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.
Could you read my post #400113 and provide any comments? I feel that this Sammons issue is going to end Judge Sweeny's presiding over the Fairholme case and the prospects of ever seeing the privileged documents. Also Sammons has filed an appeal yesterday with the 5th circuit court of appeals on the same issue (available on GSElinks). His arguments to me seem persuasive. If he is right what would this do to prior constitutional takings claims? AIG comes to mind. They awarded no money. Seems like maybe a legislative court created by congress is not going to make Congress pay out much money.
Baron, this is a case with a novel argument that will be disruptive if affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Mr. Sammons filed pro se a motion to intervene, under Rule 24(a) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), in the Fairholme et al. 5th Amendment takings case being heard in the US Court of Federal Claims under Judge Sweeney.
Before filing, Mr. Sammons attempted to persuade the Plaintiffs include his novel issue and argument in Plaintiffs briefs since he is a member of the plaintiff-class with $1 million dollars in preferred stock holdings.
This attempt at persuasion failed, and so, Mr. Sammons decided to raise his issue separately from the other Plaintiffs by filing a motion to intervene in US Court of Federal Claims on 9/15/2016.
Mr. Sammons filed without the assistance of attorney and presents his case on his own behalf. Mr. Sammons' motion to intervene subsequently was defeated in the US Court of Federal Claims and US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and was opposed by both Plaintiffs and Defendants of the Fairholme takings case in the US Court of Federal Claims. A petition for a writ of mandamus made to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was also defeated.
The likelihood of attaining success in US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, given the opinions and decisions already rendered, is small to nil. It helps to read the opinions of the courts as well as Mr. Sammons opinion. Mr. Sammons. or rather, Michael P. Goodman has an interesting legal argument that may not be resolvable in practical manner through the judiciary. A legislative solution would be easier.
Below is a snapshot of the beginning of Mr. Sammons efforts and then a timeline to cover what transpired. All of the relevant case materials are linked.
Motion to Intervene - 9/16/2016
The motion aimed to move and prove that US District Courts with Article III judges are the appropriate and only courts that have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate 5th Amendment takings cases.
Therefore, the Fairholme takings case and all other taking cases considering over $10,000 in damages are not to be heard and disposed in the US Court of Federal Claims with non-Article III judges. Mr. Sammons argues that these cases must be moved to an appropriate US District Court. Non-Article III judges are declared by Mr. Sammons to be under the shadow and influence of the Executive and Legislative Branches and cannot be impartial. An affirmation by the court of this motion would mean that the Fairholme taking case would have to start all over again after nearly four years of procedural efforts.
The argument is straightforward and disruptive of the status quo. The argument does not help the Fairholme case and does not address the the merits or facts in the case. The argument will not be discussed here, but if further discussion is desired specific questions can be asked.
Below is a timeline of the remainder of Mr. Sammons lone wolf activities in the courts.
Judge Sweeney Denial of the Motion to Intervene - 9/30/2016
Judge Sweeney denies the Motion to Intervene with argument and declares the motion vexatious, frivolous and ill-conceived.
Mr. Sammons files an informal brief with US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and appeals Judge Sweeney decision. - 10/11/2016
Mr. Sammons moves to substitute his October 11, 2016 informal brief with a corrected informal brief on 10/17/2016.
Mr. Sammons files a petition for a Writ of Advisory Mandamus versus Judge Sweeney. -10/19/2016
Mr. Sammons motion to substitute his October 11, 2016 incorrect brief with a corrected one is granted by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appeals Court also order Defendant to reply to Mr. Sammons brief. - 10/26/2016
Defendants brief argues against Mr. Sammons Motion to Intervene and request that the US Court of Appeals affirm Sweeney's decision. - 11/16/2016
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denies Writ of Advisory Mandamus against Judge Sweeney - 11/28/2016
Plaintiffs brief argues against Mr. Sammons Motion to Intervene and request that the US Court of Appeals affirm Sweeney's decision. - 12/05/2016
Mr. Sammons argues against Fairholme's brief by submitting a law review article as a reply brief. The attached article is "Taking Back Takings Claims: Why Congress Giving Just Compensation Jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims is Unconstitutional", 60 Vill. L. Rev. 83 (2015) at pages 140-151. (by Michael P. Goodman, J.D., Ph.D.) - 12/12/2016
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit grants Mr. Sammons reply brief request as a Motion for a Supplemental Reply Brief - 12/29/2016
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms the order of the US Court of Federal Claims denying Mr. Sammons' Motion to Intervene. - 3/14/2017
Mr. Sammons Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief In US Court of Federal Claims - 03/20/17
Mr. Sammons files with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denial of the Motion to Intervene. 3/28/2017
Source:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20of%20Civil%20Procedure.
