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.
Patswil - the election is over - let’s move on - So let me setup counter factual world. Trump won on Nov 3rd and Dems were doing the very same thing with all this election stolen talk?
I’m a moderate, registered republican - I’m a case by case type of person and don’t live in generalities when it comes to the USA. Outside the USA I have no problem generalizing for the benefit of the USA.
The election has been reviewed - Georgia and Arizona of all states went down to Dems. Those states have rep representation throughout the state - gov, state legislature, registrar, etc. He lost - deep state is bs - if there is something, it’s isolated in pockets.
When things don’t go a persons way, they either shrug, try to explain it via logic, or conjure up ways in which they were cheated.
The ability to pull off a massive fraud when both parties were eyeballing everything is ludicrous. For arguments sake, I’ll give you Philadelphia (historically dem). But Atlanta and Arizona also? Doesn’t pass the smell test.
This post won’t last long ...
Chaser, well said
TRCPA - give me scenarios on cost? Remember, a warrants takings claim (I believe it was that) was already once filed and was dismissed by the court as the issue wasn’t ripe - warrants need to be excercised.
Warrant exercise will lead to more litigation. Not saying the gov cares about more litigation, but it must be baked into the calculous of executing the warrants. The warrants terms are outrageous and virtually every other bailed out company was given some type of terms on the warrants to settle them ...
The cap rule is, IMO, a significant portion of “the cost” already ...
I thought the Social Security agency was a multi-board/director/commission type structure. Is it a single or multi? Anyone know?
ACG Scotus outcome matrix. It is worth reassessing given ACB is on the court and the oral arguments have been held.
To me the APA claims being barred by HERA seemed, per oral arguments, to get the gov beat up a bit for thise justices who asked questions on it, e.g., Breyer. Anyone else get the same vibe or no?
Chaser, I agree with you he probably shouldn’t have been that “emotional” on the Tex v States filing. In retrospect I’m sure he has multiple regrets - as much as there can be in tweeting - on some of his tweets, e.g., Mnuchin and Calabria relationship holding up PSPA, Tex v States, etc. There are other tweets/posts that seem more rooted in realty.
What? Where do u guys come up with this stuff?
You have a link to ROLG’s “game changing” review of Tex v all other states?
Amelia - the Vox article has multiple factual holes that you, I assumed, knew about. Either lazy posting, uninformed, or the alternative ... because half the points made in Vox are factually incorrect. I’m making the assumption you already know that but I guess I shouldn’t...
Discussion on any other topic is irrelevant ... Vox article is an accurate representation?
ROLG’s take on SCOTUS is quite good, and I believe he is spot on ... I don’t agree with him all the time and I take everything on a case by case basis.
The Vox article is not fair and riddled with falsehoods and is so transparent with an agenda it’s ridiculous.
The fact you have been on this board for long enough to know the article is garbage, but you tout it is funny.
I do believe up to 40% of posts on this board are aliases...
Louie, warrant takings aren’t ripe b.c the warrants haven’t been executed. The NWS is obviously ripe and the reason why were at SCOTUS and the CFC (Sweeney).
I to recall the case not being ripe for a takings. The fact a case was filed against the gov on the warrants “takings” demonstrates more will be filed if the warrants are executed.
How much potential liability will Treasury want to open themselves up to? 79.9, 50, 25, 10, or 5% of total equity?
My point is there can be a balance between getting something to appease bailout critics (which we all know is hogwash) and minimizing a detrimental move impacting the companies = significantly updating the warrant terms to be much more reasonable.
Interesting times ...
Even with a settlement SCOTUS will rule - they have to confirm nothing like the 3rd amendment ever happen again. They may be able to avoid a remedy if there is a settlement, but APA cannot be barred by HERA and ultra vires acts by a gov agency acting as a conservator.
If they want to say FnF are special, then that’s a way to justify a ruling. Without ACB on the court I’d be more nervous as Roberts could go with Liberal justices.
Conservative justices (Kav, Gor, Tho, Ali & Bar) IMO don’t seem inclined to treat FnF shareholders as a special case since FnF are gov sponsored. I agree with ROLG that ACB really could be the tipping point. Without her, you can’t count on Roberts on these cases.
