for a 7 day extension to the "Sealed Motion For Judicial Notice And Supplementation Of The Record." Due date asked is 8/20. Unopposed.
Two new filings on Perry.
7/29
UMDER SEAL MOTION filed [1565601] by Fairholme Fund and Fairholme Funds, Inc for judicial notice and attached UNDER SEAL SUPPLEMENT to the motion. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 08/13/2015) [Service Date: 07/29/2015 by US Mail] Pages: 16-20. [14-5254]
Good article on regulatory schemes...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/john-ratcliffe-abolishing-the-consumer-financial-p/
Thank you, Wayne!
Saxton lawsuit /latest/
Some movement in Iowa
Saxton
Last date for motion responses November 23. Read the full schedule.
Millstein on twtr
https://twitter.com/jimmillstein/status/623559317053116416
By "mutualize"...
Does he mean exercise the warrants? Only way taxpayers will become "mutual" owners.
Nothing, stock.
I now only try to invest with the wind at my back.
Look for promising industries where many stocks trade high and higher. Buying on breakouts that never look back. Specially if they break through 52 week/highs on volume and with good fundamentals (greater earnings each quarter).
You will sleep better and will be less anxious :) And you'll make money!
Greece has deep structural problems. A devaluation might help if/when they exit. But.. what export industries can they rely upon that will bring additional, extra funding after devaluing? Argentina defaulted, devalued and immediately started growing because their economy relies a great deal on grain exports. Which in addition had inflated prices for most of the years post-default. Greece has problems within the Eurozone and out of the Eurozone!
How many o/s does molycorp have? :)
NYT's response to motion for extending time
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271556294/Nyt-Response
Other plaintiff gaining access to protected docs.
Take a look
http://www.valueplays.net/2015/07/13/everyone-but-the-janitor-getting-access/
But Caesar was also warned within weeks of his assassination that he would face such event. Even the same day he was murdered he got notice by "fate". So sometimes life gives you a second chance to control your destiny. Which you must hear or then it will become "alea iacta est".
What vacating the 3rd may mean > Perry appeal
In a footnote (#9) they explain it as follows:
I wonder what Sen. Warren thinks of the tens of billions that could end up in affordable housing schemes, including the HTF, if an agreement with shareholders is pursued. She got very vocal in one hearing with Watt regarding the lack of funding of the HTF earlier this year. The prospects of up to 100 bill in funding to the cause she has been advocating for has to be tempting.
But then she will also have to swallow shareholders' rights and acknowledge private property.
Wrong.
First order of business is to come up with a recapitalization plan. By HERA.
Then, the rest of the considerations follow subject to the recapitalization plan so there is nothing in stone.
A detail not to forget. While there is a recap plan no funds can be submitted to the Housing Trust Fund.
If FHFA orders the companies (or requests Treasury) to formulate their recap plans, how long do you think Mel Wat will keep the HTF without the promised funds? First allotted funds scheduled for Jan 2016.
44, that is a bold idea.
Perhaps this is why Eva Clayton states as follows:
By the way,
he also thinks the Piszel motion for stay discovery is immaterial.
Oh, wasn't paying attention. Good catch.
This ruling may have some importance to us.
It is a new per se taking interpretation regarding personal property. It also pertains to a 1929 order yet the physical property continues to be "taken". The Supreme court remained silent regarding the possibility of using an injunction as a remedy. Yet overall I see benefits for us. Good read in this link:
http://takingslitigation.com/2015/06/23/horne-supreme-court-says-seizures-of-persoanl-property-are-subject-to-a-per-se-rule/