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.
There's no pressure to release the twins. Status Quo is likely full steam ahead.
The $100B Capital buffer and the current administrations acceptance of the Status Quo was apparent in the 3 to 4 hour House Session with Sandra earlier this week.
Right now, very short term US T-Bills are spiking in yields:
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_bill_rates&field_tdr_date_value_month=202305
Is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac very short term yields spiking as much or is the $100B Capital Reserves Buffer working?
One thing politicians WON'T DO, is mess around with 66% + of American Families BIGGEST Asset on their balance sheet, Home Sweet Home.
The potential uncertainties on the US Housing Market may be too uncertain to go full steam ahead with release until more Capital is on the books.
See NO EXPLICIT GUBMINT GUARANTEE.
"As government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the housing GSEs) benefit from implicit government support."
"The Treasury and FHFA have the ability to amend the SPSPAs bilaterally, and following a Supreme Court decision in 2021, leadership at both the Treasury and FHFA serve at the President's will. In particular, changes to the SPSPAs that negatively affected the GSEs' ability to raise capital organically could strengthen the government's control over the GSEs by cutting off their ability to grow capital, which could create challenges for future administrations to release the GSEs from conservatorship."
1% of $10B = $100 million in GSE Holdings.
Allegedly Pershing Square Market Value is $10B according to this article from Fortune:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hedge-fund-billionaire-bill-ackman-132557971.html
"You can't trust anymore the Capital Stack of a bank."
MM 2:12
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/03/21/axiom-cio-discusses-credit-suisse-bond-wipeout.html
---------------
No love lost between Ackman and Icahn:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hedge-fund-billionaire-bill-ackman-132557971.html
"Even after the recent share price decline, $IEP still trades at a 50%+ premium to its NAV. Its performance history and governance structure do not justify a premium; rather they suggest that a large discount to NAV would be appropriate."
HeeeeHeeee! Patience Grasshopper.
Wow! ANOTHER 9-0 Slam dunk at the SCOTUS in the SAME DAY, for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Here, the poor Sackett family has been trying for 15 YEARS, to build their Retirement House on a Lake, but our 'dear leaders' at the EPA said NO.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/
Exhibit B: Bill Foster and Brad Sherman
Think of all the hard working American Families and Retirees effected financially from the Nationalization of the twins.
Ohh, Brad Sherman says, "Hugs and Kisses!" HeeeeHeeee !
Yes, THE CONGRESSMAN BRAD SHERMAN! I suspect he's also President of the HUGO CHAVEZ FAN CLUB!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Sherman
Maybe he'll talk the Majority Speaker into creating a "NATIONALIZING PRIVATE CAPITAL COMMITTEE", the next time his party is in power!
AMERIKA, my kinda place !
Only ONE WAY to find out for sure !
Hard to believe that this Garbage has been going on for almost 15 YEARS!
I'm sure in the future investors will be rushing in to risk their Capital with an equity investment in the twins after seeing just how horribly the US Government has treated Shareholders!
Bernie/Sherman 2024!
But our 'dear leaders' assured us in 2008 that the conservatorships would be TEMPORARY!
Isn't it the PRIMARY JOB OF A CONSERVATOR TO PRESERVE AND CONSERVE ITS WARDS ASSETS?
WTF?
"The Takings Clause does not itself define property. Phil-
lips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (1998). For that, the Court draws on “existing rules or un-
derstandings” about property rights. Ibid. (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). State law is one important source.
Ibid.; see also Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Flor-
ida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 560 U. S. 702, 707
(2010). But state law cannot be the only source. Otherwise,
a State could “sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing
traditional property interests” in assets it wishes to appro-
priate. Phillips, 524 U. S., at 167; see also Webb’s Fabulous
Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 164 (1980);
Hall v. Meisner, 51 F. 4th 185, 190 (CA6 2022) (Kethledge,
J., for the Court) (“[T]he Takings Clause would be a dead
letter if a state could simply exclude from its definition of
property any interest that the state wished to take.”). So
we also look to “traditional property law principles,” plus
historical practice and this Court’s precedents. Phillips,
524 U. S., at 165–168; see, e.g., United States v. Causby, 328
U. S. 256, 260–267 (1946); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
467 U. S. 986, 1001–1004 (1984)."
"But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt
to confiscate more property than was due. By doing so, it
effected a “classic taking in which the government directly
appropriates private property for its own use.” Tahoe-Si-
erra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 324 (2002) (internal quotation marks
and alteration omitted). Tyler has stated a claim under the
Takings Clause and is entitled to just compensation."
