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.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/defense-federal-home-loan-banks
Latest paper from the Zand and Jim "salt the Earth with the shareholders carcasses" Parrot:
"This brief responds to the current debate over the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system, a critical if often misunderstood part of the nation’s housing finance system. It explains how the FHLBs support the mortgage market and how that support translates into a more stable financial system, addressing a host of common criticisms and offering thoughts on how the FHLBs can be improved."
Family does a great job on the Litigation Calendar and we are all very appreciative!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are mere tools for whatever policy the latest administration adheres to and utilizes the assets of the Corporations (as their Conservator) as a means to that end.
The GSE'S Social Media accounts are just tools to promote their latest policy objective.
What's Senior Management going to do about it?
Nothing
Shouldn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have the "STATE AFFILIATED MEDIA" DESIGNATION?
That's been the problem, hesitancy and/or outright resistance by the Judicial Branch to rule against the Executive Branch here.
David Thompson argued that no, it takes 2 to Tango and the previous POTUS'S all thought they couldn't fire the Head of the Independent FHFA.
Of course, the SCOTUS in Collins, said No, that the POTUS COULD fire the Head of the Independent FHFA sometimes and sometimes he couldn't.
“Inflation has now been joined by financial stability concerns as threats to sustained growth,” said Doug Duncan, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, Fannie Mae. “These particular pre-recessionary conditions are not unusual, as bank failures often follow monetary tightening – but this may well be the catalyst for the modest recession we’ve been expecting since April 2022.”
Duncan continued: “While housing writ large has responded to the Fed’s monetary tightening in a relatively predictable fashion, the rapid uptick in home sales in response to modest rate declines earlier this year corroborates our long-standing expectation that the housing sector will help moderate any future recession due to the significant pent-up demand.”
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/banking-system-instability-may-prove-catalyst-recession
That's mostly right, plus David Thompson added the Appropriations Clause issue which could in theory invalidate some or all of the Net Worth Swipe.
Not really sure. Multi Billion dollar litigation just takes time, especially against an adversary with virtually unlimited resources and time. We'll find out eventually.
I sure am enjoying the intellectual dividends paid here, but I'd rather have our damn companies back!
Sandra L Thompson's Arnold & Porter attorney, Robert Katerberg (whose being paid by the FHFA, who then extracts it from the Corporate CASH account!) is promoting the 2d Circuit Appealate Decision (its contra to the 5th Circuits ruling) on the Appropriations Clause to the 5th Circuit Appealate Court:
"It is plainly constitutional, and Plaintiffs’ contrary assertions have no support in constitutional text, doctrine, or judicial precedent."
Here's the 2 issues up for debate in the Collins case, according to the FHFA:
"STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction commanding
FHFA and Treasury to wipe out Treasury’s nearly $300 billion liquidation
preferences, based on a theory that the unconstitutional removal restriction impeded
a former Presidential Administration from pursuing financial reforms that Plaintiffs
hypothesize might have included such a step.
2. Whether Plaintiffs’ newly added claims under the Appropriations
Clause are foreclosed, either because they are beyond the scope of the limited
remand that governed the district court proceedings or outside the statute of
limitations. If not, whether the funding mechanism Congress enacted for FHFA—
consisting of financial assessments on regulated entities—comports with the
Appropriations Clause, and whether any alleged violation would provide a basis to vacate the Third Amendment when neither the money for Treasury’s infusions to the
Enterprises nor the money for the Enterprises’ dividends to Treasury come from the
funding mechanism alleged to be unconstitutional."
"“Over the past decade, mortgage origination costs have doubled, while delivery times have remained largely unchanged,” said FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson. “When used responsibly, technology has the potential to improve borrowers’ experiences by reducing barriers, increasing efficiencies, and lowering costs.”
The FHFA Velocity TechSprint will begin on Monday, July 10, in Washington, DC."
https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-Announces-Inaugural-Housing-Finance-TechSprint.aspx
Hey Sandra, Guaranty Fees were 20 to 25 bps before the government Nationalized our Corporations.