Motion to Intervene
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0337.pdf
Judge Sweeney Denial of the Motion to Intervene
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0338.pdf
Mr. Sammons Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0003.pdf
Michael Sammons moves to substitute his October 11, 2016
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0004.pdf
Mr. Sammons files a petition for a Writ of Advisory Mandamus versus Judge Sweeney
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/misc/17-102-002.pdf
Mr. Sammons motion to substitute his October 11, 2016 incorrect brief with a corrected one is granted by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0012.pdf
Defendants Brief argues against Mr. Sammons Motion to Intervene
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0016.pdf
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denies writ of Mandamus against Judge Sweeney
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/misc/17-102-0005.pdf
Plaintiffs Brief argues against Mr. Sammons Motion to Intervene
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0021.pdf
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit grants Mr. Sammons reply brief request as a Motion for a Supplemental Reply Brief
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0024.pdf
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms the order of the US Court of Federal Claims denying Mr. Sammons' Motion to Intervene.
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1015-0028.pdf
Mr. Sammons Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief In US Court of Federal Claims
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0363.pdf
Mr. Sammons files with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judge Biery) denial of the Motion to Intervene.
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/misc/17-50201-00513930093.pdf
Obiterdictum, appreciate your response.
You are welcome rgd1350.
1. First question for you...Are you from this country? 2nd question...Are you under 40?
These personal questions are wholly irrelevant.
2. For the board, are there any other Mortgage Brokers here that was working in loans in the 80's and 90's and later? I ask those questions because anybody working in the loan Industry during that time period, knows of these loan programs. So I am not trying to be an ass.
There was no statement made questioning the existence of such loan programs in the past or present. It is clearly known that such loan programs were offered by a variety of lenders. The question was clearly stated:
What source is used that states or indicates that Fannie and Freddie invented loan programs with "No income, No asset, 100% financing"?
The question was asked since you stated: The Fraudulent loans you speak of, were loan programs (No income, No asset, 100% financing...called, liar loans) that were invented by Fannie & Freddie. - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130038364
Is there an answer to the question asked?
3. Anybody on this board ever get a NINA loan? The NINA loan...no income, no asset loan were what got the mortgage industry into trouble. I have called a friend and will try and find an old rate sheet showing these programs. 100% ltv's...80% first mortgage, 20% second mortgage. Guidelines were given to Loan brokers (Such as myself) from our Lenders (Suntrust was one) These lenders would put their overlays (additional restrictions) to the original programs from F&F, then give them to us. The Lenders in those days, had to send Representatives from their companies to our offices (Staff meetings were held) so they could show us how to fill out the 1003 (Loan App). What to specifically leave off the 1003, so they could qualify...
So far this is all about the Lenders and brokers. There is no info on or about Fannie and Freddie.
4. The loans were sold to F&F with their specific guidelines or we could not get the loan approved.
That is the is usual process. Were Fannie and Freddie guidelines "No income, No asset, 100% financing"?
5. We were told to leave the persons Job information off the app, their salaries and no assets Bank statements, 401k's etc. Anything having to do with income or assets was left off the loan application.
Who told you to leave the persons Job information off the app, their salaries and no assets Bank statements, 401k's etc....? Were these Fannie and Freddie guidelines? If so, please demonstrate with a source document since such guidelines are usually public.
6. I had been doing loans for years...it was unbelievable what they did NOT have to have to get a loan.
Unless demonstrated to be otherwise, this, again, seems like what is requested by the Lenders.
7. By old standards to qualify for a loan, I mean...Debt Ratios of 33/38, 5% DP FICO scores of 660 or higher...Before FICO scores, it was manual underwriting...meaning, you had to have AA credit, No BK's, no collections or charge-offs..seasoning requirements for these items...meaning, most seasoning requirements were 4 years +, Foreclosures required 7 years, before you could qualify for a new mortgage. Their were strict regulations in place. I will try and find a rate sheet...it would show the loan program restrictions...
Yes. This is correct. I am familiar with rate sheets and they are not difficult to find.
8. By saying the TBTF banks would never make those kinds of loan on their own, I meant to say in todays environment the TBTF banks would not make loans that were not better qualified.
So, the time frame of the statement is moved to the present, after the bailouts, litigations and punitive settlements. Understood and agreed.
9. In those days, they made those loan to sell back to F&F, they had no intention of keeping that garbage...
Yes. It was garbage. These sort of loans passed into the GSEs, in most cases, through SEC violations and fraud.
10. Yes, Banks like Wells Fargo did not keep all the loans they made...They sold the bad ones to F&F (along with a few good) to get them off their books...What do you think they were being fined for over the last few years?
That information was presented in detail along with settlements and complaints in the previous messages and on this forum since 2014.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130038364
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130036832
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127888288
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114749782
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103406282
11. At that time, 1 in 100 loans was audited by F&F...You are right, it will never happen again with the banks, but I understand that F&F are considering some type of no income loan again for the self-employed...Big Mistake! Again, appreciate your interest in the old days!!
Please post the source document indicating or noting that Fannie and Freddie "are considering some type of no income loan again for the self-employed."
Thanks in advance.
Source:
Fannie Mae Selling Guide
https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/sel032817.pdf
FHFA's Update on Private Label Securities Actions
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFAs-Update-on-Private-Label-Securities-Actions.aspx
FHFA Complaints
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Pages/Litigation.aspx
1. The Fraudulent loans you speak of, were loan programs (No income, No asset, 100% financing...called, liar loans) that were invented by Fannie & Freddie.
