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.
HeeeeHeeee! I asked it:
"When will the US Treasury exercise their 79.9% of warrants on Fannie Mae stock?
The US Treasury holds warrants for 79.9% of Fannie Mae's common stock, which were issued as part of the agreement under which the Treasury provided financial assistance to the company during the 2008 financial crisis. The exercise of these warrants is at the discretion of the Treasury and no specific timeline has been announced for when they will be exercised.
As of my knowledge cut off, the Treasury had not exercised the warrants and it's unclear if they will, as the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been extended multiple times, and there have been various proposals in Congress to reform the housing finance system and potentially privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which could impact the Treasury's decision on the warrants."
Then Joey told me to ask it to cite its sources: "I'm sorry, I am not able to provide you with a prediction about the future actions of the US Treasury or cite sources as my training data only goes up to 2021, and my knowledge is based on publicly available information. It would be best to check with the US Treasury or other official sources for the most current and accurate information."
Sure, I'll get Janet on the phone now! "Janet baby, it's Robert from Yahoo Board"
Janet: "Bill Ackman is that you, I told YOU, Bruce, and Warren, NO!". "Now I'm busy trying to raise taxes on the evil corporations worldwide, leave me alone!"
Phone line goes dead....
ChatGP AI, on WHEN Fannie Mae will exit conservatorship: "It is not currently clear when Fannie Mae will exit conservatorship. The process of exiting conservatorship is determined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which has the authority to release the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) from conservatorship when it determines that it is financially sound and able to operate in a safe and sound manner. The FHFA has not announced a specific timeline for Fannie Mae's exit from conservatorship."
The TBTF banks: "Excellent"!
Clarence, we may see more about the 8th Amendment in not just Tyler, but future tax penalty cases: "Howlett stated that he expects to see future FBAR cases making similar arguments about excessive fines, stating that Toth’s case along with Gorsuch’s dissent, has presented taxpayers with a new avenue for these kinds of disputes, which could crop up in courts in the future.
“If you’re a lawyer going into court, you’re probably trying to fight that penalty determination, but it doesn’t cost you anything to throw in the constitutional argument,” said Howlett.
The Justice Department, which represented the government in the tax case, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota law that could provide more guidance. The law lets local governments keep the surplus value of a home that’s sold to settle tax debts. Though the case focuses on the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, Gedge said it also asks whether the equity theft violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
“There’s certainly a real possibility that if the Supreme Court reaches that excessive fines question in Tyler that we will get a bit more clarity on what is or is not a fine in the context of civil payments,” he said."
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-punt-in-tax-fine-case-leaves-uncertainty-in-wake
An agency action can be legal (e.g., the NWS) but if it is Unconstitutional it can be overturned. That's why Collins is still being litigated in the 5th Circuit, to decide if any relief for shareholders could occur because of the Constitutional Seperation of Powers violation.
In WV v EPA last June, the EPA decision on the types of air quality particulate matter spewing from the nations utilities smokestacks may or may not be legal.
But IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION'S SEPERATION OF POWERS!
You feel me, Bro? HeeeeHeeee !
https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/09/quarterly-insights/west-virginia-v-epa
"The Court’s approval of the “major questions” doctrine signals a willingness to realign separation of powers in ways that restrict the administrative state. The Court’s distrust of agency action, combined with its interest in reviving the nondelegation doctrine, is something for businesses to watch."
"Many litigants will rely on the major questions doctrine to challenge actions by federal agencies, but the argument won’t always gain traction."
"Many litigants will be able to argue that a given agency action is politically divisive, affects the national economy, breaks from the agency’s past practices or strays from what the West Virginia Court called the agency’s “traditional lane.” Lower courts may view this as an “I know it when I see it” test, leaving the validity of a given agency action to the eye of the beholding judge."
Well, why don't you read WV v EPA, it was decided last June by the SCOTUS. While it didn't touch the Chevron Doctrine that gives these federal agencies WIDE latitude, it did discuss the Major Questions Doctrine, which simply states that some important National and Economic decisions are EXCLUSIVELY to be decided by the peoples ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOT Unelected Bureaucrats like DeMarco.