"Higher rates and home prices compared to March of last year increased the monthly cost of financing 80% of the typical home by roughly $611 (+39.3%) compared to a year ago. This far outpaces recent rent growth (+3.1%) and inflation (+6.0%)."
https://www.realtor.com/research/march-2023-data/
Charlie Munger so eloquently describing the $7T IMPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE ON TBTF BANKS:
“The way the world is, the government had no alternative but to back all deposits. Or we would have had the biggest goddamn bunch of bank runs you ever saw.”
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-u-s-banks-with-the-most-uninsured-deposits/
"Now, the Fed has said that they could take necessary actions to protect uninsured deposits. How quickly BTFP loans increase in the next few months will be anyone’s guess as clients from smaller banks withdraw funds and send to larger ones or invest in money market funds."
That'd be great, BUT IT WILL BE RESISTED AT EVERY TURN OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS BY OUR RECALCITRANT GUBMINT DEFENDANTS !
From yesterdays Defendants Reply Brief:
UST:
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 19
I. Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That They Were Harmed
By The Unconstitutional Removal Restriction ..................................................... 19
A. Treasury’s Status as a Counterparty to the Purchase
Agreements Makes Clear That the Statutory Removal
Restriction Did Not Preclude the President from
Directing the Implementation of the Third Amendment
as He Deemed Appropriate ......................................................................... 21
B. The Actions Taken by the Directors President Trump
Selected Provide an Independent Basis for Rejecting
Plaintiffs’ Theory of Harm ........................................................................... 27
C. Plaintiffs’ Theory of Injury and Their Proposed Remedy
Fail for Additional Reasons .......................................................................... 29
D. Former President Trump’s Post-Presidency Letter Does
Not Advance Plaintiffs’ Theory of Harm and Proposed
Remedy ........................................................................................................... 33
E. Plaintiffs Bear the Burden of Establishing That the President
Would Have Eliminated Treasury’s Liquidation Preferences
But For the FHFA Director’s Removal Restrictions ................................ 36
II. The Mandate Rule Forecloses Review Of Plaintiffs’
Appropriations Clause Claims, Which Are Without Merit
In Any Event ............................................................................................................. 38
A. The Appropriations Clause Claims Are Outside the
Mandate of this Court’s Remand Order ..................................................... 39
B. FHFA’s Funding Mechanism Satisfies the Appropriations
Clause .............................................................................................................. 44
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 50
FHFA:
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................21
I. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Claims Seeking
Elimination of Treasury’s Liquidation Preferences ......................................21
A. The Claims Are Outside the Mandate.................................................22
B. The Claims Are Speculative................................................................25
C. The Burden Does Not Shift.................................................................34
D. An Order Requiring Elimination of the Liquidation Preferences
Would Violate the Separation of Powers............................................36
E. The Claims Are Barred for Other Reasons.........................................38
1. The Claims Neither Challenge Final Agency Action Nor
Meet Requirements For Challenging Agency Inaction ............38
2. The Anti-Injunction Statute Bars These Claims.......................41
II. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Appropriations Clause
Claims............................................................................................................44
A. The Claims Are Outside the Mandate.................................................44
B. The Claims Are Time-Barred..............................................................49
C. FHFA’s Funding Mechanism Does Not Violate the Appropriations
Clause ..................................................................................................50
D. Any Appropriations Clause Issue Would Not Warrant Invalidating
the Third Amendment .........................................................................56
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................57
Here it is: January 18, 2023, oral arguments were heard in the 2d Circuit Appealate Court and the SCOTUS grant of the CFPB's Petition for the Writ of Certerrori had not been granted at that time.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/20-3471/20-3471-2023-03-23.html
"20-3471 CFPB v. Law Offs. of Crystal Moroney
United States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit
August Term 2021
Argued: January 18, 2022
Decided: March 23, 2023
No. 20-3471
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
LAW OFFICES OF CRYSTAL MORONEY,P.C., Respondent-Appellant.
*Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
No. 20-cv-3240,
Kenneth M. Karas, Judge.