What source is used that states or indicates that Fannie and Freddie invented loan programs with "No income, No asset, 100% financing"?
2. The lenders did abuse them, by stretching the programs that were supposed to be for the self-employed only, then started making them to clients that had salaried incomes. These purchasers only had good credit scores, but not enough assets or income to qualify by the old standards.
Can you provide examples of Fannie and Freddie loan programs with these features? What old standards?
3. The TBTF banks did break the rules set before them by F&F, and then turned around and packaged 100 loans to be sold to F&F, with 4 out of 10 not being in compliance with the program guidelines...Then, all those banks were fined Billions of dollars, and have been paying back F&F over the last several years...but really, pennies on the dollars for what they got away with. The TBTF banks took advantage of the rules and programs made by F&F...they...
Please provide actual examples of the rules and programs made by Fannie and Freddie that the TBTF banks took advantage of?
4. The TBTF banks would never make those kinds of loans on their own...
The evidence of settlements made indicate that certain banks did make those type of loans on their own and then fraudulently misrepresented what these loans were on paper and then sold these loans to Fannie and Freddie and others securitizers. The evidence is clear and without doubt.
5. They have to protect their shareholders. If anything, if F&F were made to go away, the housing market would tighten alright, because the TBTF banks would make the qualifications so difficult to get a loan, only the rich would be able to afford them. Picture 30/10's with 20% down pmt...minimum...We need F&F for the NON-RICH folks..
Lenders would not be able to fool securitizers and regualtors a second time around, and if the lenders get the chance to also doing the securitizing and insuring of mortgage loans without a government backstop like that proposed by Corker, Warner, and Crapo, the financial onus is on the lenders and it is certain that whatever mortgage loans are given or MBS sold, these will have an extremely low probability of default and delinquency, let alone foreclosure and failure to pay debts in a timely manner.
Source:
FHFA's Update on Private Label Securities Actions
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFAs-Update-on-Private-Label-Securities-Actions.aspx
FHFA Complaints
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Pages/Litigation.aspx
PLS Litigation Settlements
1. General Electric Company $6.25 million
2. CitiGroup Inc. $250 million
3. UBS Americas, Inc. (Union Bank of Switzerland) $885 million
4. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. $4 billion
5. Deutsche Bank AG $1.925 billion
6. Ally Financial, Inc. $475 million
7. Morgan Stanley $1.25 billion
8. SG Americas (Societe Generale) $122 million
9. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA) Inc. $885 million
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10. Bank of America Corp.
11. Merrill Lynch & Co. $5.83 billion
12. Countrywide Financial Corporation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13. Barclays Bank PLC $280 million
14. First Horizon National Corp. $110 million
15. RBS Securities, Inc. (in Ally action) $99.5 million
16. Goldman Sachs & Co. $1.2 billion
17. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. $550 million
(Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corp.)
B. Non-Litigation PLS Settlements
18. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. $335.23 million
C. Remaining PLS Cases
Southern District of New York Cases:
Nomura Holding America, Inc. - Case litigated in spring 2015, FHFA prevailed,
now on appeal to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
District of Connecticut Case:
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC
FINRA shows 5,893M diluted shares. why?
MannSinger, 5.893 billion shares refers to the weighted-average common shares outstanding on December 31, 2016.
The 5.893 billion number is a rounded number composed of:
1. 1,158,082,750 common shares outstanding,
2. 4.604 billion of weighted average shares of common stock "that would be issued upon the full exercise of the warrant issued to Treasury from the date the warrant was issued through December 31, 2016..."
3. 131 million convertible preferred stock.
1,158,082,750+4,604,000,000+131,000,000 = 5,893,082,750 diluted shares.
So, the 5.893 billion number is a rounded, potential number of outstanding common shares that would be issued "if the warrant were exercised" and convertible preferred shares were converted to common.
The warrant has not been exercised. No conversion has occurred.
Source:
See page F-46, note 2 in the FNMA 2016 10-K Report:
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2016/10k_2016.pdf
does "check through what the defendants have done" refer to the same process you mentioned earlier, whereby the plaintiffs can challenge any undeclared docs that plaintiffs would like to see based on the info in the logs? I am assuming that's what you were referring to.
Yes. That is correct.
1. Ok, so March 31 (This Friday). Is this payment made at the END of the business day, or BEGINNING of (Friday)?
The payment is recorded as deposited on a specific day after it happens. The time of day is not known. We only have access to records that present data after the deposited is made. The deposit could be made anytime during the target day, in this case, March 31st, that is allowed by electronic or other transfer and receipt.
2. In other words, if the payment is made after trading hours, then investors wont be able to do anything about it until Monday, either way ?
That is correct. Unless there is a factual leak.
3. That is, will we find out about it on Friday March 31, or Monday?
That is not possible to know unless someone leaks the info, the info is released to the press or GSE personnel informs you by e-mail, phone, social media etc. In the past, I called Fannie and Freddie to discover if the transfer was made on the scheduled day. I was told to check the Twitter accounts. That did not yield info on the day of deposit. The next day, or 2 days after, in some cases, there was report of check being sent to Treasury. See:
andYesterday's dividend check to Treasury gives taxpayers a $10 billion return on their investment in Freddie.