"B
The principle that a government may not take more from
a taxpayer than she owes can trace its origins at least as far
back as Runnymeade in 1215, where King John swore in
the Magna Carta that when his sheriff or bailiff came to
collect any debts owed him from a dead man, they could re-
move property “until the debt which is evident shall be fully
paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to
fulfil the will of the deceased.”
"The consensus that a government could not take more
property than it was owed held true through the passage of
the Fourteenth Amendment. States, including Minnesota,
continued to require that no more than the minimum
amount of land be sold to satisfy the outstanding tax debt.2"
"Thirty-six States and the Federal Government require that
the excess value be returned to the taxpayer."
"“[t]o withhold the surplus from the owner would be
to violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and to
deprive him of his property without due process of law, or
to take his property for public use without just compensa-
tion.” Id., at 150."
"But “property rights cannot
be so easily manipulated.” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid,
594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 13) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Minnesota may not extinguish a property
interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying
just compensation when it is the one doing the taking. Phil-
lips, 524 U. S., at 167."
"The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government
from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens
which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer
who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000
tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public
fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar
what is Caesar’s, but no more.
Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking
under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief un-
der “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,”
we need not decide whether she has also alleged an exces-
sive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
is reversed.
It is so ordered."
Looks like the Pacific Legal Foundation slam dunked the ball AGAIN, at the SCOTUS (9-0)! VERY Sympathetic Plaintiff.
Is the Ruling limited to taxpayer Plaintiffs only?....
Held: Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County’s retention of the excess value of her home above her tax debt violated the Takings Clause.
Pp. 3–14.
(a) Tyler’s claim that the County illegally appropriated the $25,000
surplus constitutes a classic pocketbook injury sufficient to give her
standing. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. ___, ___. Even if
there are debts on her home, as the County claims, Tyler still plausibly
alleges a financial harm, for the County has kept $25,000 that she
could have used to reduce her personal liability for those debts. Pp. 3–
4.
(b) Tyler has stated a claim under the Takings Clause, which pro-
vides that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without
just compensation.” Whether remaining value from a tax sale is prop-
erty protected under the Takings Clause depends on state law, “tradi-
tional property law principles,” historical practice, and the Court’s
precedents. Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156,
165–168. Though state law is an important source of property rights,
it cannot be the only one because otherwise a State could “sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests” in assets
it wishes to appropriate. Id., at 167. History and precedent dictate
that, while the County had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover
the unpaid property taxes, it could not use the tax debt to confiscate
more property than was due. Doing so effected a “classic taking in
which the government directly appropriates private property for its
own use.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 324 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).
The principle that a government may not take from a taxpayer more
than she owes is rooted in English law and can trace its origins at least
as far back as the Magna Carta. From the founding, the new Govern-
ment of the United States could seize and sell only “so much of [a] tract
of land . . . as may be necessary to satisfy the taxes due thereon.” Act
of July 14, 1798, §13, 1 Stat. 601. Ten States adopted similar statutes
around the same time, and the consensus that a government could not
take more property than it was owed held true through the ratification
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, most States and the Federal
Government require excess value to be returned to the taxpayer whose
property is sold to satisfy outstanding tax debt.
The Court’s precedents have long recognized the principle that a tax-
payer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed. See United
States v. Taylor, 104 U. S. 216; United States v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146.
Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U. S. 103, did not change that. The
ordinance challenged there did not “absolutely preclud[e] an owner
from obtaining the surplus proceeds of a judicial sale,” but instead
simply defined the process through which the owner could claim the
surplus. Id., at 110. Minnesota’s scheme, in comparison, provides no
opportunity for the taxpayer to recover the excess value from the State.
Significantly, Minnesota law itself recognizes in many other con-
texts that a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of her
debt. If a bank forecloses on a mortgaged property, state law entitles
the homeowner to the surplus from the sale. And in collecting past due
taxes on income or personal property, Minnesota protects the tax-
payer’s right to surplus. Minnesota may not extinguish a property in-
terest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensa-
tion when the State does the taking. Phillips, 524 U. S., at 167. Pp. 4–12.
(c) The Court rejects the County’s argument that Tyler has no prop-
erty interest in the surplus because she constructively abandoned her
home by failing to pay her taxes. Abandonment requires the “surren-
der or relinquishment or disclaimer of” all rights in the property, Rowe
v. Minneapolis, 51 N. W. 907, 908. Minnesota’s forfeiture law is not
concerned about the taxpayer’s use or abandonment of the property,
only her failure to pay taxes. The County cannot frame that failure as abandonment to avoid the demands of the Takings Clause. Pp. 12–14.
26 F. 4th 789, reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GOR-
SUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined.
The Constitutional problem here with the Appointments Clause, is that the US Constitution commands that these Unelected Bureaucrats in charge of the federal government have to be POTUS nominated AND Senate confirmed.
Ed Demarco, who signed off on the August 17, 2012, Net Worth Sweep was NEVER Senate confirmed.
Remarkably, Ed Demarco said during the Lamberth trial last year, that the NWS was appropriate for him to implement and that the US Congress was, "planning on fixing the broken system anyway."
Your money may be gone, but education lasts a lifetime, HeeeeHeeee!
It's a very unusual fact pattern, 15 year conservatorships, where 2 federal agencies have depleted the assets of the wards they by law were suppose to rehabilitate.
How will it end, if ever, during our lifetimes?
Great find Navy, thanks! Berkeley Insurance has been a great advocate for the Injustice incurred here by the FHFA with the Net Worth Swipe!
In todays testimony, a House Rep asked Sandra L Thompson about the Investors Lawsuit against FHFA.
Sandra L Thompson replied, "WHICH ONE!?"
Another interesting development was the follow up question that the same Rep. asked SLT, namely, "HOW MUCH IN LEGAL FEES HAS THE FHFA EXPENDED IN DEFENDING ITSELF IN VARIOUS INVESTOR LAWSUITS!?"
SLT said she, "Would get back to him with the figures."
Is that information for public consumption?
Where do we obtain this information, from the Federal Register or some official documents for today's hearing?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/higher-mortgage-fees-those-good-credit-not-so-fast.amp
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/23/cfpb-slaps-citizens-bank-with-9-million-fine-over-fraud-complaints.html
https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/fhfa-director-strongly-defends-new-gse-pricing-framework
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/how-the-gses-are-tackling-the-loan-repurchase-spike/
https://dsnews.com/news/05-23-2023/fannie-mae-executes-cirt
What would Honest Abe think (besides 'why did I marry that crazy Mary' !)?:
"The Fourth Circuit—directly contrary to the Sixth
Circuit and the Government’s litigating position—
also observed that a tenure “so lengthy that it exceeds
the ‘special and temporary conditions’ contemplated
by Eaton, and amounts instead to a circumvention of
the Appointments Clause” could be unconstitutional.
United States v. Smith, 962 F.3d 755, 765 n.3 (4th Cir.
2020). This is so even if a statute “authorize[d]” such
tenure. Id. But the court did not have to worry about
it in that case because the Acting Attorney General
only served for a “few months.” Id. That length of time
was temporary. Yet, in this case, the “Acting” FHFA
Director served for over three years by the time he
signed the Third Amendment and over four years by
the end of his time at the top—longer than the tenure
of twenty-five Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln."