Before:KEARSE,WALKER, AND SULLIVAN,Circuit Judges. Respondent-Appellant theLaw Offices of Crystal Moroney (“Moroney... "
---------------
"Supreme Court announcement
On February 27, 2023, the Court announced that it would grant the CFPB's petition for certiorari, taking up a case that could have significant implications for the CFPB and the financial services industry at large. "
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/e1d076c0/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-challenge-to-cfpbs-funding-structure#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20announcement,financial%20services%20industry%20at%20large.
The 2d Circuit may have already heard Oral arguments before the SCOTUS cert was granted.
Good point! I wonder when the Oral arguments were heard in the 2d Circuit on their CFPB case?
If the Oral arguments in the CFPB case in the 2d Circuit was heard after cert was granted by the SCOTUS, wouldn't it make sense to render a decision in the 2d Circuit?
When was the Oral arguments hearing in the 2d Circuit heard?
Well, I think that the Defendants Reply Briefs (i.e., the FHFA and the UST) were scheduled to be filed yesterday and were.
The Collins Plaintiffs final Reply Brief is due later this month, I believe.
Since the UST is arguing on Page 44 of its brief that: "B. FHFA’s Funding Mechanism Satisfies the Appropriations
Clause." and the validity of the Funding Mechanism for the CFPB is under review by the SCOTUS, it may be more efficient from a limited judicial resources perspective for the 5th Circuit Appealate Court to wait and see if the SCOTUS creates Precedent on the Appropriations Clause Issue in the CFPB case.
Just speculation on my part.
In other words, why hold oral arguments on the Collins Appeal when an issue to be argued has NOT yet been determined by the SCOTUS?
The SCOTUS sets Precedent for ALL federal and state courts.
Because the 5th Circuit EnBanc Panel ruling on the Appropriations Clause issue in the CFPB case is up for review next term with the SCOTUS and there's an Appropriations Clause issue in Collins, I'm guessing that for Judicial efficiency purposes the lower court (here, the 5th Circuit Appealate Court) will wait for the SCOTUS to rule 1st.
These are the Defendants Reply Briefs that were filed on the 04/03/23 deadline for filing the briefs.
I wonder if all the Deference the federal Judges give to federal agency interpretations of vague and open ended laws (e.g., "in the best interests of the agency or the public it serves") under the Chevron Doctrine has anything to do with the federal government's substantial increase in the win rate/Defendants substantial loss rate over the decades.
The Chevron Doctrine as I recall was decided by the SCOTUS in 1984, I believe.
Nats, you may find this interesting (especially considering your decades of experience in federal agencies), the FTC yesterday actually OVERRULED their Administrative Law Judge's 200+ page opinion that did something rare - RULE AGAINST ITS OWN AGENCY (here, the FTC).
Have you ever heard of such a thing? From yesterdays WSJ:
"The Federal Trade Commission on Monday overruled its own in-house judge and ordered gene-sequencing giant Illumina to divest cancer blood-test startup Grail. FTC Chair Lina Khan is showing that the agency's administrative trials are a sham. Heads the agency wins, tails businesses lose.
A FTC judge in September issued a 203-page opinion rejecting the agency's complaint that alleged the Grail acquisition would harm potential competitors in the embryonic market for multi-cancer early detection tests. Grail currently has no competitors, and the FTC complaint relies on speculative theories.
Illumina makes the platforms that are used to run Grail and other genetic screening tests. Its scientists developed Grail's technology before the company spun off the startup in 2016. As the Grail test improved and became commercially viable, Illumina sought to reacquire Grail and closed its acquisition in August 2021.
Grail claims its test can detect the 12 most deadly cancers with 76% accuracy and has a false positive rate of less than 1%. Earlier detection of aggressive cancers could save thousand of lives a year. Illumina says it can bring the test to market faster owing to its relationships with insurers and reduce the price, now about $949 out of pocket.
But some companies that were interested in buying Grail or that were developing their own cancer tests complained to the FTC that Illumina would thwart rivals. This was the gist of the FTC complaint, which the agency's in-house judge dismissed after a detailed analysis of the facts. Administrative law judges are rarely so scathing.