— Freddie Mac (@FreddieMac) April 1, 2014
As of March 31, 2014, we made our planned and previously announced $7.2B dividend payment to the U.S. Treasury.
— Fannie Mae (@FannieMae) April 2, 2014
If the NWS is all that remains between the US insolvency and staying afloat we are indeed in deep doodoo.
That is WallysWrld's imaginative take. I responded to the flight of imagination with:
This world is but a canvas to our imagination.
- Henry David Thoreau
Data for Thoughts on Insolvency and the GSEs
The 2017 US budget outlays are approximately $4 trillion.
The 2017 US budget revenues, including GSE dividends are about $3.4 trillion. - All GSE dividends received by the Treasury are recorded as budgetary receipts. Analytical Perspectives p. 124. The Budget estimates additional dividend receipts of $151.5 billion from January 1, 2016, through FY 2026. Analytical Perspectives p. 312.
The 2017 US deficit is estimated at $559 billion.
The total GSEs net profits swept to the Treasury in 2016 were $14.606 billion.
The NWS for 2016 is a drop in the bucket of US budget revenues.
Source:
CBO Budget Projections
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2017-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2017-PER.pdf
Thanks again.
My pleasure.
1. May I ask...why would a judge allow the defendants to choose which documents it will reveal?
Judge Sweeney provided her reasons. 1. No quick peek for the Plaintiffs. She thought that was not appropriate. 2. She was not going to sift through 12,000 documents and apply the criteria to determine what goes out and what does not. Not her job. So, 3) that leaves the defendants to do it on the "honor system."
2. Isn't that just basically giving them permission to further obfuscate?
Yes. Given the behavior of the Defendants that is to be expected. The Plaintiffs have access to the privilege log and will be able to challenge all unselected documents, if needed, and Judge Sweeney can oversee such challenges.
3. Wouldn't it be more "fair" of a judge to allow the plaintiff to choose the documents it wants to see, based on the meta data (the limited info that tells us the subject, the date, the people involved, etc, of each document)?
In this case, "fair" would not apply. Judge Sweeney is sensitized to the aggressive posture and somewhat hostile animus of the Defendants as evidence recently by the Defendants filing a petition for a Writ of Mandamus. A petition for a writ of mandamus essentially alleges that a judge has not properly fulfilled their official duties and/or has committed an abuse of judicial discretion. The writ of mandamus is handed down from a superior court to correct a defect in justice. These are not happy times in the US Court of Federal Claims.
Judge Sweeney can avoid further 'attacks,' that is, allegations of judicial abuse, by giving leeway to the Defendants in this matter. Though she did not offer any reasons for saying 'quick peek' was not appropriate, the Plaintiffs can check through what the defendants have done and so the relevant documents will see the light of day, even though this process will take more time than doing a "quick peek."
Source:
Sweeney's Document Order
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0360.pdf
A Question RE: NWS payment of this month...
1. I have a question regarding the structure and timing of the New Worth Sweep payments, particularly the one which is anticipated by the 31st of this month.
My question is this: Is the payment required to be made ON the 31st, or is the payment required to be made NO LATER than the 31st?
According to the Third Amendment to the SPSPAs, dividend and net worth sweep payments are to be made on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year.
1. Why just a selection of the 11k?
Judge Sweeney allowed the Defendants to select privileged documents from the 12,000 documents on the privilege log that matched the unified criteria set out by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Pandora's Box (11k docs): despite new administration, the fight to keep the lid shut is still just as stubborn as it's always been. Most assume contents only relate to NWS, but initial defense argument to keep docs hidden was to the effect that revealing contents to the public would result in a major calamity the likes of which the financial world has never seen causing immediate world recession, depression and/or WWlll. Fascinating argument, many dismissed such extreme claims, but I find this part of the story the most intriguing.
Prior to NWS, when US was most vulnerable, Russia / China were openly complaining about the US dollar standard, discussing a new standard based on their own currency (or possibly gold) and threatening to cash-in their US bonds to get it started. Geitner had to fly several times to China to secure several "agreements". At the same time, US banks had vast sums of toxic debt and talk was all about "stress tests" and building up capital limits.
What exactly were these "agreements" and what could possibly be in the 11k docs that could cause a world depression? We know one function of GSE conservatorship is to provide a conduit to launder the bank's toxic debt and get away with minimal fines, but thats not enough to cause world calamity. The mind conjours up all sorts of scenarios ... purely hypothetical of course ... but what if in exchange for not selling their bonds Geitner brokered a deal for China to get the spratley islands and Russia to get Crimea? Then Russia, feeling emboldened, decided to go one step further and try take Ukraine as well (not too much talk about returning Crimea is there? Only thing mentioned is asking Russia to stop meddling the separation of Ukraine).