I don’t buy conservative justices will allow ultra vires acts of a conservator persist, and they will allow for remedy, either via direct guidance, or via CFC Sweeney approval to move forward on takings. Warrant execution could lead to another flood of lawsuits n the CFC.
Interesting times ... Gov could put this all to bed and simplify the future of the GSEs by doing the right think.
Manipulation continues ... could even be Ackman gaining more ... or Paulson playing JPS for common ...
Correction below ...
Remember the Cap Rule announcement? JPS goes up out of the gate while a large sell order is put on top of commons. Obviously, investors who are potentially going to buy don’t because they see no movement on the price.
Then the following day FnF commons explode north while JPS goes down. That is not due to lemmings being slow, or any other reason besides big hedge fund money is playing here. Ackman can, by himself, set this price within reason. Imagine if he’s working with Paulson, or others, then everything is controlled. Both JPS and Commons.
Pretty obvious stuff going on here. Then, probably what?, no more than $10k sent out to media hit piece artists to dissuade prospective investors from purchasing shares - which could save Ackman and/or Paulson, etc., 50 to 100k because it again dissuades prospective buys from purchasing FnF.
There is truth to the above. When big money wants to let this run and pump it, they will allow it and push it also - think Ackman 600% return. And why wouldn’t Ackman work with Paulson, etc., to get this done? Of course they would. More money to be made in a coordinated effort.
Manipulation continues ... could even be Ackman gaining more ... or Paulson playing JPS for common ...
Remember the Cap Rule announcement? JPS goes up out of the gate while a large sell order is put on top of commons. Obviously, investors who are potentially going to buy don’t because they see no movement on the price.
Then the following day FnF commons explode north while JPS goes down. That is not due to lemmings being slow, or any other reason besides big hedge fund money is playing here. Ackman can, by himself, set this price within reason. Imagine if he’s working with Paulson, or others, then everything is controlled. Both JPS and Commons.
Pretty obvious stuff going on here. Then, probably what?, no more than $10k sent out to media hit piece artist to dissuade prospective investors from purchasing shares - which could save Ackman and/or Paulson, etc., 50 to 100k because it again dissuades prospective buys from purchasing FnF.
There is truth to the above. When big money wants to let this run and pump it, they will allow it and push it also - think Ackman 600% return. And why wouldn’t Ackman work with Paulson, etc., to get this done? Of course they would. More money to be made in a coordinated effort.
Iowa - rest assured deep pockets want to keep this where it is right now. Paid for negative media coverage - directly or indirectly - that is blatantly bias, e.g., focusing only on gov questioning, on a Roberts SP statement that was easily answered by Thompson, etc., is very transparent to those in the know.
Motive is keep low for better JPS conversion and/or accumulate as many cheap shares.
Negative headlines on SCOTUS oral arguments is ridiculous and can’t possibly predict the outcome.
Here’s another example. Cap Rule comes out and JPS explodes and commons sit there with an iceberg sell order(s) purposely put on top of the shareprice to prevent it from ascending. Then the very next day it explodes.
A large entity (entities) are playing both JPS and commons for their eventual goal. Ackman and/or Paulson, or other large hedge funds, can easily be manipulating this OTC stock.
There aren’t enough players to mitigate the manipulation...
The Mnuchin news is huge and has been dumpes into to prevent the SP from going up and then those shares are arbitraged between JPS, FNMA and FMCC. If you have the money why not ...
I don’t think she’ll have anything until seeing guidance from SCOTUS. If Scotus says everyone can sue and they aren’t barred from suing (APA) more litigation could pop up ... the gov really has an opportunity now to put an end to this and not be greedy.
Rob - they also get “paid” regardless of disclaimers ... whatever influence is out there - Paulson, Ackman, Boutiques ...
It is absolutely “paid” for ...
And the cap rule hasn’t been published in the fed register yet, so the clock hasn’t started yet.
ROLG on Twitter ... he may be thinking Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Barrett with possibly Roberts going along with the majority. I get the vibe based on Kavanaugh’s questioning of Thompson, ROLG believes the aforementioned majority would rule for FnF.
Sweeney held off to wait for SCOTUS. SCOTUS will render a decision no later than June and could even be by Feb.
I can see the argument on how the warrant execution starting a whole new cycle of litigation in the CFC. Why create more issues for litigation when FnF have paid the government over $300 billion? Getting even more for the government via warrant execution will undoubtedly bring even more litigation ...