If you believe like I did that DeMarco in conjunction with ANOTHER federal agency NATIONALIZED THE 2 LYNCHPINS OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET, then we've got a Major Question of Economic and Political Importance.
If you are interested in having the NWS (a federal agency action) invalidated and it is decided after years and years of litigation at the Appellate level of any federal circuit and/or the SCOTUS then it may be a viable solution to our problem if we continue getting goose eggs at the courthouse.
The SCOTUS seems determined lately to reign in these out of control federal agencies and is starting to bring back the Nondelegation Doctrine. Why not give them another chance with another example of federal agency overreach?
If I'm not mistaken the Student loan forgiveness cases in front of the SCOTUS this term will give them another opportunity to use the Major Questions Doctrine.
Read just the 1st few pages of the Gorsuch decision and you'll see what I am talking about.
20-1530 West Virginia v. EPA (06/30/2022) - Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Tell your Congressman about the $100B+ in Net Profits transferred in CASH SWEEPS from the GSES balance sheets to the UST (FOR NOTHING IN RETURN) in 2013 (See 2013 Annual Report for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Steven Mnuchin said they were for Obamacare in an interview in 2016 (Navy knows) with Maria on Fox Biz.
This kind of speaks for itself.
If that's not enough, tell him that after 5 to 10 years+ of litigation the federal government continues hiding behind "National Security" and "Executive Privilege" exemptions to get to the truth for the American people.
Why not press for an investigation in the appropriate committee assuming he's on the right side of the aisle in Congress?
Ask him to question Sandra L Thompson as to why she can't release them from conservatorship when HERA clearly grants her that authority.
Your children are ALL very accomplished and all are making very positive contributions to American Society, you must be very proud, and congratulations!
If they ever have any grandchildren, it would be nice to give those little people a financial boost and possible better future if the FHFA and UST EVER give us our Corporations back!
GLTU and all here!
Barron, I think KT is probably right here, BUT WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK AND DILIGENCE in trying to restore value to our beleaguered shares, thank you!
And thanks KT for taking the time to research and link the federal code Section.
So KT, you've never tackled my "big idea" that the NWS violated the Major Questions Doctrine (a Seperation of Powers issue).
Gorsuch lays out the elements necessary in WV v EPA.
I'd appreciate it if you could share some thoughts on it.
I mean shareholders are going to be toast if we don't get any relief administratively, judicially, or legislatively and the mighty super powers of the JPS are no match for the FHFA's virtually unlimited unchecked power here.
Clarence, family is right here, I mean before Collins, Calabria was one of the most powerful people in Gubmint, and that oversight board has no teeth.
I mean, if we can't get some relief or a decent resolution from an administrative action or the courts in the current round of litigation, why not at least try another case with another legal action?
Well, I have to go push back on some Gubmint overreach this morning for some paying clients (it's lucrative you should try it and fun !).
I read his post and all I can say is WTF is he talking about?
Why don't you provide me a link to the "Charter Act" and specifically which Section of the Act he's talking about and I will get back to you.
So if the CFPB ruling in the 5th stands, why wouldn't it apply to HERA and FHFA?
What about a challenge under the Major Questions Doctrine?
No I get it. No release from the conservatorships during Sandra L Thompson's tenure. She even said it was up to the US Congress to decide "the future of the Secondary Mortgage Market" not her.
But LuLeVan, Bradford, and the other JPS posters continue to believe that release is right around the corner.
I'm just telling them that I don't think it's likely that's all.
I put the link in the post for a reason, why don't you read the article? Do you understand the constitutional issues in that case?
Do you think the Constitutional Seperation of Powers Doctrine is a joke?
Because I don't think the SCOTUS does.
You and KT never answered my question yesterday and really no one has.
I'll ask it again. Why isn't the NWS a violation of the Major Questions Doctrine?
Maybe a federal judge would be a better person to ask, what do you think?
Good answer. Last time I checked, the US Congress is suppose to be in charge of spending according to the US Constitution.
Biden spent $400B on student loan forgiveness, so are you thinking why not throw in $100B for affordable housing?
So what happens IF EVER the agency action around the NWS is later invalidated by any court for any reason? That's just impossible right?