But would that cause a depression? I think not, but what could cause a calamity is if Pandora's Box reveals just how close to being insolvent the US really is and just how desperate treasury is trying to avoid it having to rely on backroom "agreements" and NWS to keep the lights on ... or perhaps the docs simply reveal Area51 does in fact house alien spacecraft from the 50's ... and the US Treasury is under the mind control of non-human life forms ... in which case one can assume continuing the NWS this quarter ...
This world is but a canvas to our imagination.
- Henry David Thoreau
Thanks for detailed answer.
You are welcome.
Probably this will become problem that will confound all. FHFA and Conservatorship are working behind the veil of secrecy and protection of anti-injunction provisions. If the veil of secrecy is lifted and also if anti-injunction provisions go away it would be interesting to see how the questionable acts will be unwound.
Every now and then, a bit of thought goes into considering when and if the whole story, as it actually was and is, will be revealed in the near future. The same answer arises. A full account is not possible for various reasons. We will forced to take a partial account. How much of the story that partial account will include is unknown. The revealing of the selection of documents taken from the 11,000-12,000 in the privilege log will help greatly.
Thank you Travel5. Much appreciated.
You are welcome.
If HERA/FHFA is found to be unconstitutional in a court of law then how it may affect all the judgments that have been made against shareholders dating all the way back to 2008?
First, it is useful to be specific about what is being declared unconstitutional. For example, FHFA is not a law and so how can FHFA be declared unconstitutional?
Second, is there a GSE case where HERA is alleged to be unconstitutional?
Some preliminaries on the origins of the notion that HERA may be declared unconstitutional.
1. What was declared unconstitutional in PHH v. CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) decision is a statutory provision in Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), the law that established the CFPB. See CADC panel decision pages 9-10.: http://bit.ly/2dZ8qnu -
Specifically, Dodd-Frank provisions established and structured the CFPB as a single headed, independent agency with a for-cause removal provision applicable to the CFPB director. The main offending part of the law that was declared unconstitutional was the for-cause removal provision applicable to the Director.
Sec. 1101(c)(3)
(3) Removal for cause.--The President may remove the Director for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. See Dodd-Frank Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Sec. 1011(c)(3) - https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4173/text.
For the CADC panel, this provision placed the CFPB Director in a position to be "other than the President, .....the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power" and accountable to almost no other person or group when in office.
Maybe Steve Mnuchin stops NWS this week--why NOT?----then Release the GSE's----again---WHY NOT?-----that would turn the smiles upside down on a lot of faces----------and put a HUGE smile on many others
Yes. Why not?
Let us hope Mnuchin does better than Ryan - though the big advantage is not having to deal with congress
Yes. Ryan and his team missed the boat by a mile with the AHCA.
Fingers crossed.
Mnuchin has it in hand or he does not, to get it right the first time out of the gate. Time will tell.
AND the courts are still a last and independent option if all else fails
Looking forward to the decisions by Sweeney, Atlas, and Sleet.
I have failed to see how complex the big picture is in my little world. Thanks for showing me that and thanks for your time. :)
You are welcome.
Try this GSE Thought Map to visually consider how the GSEs are entangled with each branch of the US Government.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2017/2/19/jtybnGSE_Thought_Map_(2).png
Then add the non-government players that attempt to influence directly and indirectly the members in each branch of government. For starters, one can consider: The Federal Reserve Bank, pro- and anti-GSE think tanks, experts and policy paper makers (American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, Appraisal Institute, Urban Institute, Moody's Analytics, Bipartisan Policy Center (Bipartisan Housing Commission), Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) national real estate, housing and affordable housing organizations, (National Association of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, etc.), bank associations (Mortgage Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, etc.), large hedge, mutual, and equity funds (Pershing Capital, The Fairholme Funds, Perry Capital, etc.) , mainstream, alternative and social media (AP, UPI, ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, RT, Washington Post, Washington TImes, Washington Examiner, LA Times, NY Times, Huffington Post, Time, Forbes, Fortune, InfoWars, Daily Caller, Drudge Report, Breitbart, NPR, PBS, etc.) that foster the leading investigative journalists, news anchors, daily reporters, pundits, critics, experts, TV, video and radio talk show hosts.
There are more.
Putting it all together will broaden the scope of what an investment in the GSEs at this time entails.
Thanks for posting obi. I keep asking myself why the current Administration is being silent about the GSE's? There must be a reason why they don't show their cards? Is it political? Is it money? Is it legal ramifications? Do you have any thoughts as to why investors have to keep playing a guessing game on what their intentions are? Thanks????????
You are correct. President Trump and the Trump administration are playing this close to the vest. The reasons for this are most likely akin to the ones you stated and more. There are powerful and economic, political and social people, groups and corporations vying for various degrees of control of the GSEs present and future status and activities and for control and direction over the use of the enormous wealth they generate. There are intense conflicts between these economic, political and social people, groups and corporations. There also is plenty of opportunistic grasping for cash and business opportunities to generate cash by engaging this way and that with government and non-government entities to direct things towards the opportunists and squeaky wheels.
Since the Trump administration and Treasury, at the moment, have the best hand, the other players are concerned about that best hand and want to read the White House tells as to how high the stakes are going to go and whether or not they should fold or pull out the knives and guns. So far they have failed, as we have, to accurately read the tells. White House information on plans for the GSEs future is blacked out.