"The Clayton Act protects competition, not competitors," FTC chief administrative law judge D. Michael Chappell wrote, emphasizing that "antitrust theory and speculation cannot trump facts." He concluded that the FTC had failed to prove its case that Illumina had the ability and incentive to help Grail to the disadvantage of alleged rivals.
For Illumina to divert sales from multi-cancer early detection rivals to Grail, other "test developers would have to have sales in the first place," he explained. But none do. He also noted that Illumina had offered a contractual commitment to provide access to its products to all of its future oncology testing customers equivalent to that it provides to Grail.
The FTC commissioners disagreed with the judge 4-0 and ordered Illumina to unwind its Grail acquisition. Republican Commissioner Christine Wilson wrote in a concurrence that she disagreed with some of her colleagues' legal analysis, but she didn't believe Illumina had met its burden of proof to show the government's competition theory was improbable.
Ms. Khan seems to be trying to make an example out of Illumina by ordering the company to pay "transition assistance" to Grail's next acquirer plus expenses of a government-appointed special monitor to ensure that it complies with the divestiture order. The tacit message to other businesses is don't dare consummate a merger that the agency challenges.
The FTC could have gone to federal court to try to stop the acquisition. Instead it challenged the deal in its administrative tribunal where it no doubt believed it was more likely to win because it almost always does. Yet after losing, it has now overruled its own judge. What was the purpose of the administrative trial if the FTC could ignore the judge's findings and do whatever it wants anyway?
That's a good question for the independent federal courts. Illumina plans to appeal the divestiture order in federal appellate court where it will have the opportunity to raise several constitutional challenges to the FTC's authority and administrative proceeding that it had earlier raised before the commission. This could get interesting, and the FTC may come to regret its hell-bent effort to stop mergers by whatever means possible.
"A genuine mystery has been hiding in 30 years of data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, according to a newly released draft study by University of Connecticut law professors Alexandra Lahav and Peter Siegelman. According to the law profs, the winning rate for plaintiffs in civil litigation in federal courts declined drastically and steadily between 1985 and 1995, from about 70 percent to 30 percent."
Win rates recovered a bit in the late 1990s before dipping again, though not as consistently or precipitously. In 2009, plaintiffs prevailed in only 35 percent of the civil cases in federal court that ended in any kind of judicial determination, including dismissal, summary judgment, default judgment or judgment after a jury verdict. That 2009 rate, according to Lahav and Siegelman, is a drop of more than 50 percent from plaintiffs’ success rate in 1985. If plaintiffs had continued to prevail at 1985 rates across the 24 years the professors evaluated, they would have won 377,000 more cases than they actually did.
So what accounts for a drop Lahav and Siegelman call “astonishing”? That’s the mystery: As the professors explain in the paper, entitled “The Curious Incident of the Falling Win Rate,” there’s no single, testable explanation for the dramatic decrease in favorable outcomes for plaintiffs. And that itself is a reason to worry about what the change means.
“A significant puzzle remains unsolved,” the professors wrote. “We are not arguing that the win rate is ‘too high’ or ‘too low.’ Instead, we are pointing out that something or things caused the win rate to change, and depending on the nature of that cause or causes, we may have grounds for concern. If, for example, the changing win rate is caused by exogenous changes such as new, more restrictive laws or procedures, the change itself would not be a cause for concern, although one might question its normative desirability. If judges suddenly became more defendant-friendly, we might think about the falling win rate quite differently.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-mystery/stunning-drop-in-federal-plaintiffs-win-rate-is-complete-mystery-new-study-idUSKBN19J2MB
Bill Ackman and family nurse a small creature back to life. But will he be able to help bring the twins back?
"Helping a small creature survive is an incredibly moving experience, particularly alongside a child. If you are given such an opportunity, I would encourage you to take advantage of it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1642703772584427520
If I see Uncle Suggy's legal teams this Summer, I'll let them know that not all hedge fund guys are 'evil hedge fund guys' !