What happens if a subsequent administration cancels the program?
I think both JPS and Common will continued to be flogged so long as the government boot of the FHFA remains on the corporations neck.
In your opinion, which share class will do better IF EVER, the agency action of the NWS is invalidated by the courts?
So why didn't Biden nominate Calhoun (the author of the affordable housing plan) instead of Thompson who has considerable and deep banking regulator credentials?
I think another problem with the cash out now theory is that if the NWS is subsequently vacated by any court for any reason than would the government be liable for potentially billions?
Isn't it a violation of the Separation of Powers for a POTUS to spend $100B on his own latest pet project?
If JB sets up a $100B affordable housing plan, couldn't a subsequent administration dismantle it?
Well maybe SM and MC talked about it and said before each signed the 4th Amendment that as of 2019 the NWS was still legal and the political optics of forgiving the "Liquidation Preference" before an election year would be bad.
I think TH said that the LP will have to likely be written down to zero to return them as private corporations again.
Since the 4th Amendment, for EVERY dollar of earnings the LP goes up by a dollar. While the cash sweep is gone and the companies are building back capital organically through earnings, the government has in essence swept those earnings into the LP.
No, I'm just joking about how KT and other skeptics who insist that if given the chance the government will immediately treat one class of Shareholders better than another class.
All investors should be focused on the reversing of the NWS. Administratively, through the courts, and/or the legislatively.
Okay "Man with No Name", tell me EXACTLY WHY the following prospective Shareholder lawsuits will fail and try to avoid overly repetitious pro fulcrum security sayings like, "Uncle Suggy NEVER loses in court", "We're doomed", and "I can live with federal Gubmint overreach here, just give me PAR ASAP". Btw, I've been invested in the twins since 1987 and I consider this one of my short term investments:
(1). The federal agency action around the NWS should be vacated as it is a violation of the Majors Question Doctrine as articulated in WV v EPA.
(2). The federal agency action around the NWS should be vacated because of the double insulated from the Congressional Appropriations Oversight Process in HERA.
I'm researching several other avenues as well but those two will take awhile while we wait for the 1st round of litigation to be exhausted.
Whew, good thing I didn't buy those NON CUMULATIVE JPS where time to exit conservatorship has a meaningful impact on my returns!
Do you know what I mean?
Right. Under HERA, the FHFA will NEED TO DISCLOSE TO FUTURE INVESTORS OF CAPITAL THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN IF PLACED INTO A CONSERVATORSHIP.
Most of the public might have a crazy idea that when the FHFA acts as a conservator it will actually preserve and conserve the assets of the GSES and NOT GIVE THEM AWAY FOR NOTHING.
We can agree on that one, right?
Uncle Suggy just switched from taking ALL the Enterprises Net Profits in CASH to taking them in something it calls a "Liquidation Preference" under the 4th Amendment.
Guess SM and MC wanted to perpetuate the US Governments financial take from the already largest heist of profitable corporations in World History during the perpetual conservatorships.
New Capital Raise IPO MATERIAL RISKS DISCLOSURE:
57. UNDER HERA THE FHFA CAN ACT AS A CONSERVATOR THAT TAKES ALL THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS TO YOUR SHARES IN RETURN FOR NOTHING.
58. UNDER THE INCIDENTAL POWERS OF HERA WE HAVE FROM 08/17/12 TO 2019, TAKEN ALL THE NET WORTH OF THE GSES AND TRANSFERRED THEM TO THE US TREASURY.
59. IF WE DON'T TAKE ALL THE GSES PROFITS IN CASH WE CAN INSTEAD TAKE THEM AS SOMETHING CALLED A LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE.
"Mortgage applications to purchase a home rose 3% for the week but were 39% lower year over year. Homebuyers are still trickling back into the market, as house prices ease slightly. There is still, however, precious little to choose from with inventory low.
“Homebuying activity remains tepid, but if rates continue to fall and home prices cool further, we expect to see potential buyers come back into the market,” said Joel Kan, an MBA economist. “Many have been waiting for affordability challenges to subside.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/25/mortgage-demand-jumps-as-interest-rates-drop.html
I think Senator Warren and others in Congress got a little carried away when they passed HERA and subsequently Dodd Frank.