The best hand means that Trump and his administration can do an "administrative fix" of the GSEs without interference or contributions from Congressional legislators and/or private capital. They also can broker deals to push through specific legislation without the support of Democrats and can cater to the private capital players they prefer. As we know, some in the Senate and House do not want an administrative fix. Private capital of one kind or another seek to have their share they way they want it through lobbying, press releases, associations and think tanks and so on.
Because of this, President Trump and crew are keeping all their cards close to the vest so that no advantages accrue to the other players. It is GSE fact finding and learning time. They have read the tells of the other players and now they have to come up with a practical plan and play their hand.
1. I am sure that your questions are mostly rhetorical.
They are not rhetorical questions. In the attempt to answer the questions, it can be realized how much we do not actually know.
2. They do point out the glaringly obvious lack of coverage. Good questions though.
There is also a lack of knowledge about these issues among the general population.
President Trump has not spoken or tweeted much about mortgage finance, the secondary mortgage market, the 30 year mortgage, the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie, the NWS, etc. When he did tweet on November 4, 2011, it was not supportive or understanding of the GSEs.
Even so, that tweet was par for the time and does not reflect what President Trump may be considering or judging today.Malfeasance at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped cause our current financial meltdown.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 4, 2011
Questions Before March 31, 2017
1. The Net worth Sweep of $9.946 billion is scheduled to be deposited by the GSEs into Treasury Federal Reserve Account by or on March 31, 2017.
2. It is assumed that President Trump, White House administration, DOJ, Treasury, Steven Mnuchin are aware of the scheduled NWS payment. How could they not be aware of the input of $9.946 billion? 100s if not 1000s of tweets were sent to @SteveMnuchin1, @potus, @realdonaldtrump and their hashtags about the NWS. Have any of these shown up on these Twitter feeds? If so, please send in some published ones on these accounts.
3. It can be asked: Can a mention of the NWS be found on President Trump's or Trump's administration or Steve Mnuchin's social media accounts (Twitter - @realdonaldtrump, @potus, @stevemnuchin1 or, Facebook account - https://www.facebook.com/POTUS/, https://www.facebook.com/steven.mnuchin.127 or....), etc.? Is there any mention of the NWS by President Trump or Trump's administration or Steven Mnuchin via news on video, audio, or digital text, press releases, interviews or anywhere publicly for that matter? Has President Trump, the White House administration, the Press Secretary, DOJ, Treasury, Steven Mnuchin mentioned the NWS even once? Is there a NWS public information black out with the Trump administration? If not, please send in links to what you have found....
4. Outside of the traders and investors that are concerned about profits and investments in Fannie and Freddie, organizers and groups concerned about affordable housing, investment and mortgage bank and bank association people looking to dip into the secondary mortgage market, pro- and anti-GSE think tanks, pundits, analysts and critics, a small minority of Representatives and Senators, Judges, DOJ and GSE attorneys, the phalanx of news reporters, anchors, talk show hosts in the media looking for scoops and ratings, etc. how many US adults are knowledgeable and concerned about the Net Worth Sweep and its impacts, let alone the NWS payment scheduled for deposit by or on March 31, 2017?
You are always incredibly thorough. Much appreciated.
Old habits die hard. My pleasure.
1. So, in short, it seems you are saying this has very little short term implication
Timing, short or long is not mentioned jcromeenes. The implications of the advisory and the position it renders are unknown until one or both courts deliver a decision in the Collins and/or PHH case and the weight of these matters is actually measured in court opinions. So, there is no saying about short term implications.
2. and seems to be little more than a footnote
Treasury's advisory was mainly about the content of a footnote and how Treasury's wanted the court to treat the content of a footnote given the DOJ's opinion on CFPB's unconstitutional structure found in the DOJ's Amicus Brief.
The conclusion that this seems to be little more than a footnote is not warranted. That was not stated or implied. Treasury's advisory points to the footnote it made in Treasury's reply memo for a motion to dismiss. Treasury's advisory centers around that footnote. The content of the footnote indicates Treasury's former position on the Plaintiffs' constitutional claim (Count IV). That position, according to Treasury's footnote, was exactly the same as FHFA's position and arguments, which Treasury once joined, but now has rescinded.
3. HOWEVER it gives us strong footing on another angle to argue the NWS is not legal.
The "'angle' to argue the NWS is not legal" is based on the Plaintiffs allegation that there is constitutional defect in FHFA’s structure. This argument was first made by the Plaintiffs in Count IV of the Collins, et al. original complaint and defended in subsequent briefs against the Defendants' arguments and counter arguments.
The Plaintiffs may try to use Treasury's former position and Treasury's change to the DOJ's current position that CFPB's independent agency structure is unconstitutional when headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal as another "angle."