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION....................................................................................4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE..............................................................................................................10
THE PARTIES........................................................................................................................................10
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS......................................................................................................11
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS..................................................................................................................11
I. THROUGH 2008, FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC WERE FINANCED BY
PRIVATE INVESTMENT. ............................................................................................11
II. IN JULY 2008, CONGRESS CREATED FHFA, WHICH IN SEPTEMBER 2008
PLACED THE COMPANIES INTO CONSERVATORSHIP. .....................................13
III. IN EXCHANGE FOR FUNDING, FHFA EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT GIVING
TREASURY A 10% SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND AND
WARRANTS TO BUY 79.9% OF EACH COMPANY’S COMMON STOCK FOR
A NOMINAL PRICE. ....................................................................................................17
IV. AT THE BEGINNING OF 2012, THE HOUSING MARKET REBOUNDED AND
THE COMPANIES RETURNED TO PROFITABILITY. ............................................21
V. ON AUGUST 17, 2012 THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSED THE THIRD
AMENDMENT, GIVING TREASURY A RIGHT TO A QUARTERLY DIVIDEND
EQUAL TO 100% OF THE COMPANIES’ NET WORTH (MINUS A SMALL
RESERVE THAT WAS SET TO SHRINK TO ZERO IN 2018)..................................24
VI. IN DECEMBER 2017, TREASURY AND FHFA AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT
THE NET WORTH SWEEP MUST ENSURE THAT 100% OF ALL VALUE IN
THE COMPANIES MUST GO TO TREASURY, NO MATTER HOW LARGE
THAT VALUE MAY BE...............................................................................................33
VII. IN 2019, THE GOVERNMENT CONVERTED THE CASH NET WORTH SWEEP
INTO A PAYMENT-IN-KIND NET WORTH SWEEP, FURTHERING THE
UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF TREASURY AT THE EXPENSE OF PRIVATE
SHAREHOLDERS.........................................................................................................34
VIII. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION. ........................................................................................................36
IX. THE GOVERNMENT ALSO HAS TAKEN PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO BRING
CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION CHALLENGING THE THIRD AMENDMENT
WITHOUT PROVIDING JUST COMPENSATION. ...................................................40
X. THE GOVERNMENT ILLEGALLY EXACTED PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY. ...........41
XI. THE THIRD AMENDMENT VIOLATED THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF
HOLDERS OF THE FREDDIE MAC COMMON STOCK..........................................45
XII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS................................................................................47
PRAYER FOR RELIEF..........................................................................................................................67
Nice find, Navy, thanks! Home prices: "In December and January, however, mortgage rates began pulling back, and homebuyers were quick to take advantage. Closed sales of existing homes in February, which represented contracts signed in December and January, shot a remarkable 14.5% higher, according to the National Association of Realtors.
“Conscious of changing mortgage rates, home buyers are taking advantage of any rate declines,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in the February sales release."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/03/home-prices-rise-after-declines.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/another-federal-agency-challenges-adverse-ruling-by-5th-circuit/
"Next term the justices will hear the government’s appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that found the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether to reverse a second 5th Circuit ruling that invalidated powers of the agency charged with regulating investments, the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Here's a good podcast with Jeremy Siegel about what TP was talking about:
Jaime Dimon, hesitant to help the federal government this time around after being treated so badly by the federal government after investing billions in WAMU in 2008, from yesterdays NYT:
"But before talk turned to the war, Mr. Ackman sought out the one person in the room who he thought might have a solution to SVB: Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.
Mr. Ackman asked Mr. Dimon, who had led the rescue of two banks during the 2008 financial crisis, if he would consider buying Silicon Valley Bank, according to two dinner attendees.
Not this time, Mr. Dimon said.
"During the financial crisis of 2008, when Bear Stearns collapsed under the weight of toxic assets on its balance sheet, JPMorgan bought it for $10 a share under the supervision of regulators. Later that year, Mr. Dimon agreed to buy Washington Mutual, then the largest U.S. savings and loan. Those two deals allowed him to build JPMorgan into a behemoth.
Mr. Dimon is the only current chief executive of a big bank to have held that position during the 2008 financial crisis, giving him a long history with federal regulators and officials at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
He is "acting as a senior statesperson who is helping to shore up the financial industry in a time of crisis of confidence," said Mike Mayo, a longtime banking analyst. "With that comes potentially higher prestige but also potential backlash."