The single director ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT was struck down by the SCOTUS and now CFPB'S double insulated funding mechanism bypassing Congressional Appropriations Oversight is suspect.
Like almost all politicians, they are just throwing red meat to their targeted voters.
That's what's so scary about FHFA wearing 2 hats here. One as the 100% in control Conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Operations and second as their Regulator.
Especially troublesome is their ability to self fund from the balance sheets of the GSES, IN PERPETUITY. The only constraint in HERA is that the operating budget of FHFA has to be "reasonable".
So how does this twisted situation end?
Excellent, thanks! Prescient foreshadowing by Justice Gorsuch on the upcoming Hennepin County case or just plain frustration from an ardent defender of the individual American and her Constitutional Rights against governmental agency overreach? : "For all these reasons, taking up this case would have been
well worth our time. As things stand, one can only hope
that other lower courts will not repeat its mistakes."
Time will tell.
I might try to free up that day on my scheduling to go see orals in person, I'll be sure to get back to you if I can go see it.
Letter from Senator Warren and Rep Bowman urging the Biden administration to: "1. Directing the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to establish renter protections for
individuals residing in properties financed with government-backed mortgage properties,
including anti-price gouging protections, just cause eviction standards, habitability
standards, and protections against source-of-income discrimination. To prevent future
abusive landlord practices, FHFA must enforce these standards and make public any
steps it takes to hold landlords accountable."
Click the link to the letter in the page below:
https://bowman.house.gov/2023/1/news-rep-bowman-senator-warren-urge-president-biden-to-take-action-to-keep-renters-housed
Today's WSJ: "Democrats want the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which supervises government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to establish "anti-price gouging protections" and "just cause eviction standards" in rental properties with government-backed mortgages. These are their euphemisms for rent control and eviction bans."
Clarence, Justice Gorsuch, in his written opinion dissent from the denial of a petition for a Writ of certiorari said this today in relation to a 8th Amendment right violation: Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
GORSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MONICA TOTH v. UNITED STATES
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 22–177. Decided January 23, 2023
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from the denial of certio-
rari.
In the 1930s, Monica Toth’s father fled his home in Ger-
many to escape the swell of violent antisemitism. Eventu-
ally, he found his way to South America, where he made a
new life with his young family and went on to enjoy a suc-
cessful business career in Buenos Aires. But perhaps owing
to his early formative experiences, Ms. Toth’s father always
kept a reserve of funds in a Swiss bank account. Shortly
before his death, he gave Ms. Toth several million dollars,
also in a Swiss bank account. He encouraged his daughter
to keep the money there—just in case.
Ms. Toth, now in her eighties and an American citizen,
followed her father’s advice. For several years, however,
she failed to report her foreign bank account to the federal
government as the law requires. 31 U. S. C. §5314. Ms.
Toth insists this was an innocent mistake. She says she did
not know of the reporting obligation. And when she learned
of it, she says, she completed the necessary disclosures.
The Internal Revenue Service saw things differently.
Pursuant to §5321, the agency charged Ms. Toth with will-
fully violating §5314’s reporting requirement and assessed
a civil penalty of $2.1 million—half of the balance of Ms.
Toth’s account—plus another $1 million in late fees and in-
terest. Initially, Ms. Toth sought to represent herself in
proceedings challenging the IRS’s assessment, but that did
not go well. Later, Ms. Toth engaged counsel who argued that the IRS’s assessment violated the Excessive Fines
Clause of the Eighth Amendment. But the First Circuit re-
jected this line of defense. It held that the Constitution’s
protection against excessive fines did not apply to Ms.
Toth’s case because the IRS’s assessment against her was
“not tied to any criminal sanction” and served a “remedial”
purpose. 33 F. 4th 1, 16, 17–19 (2022).
This decision is difficult to reconcile with our precedents.