What does Mnuchin have to gain in 40 days?
Even more hilarious, who wastes their time following a stock worth 0$?
Thanks, need pspa to be deemed paid and warrants cancelled as a fair biz transaction, or at least significantly augmented. If Sweeney thinks the PSPA was a mafia deal, she’ll think even more so with the warrants. Especially, considering Sweeney believes WaFed and Fairholme are materially identical.
I think Scotus will clear the path for Sweeney.
How many outstanding JPS shares for Fannie?
Just cancel the PSPA and relist to NYSE.
How many JPS shares are outstanding in Fannie?
I’ll take 40 in a heart beat. I’m trying to temper my expectations. I’ll go with $10 and getting multiple issues resolved so we can focus on more important issues.
I’ll take that in a couple years. Scotus acknowledged the gov has been paid back and the some.
So Trump really should cancel the warrants also, or significantly augment the terms to favor FnF.
There’s been 2 or 3 articles that have been promoting ... 2 or 3 even keeled ... 4 or 5 horribly bias ... these hit pieces are incredible ...
Ackman $10 in short order ...
Finally some news to counter balance the negative nellies.
Sweeney’s court could become super interesting once SCOTUS rules.
Interesting precedent
Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co., 353 U.S. 151 (1957)
Thompson spoke in terms of legal precedent more so than the gov. He had legal precedent to support almost all answers ...
It will be interesting...
Rick, I don’t think he will leave the PSPA in place. It is accepted fact by SCOTUS that FnF paid $124 billion more than what was necessary. That is all the cover Mnuchin needs to mark the PSPA as paid.
False - NWS = Nationalization was mentioned a ton. Oral arguments rarely change Justices’ opinions. The 100s of pages and amicus are what will sway the court.
It’s manipulation on OTC. Deep pockets sell into the morning overwhelming to crush any momentum, then they accumulate as we go. For all we know it could even be Ackman ...
Bradford, that is where I am. I think there may be “guidance” for Sweeney in the opinion. I do get the feeling the 3rd amendment will be neutered in some way to prevent this from happening again, but monetary remedy will be “guidance” ti the CFC.
Anyway, interesting times ...
Manipulation continues...
Robert, that is the problem. Thompson purposefully summarized his argument with Calabria and essentially nationalization.
The justices will find a way to target the 3rd amendment. As for remedy who knows, but per Breyer, who asked about whether Plaintiffs had filed a takings claim (in the CFC), Thompson said yes they had. There is going to be meat left twisting on the bone for us to pursue.
Roberts is a smart judge regardless of ur politics. If Thompson engages in SP conversations with the judge, Thompson may have fallen into a trap.
Remeber, Roberts said to the gov counsel that shareholders were wiped out and pressed that line of thinking. His “devil’s advocate” question about SP to Thompson was benign.
The 3rd amendment is toast. I also don’t know how SCOTUS escapes Seila, and even Sotomayor was saying she doesn’t see the FHFA and CFPB the same, indicating the option to vacate the whole enchilada. I don’t think anyone on the court believes the housing market would be turned into chaos by vacating the FHFA and actions all together. Plus, Thompson stated again and again, as he did during investors unite, that the statute of limitations will not open a can of worms for other agencies if SCOTUS rules to vacate everything FHFA.
Here is a way to calibrate your SCOTUS listening and reading review. The single director removal for cause is done. Nielsen, court appointed counsel, did a very nice job and the court didn’t press on a ton of questions. Someone unfamiliar withthis case and Seila may think the for cause vs at will question is a toss up.
The answer is no way. Seila will prevail on the single director question.
The presidentially appointed acting director vs senate affirmed director is an interesting question. Looking at this via the NWS, the acting director was removable by the president when, if I remember correctly, the NWS was implemented. 2014 was when there was an affirmed director.
Pulling back up to the high level, the way the questioning began = Nationalization, and how it ended with Thompson on Calabria’s view, the court can’t escape the conservator ultra vires NWS action.
At a minimum the PSPA would be deemed paid and the NWS cancelled and that is what Mnuchin is about to do. If you tried to get cute at the 11th hr and tried to trade this, you deserve to get caught ...
good luck
That is big!