"The First Circuit in United States v. Hilario, 218
F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2000), similarly recognized that
“[s]hould the stand-in” for a principal officer “remain
so long in office that he became indistinguishable from
the latter, an argument could be made that his
continued service required nomination by the
President and confirmation by the Senate.” Id. at 29."
"As discussed above,
statutory authorization for acting appointments since
Eaton has been an analytically separate inquiry. And
the relevant question presented by both this case and
Williams is whether the Constitution permits
indefinite service without Senate confirmation. The
D.C. Circuit plainly said no. It did so, even
“[a]ssuming” that a non-statutorily authorized acting
appointment “was not invalid ab initio” because a
“four-and-a-half month period without any
nomination” was too long anyway. Id. at 671."
"The Petition asks this Court to decide as a matter
of constitutional text, historical practice, and
precedent whether an “acting” official can serve
indefinitely without effectively “circumvent[ing]” the
Appointments Clause. Smith, 962 F.3d at 765 n.3; see
also Sw. Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. at 314 n.1 (Thomas, J.,
concurring). Judge Thapar, in his thoughtful dissent
below, discussed three potential analytical
approaches that could be taken. By granting this
Petition, the Court would have the opportunity to
determine which is most consistent with the
Appointments Clause. But under all three, the
“Acting” FHFA Director exceeded any plausible
constitutional line."
"But the
fact that the parties disagree about what should
happen if the Court determines that Mr. DeMarco’s
multi-year tenure violated the Constitution is not a
reason to leave unreviewed the Sixth Circuit’s
extraordinary discovery of a constitutional loophole
that allows the President to skip Senate confirmation
for the most senior officials in the Executive Branch.'
"Regardless, the remedial defenses the
Government raises are meritless and, if anything,
make this case even more worthy of this Court’s
review."
"As Judge Thapar noted, the
government “toss[ed] away” its ratification defense by
“failing to rais[e] it before the district court” and
“again fail[ing] to develop the argument at any length,
even after [Petitioners] noted the forfeiture in their
opening [Sixth Circuit] brief. Then at oral argument,
the government admitted as much.” Pet.App. 46 n.8
(Thapar, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
A forfeited argument is no basis to deny relief and
certainly no basis to deny consideration of an
antecedent legal question.
CONCLUSION
The Court should grant the petition for a writ of
certiorari.
Respectfully submitted,
May 23, 2023 DAVID H. THOMPSON
Counsel of Record
PETER A. PATTERSON
BRIAN W. BARNES
JOHN W. TIENKEN
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036"
This is great stuff, ALL Americans should be outraged by this enfringement on their Liberties (I added bold):
"The Government does nothing to dispute the
extraordinary nature of the “Acting” Director’s over-
four-year tenure as the head of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (“FHFA”)—not even mustering a
single example of another individual exercising so
much authority for so long without Senate
confirmation during the first two hundred years of the
Republic."
"Instead, the Government concentrates its fire on
reasons it says this Court should deny relief anyway—
even if the “Acting” Director’s prolonged stay at the
top of FHFA violated the Constitution. The
Government claims the de facto officer doctrine,
unspecified statutory authority, laches, and a
forfeited ratification argument preclude relief. These
remedial defenses are unavailing, and, in all events,
this Court need not resolve them before reaching the question presented.
As Judge Thapar explained in dissent, “[n]o viable
interpretation of the [Appointments] Clause permits
an acting officer to skip confirmation for three years”
under the circumstances presented here. Pet.App. 46.
When he signed the Third Amendment, the “Acting”
FHFA Director was unconstitutionally exercising
significant authority of the United States. The Sixth
Circuit’s contrary decision is in serious conflict with
this Court’s precedents and other circuits’ caselaw.
The Court should grant the writ.
I'm pretty sure that side of the aisle believes in the status quo and so too does the MBA, NAR, and NHBA.
The latter group has their way with Sandra and the former group is looking for More subsidies on behalf of their targeted voting base.
Whose representing the Shareholders interests?
Mortgage and Student loan forgiveness, free health care for all, the government can solve ALL our problems my friend, from cradle to grave.