Although Mr. Dimon got a lot of publicity for orchestrating the $30 billion rescue plan for First Republic, he was hardly acting solely of his own volition. Both in 2008 and this month, the JPMorgan boss acted at the behest of the federal government.
"When the Treasury secretary suggests you do this, you have to think pretty hard before saying no," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor who has written on financial crises.
Still, Mr. Dimon was so scarred by his experience of the 2008 financial crisis that he lamented frequently about the billions of dollars in legal fees that JPMorgan saw in that era. For years after the acquisitions of Bear and WaMu, JPMorgan fought -- and eventually paid -- fines related to the new subsidiaries' prior conduct. In his 2014 letter to shareholders, Mr. Dimon called those deals "expensive lessons that I will not forget."
Those memories weighed heavily on his actions this time around. Even as he hashed out a plan with regulators and other bankers, Mr. Dimon made sure there was little chance JPMorgan would lose money or face."
From the Cato Amicus Brief: "The Supreme Court should put an end to Chevron deference because it is ahistorical, because it unconstitutionally gives judicial power to the executive branch, and because it biases the judiciary in favor of the government. Loper Bright’s case is a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to overrule Chevron and reclaim the judiciary’s independence."
Is the possibility of overruling the Chevron Doctrine up for review, next term? "But in addition to that plain-vanilla administrative law question, the petition has a second question that is a potential blockbuster: Whether the court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify whether statutory silence about the matter of payment constitutes an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. The Chevron doctrine calls on courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. Critics argue that this gives unaccountable bureaucrats too much power. Enough people think this case may have legs that a whopping fourteen amicus briefs were filed supporting the petition."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/supreme-court-fishermen-required-to-pay-federal-monitors-should-chevron-be-overruled/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-451.html
https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo
https://pacificlegal.org/amicus-briefs/
FDIC takes a 1/2B equity stake in First Citizens Bank from the resolution of SVB:
“In addition, the FDIC received equity appreciation rights in First Citizens BancShares, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, common stock with a potential value of up to $500 million,” the FDIC said in a release."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/27/first-citizens-bank-to-buy-silicon-valley-banks-deposits-and-loans.html
"In addition, the FDIC received equity appreciation rights in First Citizens BancShares, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, common stock with a potential value of up to $500 million."
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23023.html
First Citizens stock was up 54% today.
Just as GSE Shareholders had 30 days to challenge the CONservatorships in court, so too, according to the NY Times today, do the AT1 Bondholders to recover their $17.2B in AT1 Bonds:
"The law firms Quinn Emmanuel and Parras Partners are vying to represent specialist investors like Centerbridge and Davidson Kempner, as well as traditional fund managers like Pimco and Invesco. But they don't have long to argue their point: Action needs to be taken within 30 days of the deal, according to people familiar with the process."
https://www.freddiemac.com/investors
https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-issues-monthly-volume-summary-february-2023?_ga=2.90561114.1592492411.1679958107-1537302131.1674691761
February 2023 Highlights: ? The total mortgage portfolio decreased at an annualized rate of 0.5% in February. ? Single-family refinance-loan purchase and guarantee volume was $2.0 billion in February, representing 13% of total
single-family mortgage portfolio purchases and issuances. ? The aggregate unpaid principal balance (UPB) of our mortgage-related investments portfolio decreased by
approximately $3.1 billion in February. ? Freddie Mac mortgage-related securities and other mortgage-related guarantees increased at an annualized rate of
0.4% in February. ? Our single-family delinquency rate decreased from 0.66% in January to 0.65% in February. Our multifamily
delinquency increased from 0.12% in January to 0.13% in February. ? The measure of our exposure to changes in portfolio value (PVS-L) averaged $0 million in February. Duration gap averaged 0 months. ? Since September 2008, Freddie Mac has been operating in conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) acting as Conservator. ? As of February, our maximum exposure to Fannie Mae-issued collateral that was included in Freddie Mac-issued
resecuritizations was approximately $117.7 billion, and is not in Table 4.