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.
The liquidation preference of the snr pfds is currently $288b, the GSEs are prob worth ~$200-$250b . Ignoring the warrants, if the government choose to convert the senior preferred to common they would own >99+% of the GSEs, leaving little to no value left over for legacy common shareholders.
No, this claim was completely separate and had nothing to do with the appointments clause claim. It was a pure and simple non delegation claim, and 4 judges (1-0 in the district court and 3-0 in the appellate court) ruled that this is a losing claim. Time to start thinking of new legal theories.
The appellate court in 2021 affirmed the ruling.
“Congress’s delegation in the Recovery Act was permissible. Id.at 963 (“Picking among different ways of preserving and conserving assets, deciding whose interests to pursue while doing so, and determining the best way to do so are all choices that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act clearly assigns to the FHFA, not the courts.”). This court affirms dismissal of the nondelegation claim.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18-2506/18-2506-2021-10-06.html
So as you can see Robert, what you are arguing for has already been attempted (and failed) by shareholders in the courts.
Found a case that had it, original Bhatti ruling in 2018. Shareholders lost the non-delegation doctrine claim.
“Finally, plaintiffs allege that Congress's grant of conservatorship powers to FHFA violates the non-delegation doctrine.
The Court agrees with FHFA that the non-delegation doctrine is not implicated in this case, because FHFA was not exercising governmental power when it agreed to the Third Amendment.”
https://casetext.com/case/bhatti-v-fed-hous-fin-agency
I cant recall which case specifically, but im 99% certain 1 or 2 of the gses cases attempted a shot at the non delegation doctrine already and lost.
Didnt you claim to verify this was bs
Arent you selling your shares in April if nothing happens with Biden admin? You should save yourself some time and sell today.
Ah in that case if they arent releasing orders on the 20th you may be correct we have to wait until the 27th. Thanks
The case is set for conference on the 27th.
I hope youre correct and the CFPB SCOTUS case gets delayed until next term. Will allow the 5th circuit to not be influenced by SCOTUS which increases our odds IMO.
As Familymang stated - many of the suits have been withdrawn because SCOTUS denied Cert to the appeal of the DC 3-0 Decision in Fairholme. The DC Circuit affirmed Judge Sweeney in denying direct causes of action and overruled Judge Sweeney on allowing Derivative claims. At this point all of the cases before Judge Sweeney are likely to be dismissed or withdrawn unless they are allowed to come up with another cause of action allowed by Judge Sweeney. Seems like a low probability.?
Regarding the Kelly suit - it is a derivative action before Judge Davis.
More promising is the suit before Judge Lamberth which was 4-4 in the last trial. While it is not a big damage amount it would be a victory which most likely would change the tenor of the discussion.
Also - Collins seems particularly promising because it could possibly invalidate the SPS. Rop is also promising but will depend on SCOTUS granting Cert. Bhatti seems to follow Collins so how Collins goes Bhatti will most likely follow?
Collins will be impacted by CFPB Scotus deliberation. If SCOTUS grants Cert the impact of Collins will be decided by the July 2024
Thoughts?
Im not spreading lies you simply dont know how to read legal filings. Good luck to you
You recall wrong. Just look up the appellate ruling they explicity address the derivatives claim. And you can look up the derivative scotus petition which was denied. The takings cases are dead (which is what ackman said in his presentation today).
Your understanding is incorrect. After Sweeney's ruling, shareholders appealed the direct claim and the government appealed the derivative claim. The federal court of appeals then ruled (last year) for the government 3-0 on both the direct and derivative claim (overturning Sweenys ruling). Then shareholders appealed both to supreme court, and supreme court declined to hear either claim last month. So now both direct and derivative takings claims are dead. Which is why you are seeing all the filings from the last couple weeks telling Sweeney she can formally drop the case in full since both claims are now dead thanks to SCOTUS declining to hear them.
thats not what i think, its what i know. they literally say in the court filings as a result of SCOTUS not taking the case, the takings case is dead so they had to drop it. i know reading is difficult for some :(
if you also actually read his slide, he thinks the next catalyst is 2024 elections hoping for administration change bc he knows biden admin wont do any thing.
they "dropped" the legal case because they lost.. not because of settlement.
That is true with the illiquid series, but the main liquid ones (FNMAS/FMCKJ/FNMAT) account for >90% of the volume and trade pretty tight (bid ask is 2-3c apart on avg). I'm also not comparing "volatility", but $ volume traded, which is the best measure for liquidity.
No sophisticated investor measures liquidity in "shares volume'', they only care about $ volume and how long it will take them to build a specific $ position. Ask yourself a simple question, based off trading volumes, will it take longer to build a $10m position in JPS or common? It would take ~twice as long to build a $10m common position based off last years average trading volumes.
I explain it in this post, https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171021897
What you are in essence arguing is a penny stock that trades 1b shares a day @ 1c/shr is more "liquid" than AAPL that trades 50-100m shares a day @ $100/sh even though AAPL traded $5-$10b in dollar liquidity while the penny stock traded $10m in dollar liquidity.