We have recognized that the Excessive Fines Clause “traces
its venerable lineage” to Magna Carta and the English Bill
of Rights. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019)
(slip op., at 4–5). We have held that “[p]rotection against
excessive punitive economic sanctions” is “‘fundamental’”
and “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’”
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7). And all that would mean little if
the government could evade constitutional scrutiny under
the Clause’s terms by the simple expedient of fixing a “civil”
label on the fines it imposes and declining to pursue any
related “criminal” case. Far from permitting that kind of
maneuver, this Court has warned the Constitution guards
against it. See Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 610
(1993) (“[T]he question is not, as the United States would
have it, whether [a monetary penalty] is civil or criminal,
but rather whether it is punishment.”); see also Giaccio v.
Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 402 (1966); Sessions v. Di-
maya, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in
part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 10).
Nor is a statutory penalty beneath constitutional notice
because it serves a “remedial” purpose. Really, the notion
of “nonpunitive penalties” is “a contradiction in terms.”
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321, 346 (1998) (Ken-
nedy, J., dissenting). Just take this case. The government
did not calculate Ms. Toth’s penalty with reference to any
losses or expenses it had incurred. The government im-
posed its penalty to punish her and, in that way, deter oth-
ers. Even supposing, however, that Ms. Toth’s penalty bore both punitive and compensatory purposes, it would still
merit constitutional review. Under our cases a fine that
serves even “in part to punish” is subject to analysis under
the Excessive Fines Clause. Austin, 509 U. S., at 610 (em-
phasis added).
Ms. Toth and her amici identify still more reasons to
worry about the First Circuit’s decision. They say it clashes
with the approach many other courts have taken in similar
cases. Pet. for Cert. 18–25 (collecting cases). They observe
that it incentivizes governments to impose exorbitant civil
penalties as a means of raising revenue. Id., at 25–30. And
they contend that it is difficult to square with the original
understanding of the Eighth Amendment. Brief for Profes-
sor Beth A. Colgan as Amicus Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 4–13.
For all these reasons, taking up this case would have been
well worth our time. As things stand, one can only hope
that other lower courts will not repeat its mistakes.
Only one way to find out for sure, isn't there? The rewards could be two fold (1) a better structure for federal agencies to not be allowed to run roughshod over Americans and their businesses and (2) we get our damn companies back.
It's not ALL altruistic, I want my damn companies back too. !
Heck, living in DC for decades and providing an array of services to these highly paid Gubmint officials has been lucrative to me personally! Plus I LOVE LIVING AROUND HIGHLY EDUCATED PEOPLE and the intellectual stimulation of these folks as well. I think like 4 out of 10 of the counties with the HIGHEST FAMILY MEDIAN INCOME LIVE IN THE DC AREA!
On the ONE hand, I DON'T want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs! On the OTHER hand, watching and experiencing personally federal agency government overreach is not something I enjoy, nor do I want my fellow Americans and our future to suffer.
What to do?
I could just turn my head and ignore it (we're just a bunch of 'evil mortgage banksters'/hedge fund guys'-right?) or DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
I'm pretty sure that I will do the later.
What do YOU think about federal government agencies after watching an Unelected Bureaucrat (DeMarco) give away all the GSES profits into perpetuity in return for NOTHING!
Since you predominantly hold JPS is it easier for you to turn and look the other way and ignore the federal government overreach?
Well, I'm going to keep my eye on that one. I also am a little psyched about the 5th Circuit cfpb decision which has a Petition for a Writ of certiorari pending. These federal agencies (essentially a legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government acting alone) are just out of control, letting them bypass the peoples representatives in Congress to oversee their funding into perpetuity just adds to a more tyrannical gubmint to inflict its whims on the American people and business.
Rodney, only one case has been heard by the SCOTUS, right? That's the Collins case in the 5th Circuit. The Lamberth case is in the DC Circuit Federal.
Oh okay so it's a breach of contract by the US Treasury is that what you are saying?
But here's the problem: The Shareholders don't have standing to sue in the courts because the FHFA stands in the shoes of the corporations during the conservatorships.
Unfair, I know.
Didn't you send this to Sandra, did she get back to you on it?
Justice Breyer was just posing a question to the Defendants attorney during oral arguments in Collins, nothing more nothing less.
Did you read the Appealate Panels decision in the Court of Federal Claims case about how the Plaintiff Shareholders DO NOT have a 5th Amendment Takings Clause case since the GSES don't have the right to exclude others from their property?
That's the Law on the Takings Case.