What could possibly go wrong?
Did you hear, Reps Foster and Sherman, BIGGEST BUNCH OF SOCIALISTS IN THE LAND, THEY LOVE THE STATUS QUO!
Mick Mulvaney said this the other day, "Make Administrative policy that you can't get through Congress and find an obscurely and broadly written federal agency statute, and implement the policy.
"It's up to Congress to decide the future of the GSES, meanwhile I will continue reigning over the GSES and do as I and the administration see fit, namely hand out subsidies to our political friends and penalize our foes."
Sadly, the GSES ain't going nowhere...
Here's a thought: If Sandra L Thompson is nominated and Senate confirmed for a 2nd 5yr term, she will likely keep them in perpetual CONservatorships until she retires with her juicy Gubmint pension....
She will continue handing out subsidies to her party's targeted voting base and put riskier loans on the books.
Amerika, my kinda place !
Sandra's big mistake: Believing PMI will cover the losses in a major US Residential Housing downturn on high LTV loans.
Sweetheart, look what happened to the PMI'S post 2007-8....
I suspect it may end up being the Judicial in the end, but having confidence in our 'dear leaders' doing what's right, will likely leave us disappointed.
Anyone getting involved with this clusterf*** of an 'investment' in the GSES, needs to ask:
What's your remaining projected years left on the planet?
SLT TODAY: "YELLEN AND I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED CASHING OUT UST'S EQUITY POSITION TO FINANCE THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS AGENDA!"
SLT Today: "There is NO PLAN TO EXIT THE CONSERVATORSHIPS"
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY NEED $200B MORE IN CAPITAL RETENTION!
Will this tortured drama EVER END? My Magic 8 Ball keeps telling me, "Ask again later."....
Unsaid...."It's a YUGE win for the Abagados" !
What did Momma tell you again: ! HeeeeHeeee!:
Todays WSJ on the implicit federal government guarantee, this one for the King of TBTF, JP MORGAN:
"Yet JPMorgan's show of strength, for many, exposed a weakness in the U.S. financial system. The bank and its largest rivals have become so big, their reach so extensive, that the government would almost surely step in to prevent their failure. That implicit guarantee encourages people and businesses to move their money to them in times of stress, creating a feedback loop that makes big banks bigger at the expense of their smaller peers."
Heeeere's AMY!: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/justices-rule-on-challenge-to-fdic-order/
"The court did not address a second question raised in Calcutt’s petition, involving his challenge to the structure of the FDIC, whose members can only be removed by the president for cause. But now Calcutt’s case will return to the FDIC, for it to take another look under the correct legal standard."
"The court acknowledged that there may be some “narrow” cases in which it is not necessary to send a case back to the agency – for example, when an agency is required to take an action, so that the rationale is less important. But in this case, the court reasoned, the FDIC’s decision about “whether to sanction [Calcutt]—as well as the severity and type of any sanction that could be imposed—is a discretionary judgment” that is “highly fact specific and contextual.” “To conclude, then, that any outcome in this case is foreordained is to deny the agency the flexibility in addressing issues in the banking sector as Congress has allowed.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/justices-rule-on-challenge-to-fdic-order/
"Fifteen years later, Fannie and Freddie
remain under government conservatorship."
"At the end of 2022, the GSEs combined owned or guaranteed
approximately $7.4 trillion in single-family and multifamily mortgages. This amount is over half of
the $13 trillion plus U.S. mortgage market."
"Given the current economic challenges in the
housing market coupled with a host of recent policy changes under Director Thompson, it is
increasingly important that Congress and the American public receive timely updates on the activities
of the GSEs and actions of FHFA."
"Taken as a whole, these actions reflect an
attempt by Director Thompson to use her broad powers to overhaul the housing finance system. "
Can Congress grasp the Necessity of getting the GSES OUT OF THE POLITICAL GRIP OF THE CONSERVATORSHIPS?
Apparently, our representatives aren't acknowledging that the CONSERVATORSHIPS are the PROBLEM NOT whichever political party is in power.