Use todays volume as an example, JPS traded ~$6m total today, vs common traded ~$1m total. So even if you were 100% of the volume you could have only bought $1m worth of common shares today while being able to buy $6m of JPS shares. Hopefully you are smart enough to understand such a simple concept. But maybe not..
Huntbeachwhale you cant just say things like this without it being true!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-730/253802/20230202141801038_2023-02-02 Michael Rop et al Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Final.pdf
When did i ever say ackman had more pfd than common? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? But to answer your question he claims to be 80% common and 20% pfd as a hedge in case common gets overly diluted in a restructuring.
Why are you spreading false information? JPS are objectively more liquid than the common. Happy to provide you with the real data linked. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171021897
But a quick example, JPS was 3x as liquid on Friday as JPS traded $1.9m on Friday and common traded only $600k. Facts only please.
Yep i update it start of every month
You are lost in the sauce my friend. What I am saying is fact after the SCOTUS denied the takings petition this year. Good luck with your journey.
After the SCOTUS denied the takings petition, 1) Washington Federal is dismissed in its entirety so this case is formally dead, and 2) Kelly had 3 claims, 2 of which are now dead (all the takings allegations against the actual cship thanks to SCOTUS), the only remaining claim is a JPS claim that the government breached JPS implied contract between the shareholders and the government themselves.
Do you still own any jps or just sitting on sidelines until something constructive takes places
I don’t know the answers to these questions.
FOFreddie, this is the same paper that shareholders tried to point to to argue that the NWS violated HERA, and SCOTUS disagreed (and therefore disagreed with this paper). So using this paper as evidence of what the government legally can and cant do is clearly wrong as it doesnt hold up in court.
My numbers are very similar to yours. Here’s to hoping!
Collins plaintiffs (as well as bhatti and rop) are all asking for conversion of snr pfds to common. Thats who is representing you. Takings is dead and lamberth is for small monetary damages.
Unfortunately the courts are powerless to prevent a senior pfd conversion at this stage as all the litigation against the NWS has failed.
I can try and entertain you, but I believe your understanding of capital markets and finance might not be sophisticated to understand how this works. I can tell because your emphasis on share price and share price alone shows you don't fully grasp capital markets. All that matters in the end is market cap and % ownership, not an arbitrary share price.
Currently there are ~1.8b common shares, the government has the option to exercise another 7b shares via the warrants (their 80% ownership). That's a total of ~9b shares. At today's 50c a share the current market cap is only ~$4.5b. The government then converts its snr pfd LP of $290b into common, this leads to massive dilution as the government will need to issue close to half a trillion shares. Now the government owns half a trillion shares and the common shareholders today still own 1.8b shares. So government owns ~99.5% and legacy shareholders own 0.5%.
Then the government announces it will allow the gses to exit cship so its going to do a reverse split to get the share count back to normal level and sell its shares in secondary offerings to the public market at an attractive valuation of 8x P/E (the "new investors" you reference will only care about this valuation entry point, not the share price), at the current ~$25b annual net income that comes out to a market valuation of $200b. So the shareholders today will own .5% of the 200b ($1b in total value), and the "new investors" will slowly be buying down the government shares over time in secondary offerings (just like AIG). The 1.8b common shares today are worth $900m right now, so in my example the common shares actually make ~10% from here. Congratulations.
See my new post, but in summary because Treasury has zero obligation to shareholders.
You're asking the wrong question, the right question should be "Why wouldn't the Treasury MAXIMIZE its equity interests in the GSEs for the benefit of the taxpayers?", as anything less would be taking from taxpayers to gift to shareholders. Treasury represents taxpayers first and foremost, once you understand that, it becomes logical that they will do everything they can legally can do to maximize its value for the benefit of the taxpayers (which will come at the cost of shareholders unfortunately). That's exactly how they have been running their GSE investment since 2008 and there is no reason to think they will turn into Santa Claus overnight for shareholders benefit.
My previous discussion with Rodeny has nothing to do with the future prospects of shareholders, only about how the terms of the PSPAs function (which he refuses to understand and keeps spewing nonsense).
I never said common stock will be wiped out, and to be clear I DON'T believe that will happen. But i DO think they will be massively diluted via snr pfd conversion (very different from wiped out).
Either way, that's a prediction of the future, which may or may not come true. While you are arguing about how the terms of the PSPAs work, which are already factually settled and isn't up for debate. What you're doing is trying to argue 1+1 = 3, when its been already proven to you to be = 2 time and time again (by people in this forum and judges that have already ruled on this issue).
And your precious Epstein that you keep incorrectly keep referencing had his opportunity in court to present his arguments and lost and was never heard from again. I wonder why.
Rodney is becoming dangerously close to wiseman level of incompetence.. Just keeps repeating his same incorrect understanding of the PSPAs even though some people on this forum are kind enough to point him to the correct facts over and over again.. Ignorance is bliss i guess.
Repurchasing shares/buybacks would be considered a form of capital distribution to shareholders which they are not allowed to do currently as they are below the capital requirements and buffers to be able to do so. I'm sure if they wanted to do it ahead of that would need UST consent.
Coin flip odds sound right.