By pointing to Treasury's 3/24/17 advisory and DOJ's arguments and opinions that CFPB's structure is unconstitutional as found in the Amicus Brief to the CADC en banc rehearing, the Plaintiffs may argue that Treasury or the US position and argument is basically the same as theirs - an independent agency headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal is unconstitutional. Even so, it is important to notice and realize that the Plaintiffs, hypothetically, cannot argue that the DOJ argues that the FHFA is unconstitutional because FHFA is an independent agency headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal for such and such a reasons. The DOJ Amicus Brief opines about CFPB not FHFA. The present applicability of such arguments about the constitutionality of FHFA is speculative. Nothing has been decided at the moment, but imagination can conjure otherwise.
And would this speculative or hypothetical Plaintiffs' argument be more definitive and deciding for Judge Nancy F. Atlas compared to the current arguments and counter arguments made by the Plaintiffs for Count IV? Or would this hypothetical argument be merely supportive of arguments for Count IV? What would this hypothetical Plaintiffs' argument yield?
4. While rather simplified, does that more or less summarize it
Given what was presented above, the simplification does not more or less summarize what was given in the previous post.
Source:
Treasury Advisory in Collins, et al. Case in Texas
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0046.pdf
Memorandum of Defendants Federal Housing Finance Agency as Conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants’ Cross-motion for Summary Judgment on Constitutional Claim
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0036.pdf
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE in PHH Corporation v. CFPB
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3519662/3-17-17-US-Amicus-Brief-PHH.pdf
Reply Memorandum of the Department of the Treasury and Steven Mnuchin in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0038.pdf
Collins et al. Original Complaint
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0001.pdf
Thank you Obit
You are welcome 3antar.
So, obit, you seem to probably be in the legal field as you clearly seem to grasp the legal ramifications better than most on each of these decisions. I'm still trying to determine the significance of this filing. Is this "just another filing" or is this one far more significant than most? What are the general ramifications of this filing? Thank you in advance.
The ramification of Treasury's advisory filing to the US District Court for Southern Texas is straightforward. Treasury alerts the court that its former position of support of FHFA's arguments against the Plaintiffs' constitutional claim as found in a footnote in their 2/27/2017 reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss has changed. The court is advised that Treasury's position matches the DOJ's (US) position as stated in its US Amicus Brief to the CADC en banc rehearing of the CADC panel ruling. This advisory silences Treasury and leaves FHFA to argue alone against the Plaintiffs Count IV, since the DOJ sees the CFPB structure as unconstitutional. This new position matches, in part, the Plaintiffs' position and partially undermines the Defendants' position. See: 02/27/2017 - Reply Memorandum of the Department of the Treasury and Steven Mnuchin in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. Note: Treasury did not file a separate and named reply and did not argue directly against the Plaintiffs' constitutional claim as did FHFA. Since the CADC panel ruling is vacated and the advisory is simply a filing and not acted upon by the court, we are to wait to see what impact this has on the Collin's and other cases.
Here is the order of events.
1. There was a legal ruling made on October 11, 2017 by a CADC panel in the PHH Corporation v. CFPB case. The judgment given was that the CFPB structure composed as a single headed, independent agency with a for-cause removal provision applicable to the CFPB director is unconstitutional and that the remedy for this legal flaw is to remove the for-cause removal provision. See CADC panel decision here: http://bit.ly/2dZ8qnu - page 9-10.
RIP Melvin Watt, Director?
Perhaps.
Well, this would be a nice little way to end run a whole lot of problems.
Mr. Watt may lose all that leverage and influence at a stroke...
Interesting indeed.
If a new court ruling declares that the for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional and remedies this by severing the for-cause removal restriction from HERA (not striking down the agency or HERA en toto), it will interesting what President Trump would do.
good or bad?
There is no idea how the two courts, (US District Court for Southern Texas and CADC en banc) will treat these views and opinions of the Defendants. There are no rulings, so neither good or bad at the moment. There only a complication between FHFA and Treasury at the moment (contradictory arguments). Of course, imagination can run wild this.
Obit...thanks again for the input.
You are welcome SGINPHX
Layman's terms...what does this do for us? Cancel NWS? Setup HERA constitutionality? Or just changes structure of FHFA and nothing for us? TIA
Nothing at the moment. All of this related to briefs, motions, opinions of the Defendants filed with the respective courts. There are no rulings or decisions yet made by the US District Court for Southern Texas on Collins, et al. or the CADC en banc on PHH v. CFPB.
We will see what is what when the courts give rulings.
1. So now DOJ and Treasury are saying FHFA is unconstitutional... what an amazing change...
No. The DOJ and Treasury are not saying that the FHFA is unconstitutional. The DOJ, first of all and Treasury following is stating that the for-cause removal of director of a single headed agency is unconstitutional and that alone should be struck down. Not the FHFA as as agency.
Clarifications: Collins v. FHFA, et al. Advisory - 3/24/2017
1. Defendants submitted an advisory regarding their pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
2. Treasury's advisory to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division makes three statements and a request to the court. Below are statements in lay form along with the documents referred to for close reading.
a. On February 27, 2017, we (Treasury Defendants) 1) made a note in our reply memo for dismissal that 2) stated that we supported the arguments made by the FHFA Defendants that opposed Collins et al. (Plaintiffs) Count IV of their motion for summary judgement. We did that on page 2, note 1.
Note 1 stated on page 2:
Graag gedaan Travel5.
The 10 kings who tried to rule the world...
[Suppressed Image]
This link should work - https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2017/3/22/povhrUsual_Suspects_small.jpg
"Je bent welkom." is a translation.
More common way for Dutch to respond is "Tot uw dienst", which translates to "At your service".
I was born and raised in The Netherlands and live in Houston since 1975.
Yes. Agreed, especially if if I was acting as a Nederlander.
"Tot uw dienst" is a polite expression and the translation of "At your service" is a common polite responsive expression in The Netherlands to "Thank you" (Dank je or Dank u).
"At your service," in response to "Thank you" is an uncommon expression in the US as a response to a friendly peer's "Thank you." Service persons, waiters, delivery people, butlers, public and personal servants, subordinates of every kind etc. would say "At your service" when initially offering their help or assistance, or after being thanked by a patron, client, employer, superior, or it could be said with a bit of sarcasm for obvious reasons.
For native born Americans, the general response pattern is "Thank you" and "You are welcome," or "You're welcome." There are other colloquial and idiomatic expressions such my pleasure, no problem, no worries, don't mention it, no thanks needed, etc. made in response to "Thank you."
Also, I did not mean or intend to say "at your service" (with a light gentlemanly click of the heels). If that was meant or intended, it would have been said and translated as "Tot uw dienst" as suggested.
In response to thanks or thank you, I meant to say ethnocentrically, "You are welcome" and to translate that into Dutch. The Dutch translation of that is "Je bent welkom," a standard and common translation found in Dutch dictionaries, phrase books and translators.
I could of used a common Dutch expression - "graag gedaan" - that matches an expression I do use, "You're welcome" or "my pleasure."
So what we have in the above is 1) an American response to "Thank you" - "You are welcome" - translated into the Dutch via an online translator and checked with a dictionary versus 2) the more literal and commonplace Nederlanders view/interpretation of "Thank you" with corresponding polite Dutch response to it, "Tot uw dienst"
In short, the American response "You are welcome" ("Je bent welkom") to the words "Thank you" for a Nederlander may be contextually or semantically odd. I agree "Je bent welkom" does not semantically match the Dutch use to make perfect sense to a Nedelander, but it is the American traditional response. Perhaps, it is American abuse of the Dutch language or to avoid such correction, simply use "graag gedaan." No? Yes?
"You are welcome" = "Je bent welkom." - http://context.reverso.net/vertaling/nederlands-engels/Je+bent+welkom
"My pleasure," "you're welcome" - graag gedaan - http://context.reverso.net/vertaling/nederlands-engels/graag+gedaan
"At your service" = "Tot uw dienst" - http://context.reverso.net/vertaling/nederlands-engels/Tot+uw+dienst
Film Script Use
http://playphrase.me/en/search?q=at%20your%20service
http://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4a76fdb8-4c9a-4195-8ec2-3d461dbd46e2
In this clip service, click next to get the response: http://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/63ab2c2d-4b68-494d-bde5-e734db2abb90
Oh ok my wife is American citizen. Lol
Met behulp van de technologie van vandaag, is het gemakkelijk om te lezen, schrijven, spreken en begrijpen vele talen.
For example:
Ben jij Nederlands?
Nee. Ik ben een Amerikaans staatsburger.
Je bent welkom.
Du är välkommen.
There is no one left to cover this up right?
If this bill is passed, and if the GSEs are in conservatorship or receivership, the FHFA must turn over legitimately requested FOIA info on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHFA can no longer issue blanket denials to lawful FOIA requests made as done previously.
However, FOIA limitations given the statute, FHFA "delays" in responding to requests and document redactions can still apply.
If passed, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(f)(1) of the FOIA will be changed from this:
(f) For purposes of this section, the term—
(1) ‘‘agency’’ as defined in section 551(1) of
this title includes any executive department,
military department, Government corporation,
Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive branch of
the Government (including the Executive Office
of the President), or any independent regulatory
agency;
to this:
(f) For purposes of this section, the term—
(1) ‘‘agency’’ as defined in section 551(1) of
this title includes any executive department,
military department, Government corporation,
Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive branch of
the Government (including the Executive Office
of the President), any independent regulatory agency, and
the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation during any period such
enterprise is under conservatorship or receivership pursuant
to section 1367 of the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617).
As written in the proposed bill, this change "shall apply with respect to any request filed under section 552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, on or after such effective date, relating to any record created before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Source:
5 U.S.C. Section 552 - The Freedom of Information Act
https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552
New Bill - To require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/HR-__-the-Fannie-and-Freddie-Open-Records-Act-of-2017.pdf
You are welcome.
seems there are two semi conflicting points re Calibria
1. He is against the GSEs on principle (No GOV guarantee is acceptable ...)
at same time
2. Calibria would find the FHFA and the NWS very ugly
Remember or know of the Certs commercials?
Remember Calabria, gives you two, two, two views in one. An revolutionary old type of reformer, with a reddish drop of GSE elimination. C-A-L-A-B-R-I-A.