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.
Norbert Michael is just trying to deliver an early Xmas gift GSE hit piece to his well heeled "free market" donors as the 2022 charitable deduction is ending soon.
His hit piece is loaded with misconceptions and inaccuracies, but blaming the GSES for the 08-09 Financial Crisis and maintaining the status quo deflects blame from the Private MBS market and keeps g fees high for hard working American Families.
Here's J. Schlitz somehow turning the Unconstitutional Removal Restriction Violation into a statutory violation: "As discussed above, the only way to make sense of this
discussion is to view these claims as challenges to agency action that has (allegedly)
been tainted by an improper consideration, which is a statutory challenge, not a
constitutional one. Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim therefore fails.4"
Norbert Michael must be unaware of the August 17, 2012, Net Worth Sweep, because this is incorrect: "Similarly, Fannie and Freddie have cost federal taxpayers billions of dollars and done little to measurably increase homeownership rates."
Just another hit piece to maintain the status quo, increase g fees for the TBTF banks and the other financial intermediaries, and incorrectly believe that "free markets" are the perfect solution for the American Secondary Mortgage Market.
Why did the "free market" Secondary Mortgage Market Buyers disappear in March 2020, 2008-09, and pre Great Depression?
I hear you, but I bet you will tell us how great a Jurist is ONCE THEY RULE FAVORABLY FOR US !
The fact of the matter is that this bizarre fact pattern surrounding the 14+ year CONservatorship will likely be decided at the appellate level and not a trial Judge.
But clearly the federal judiciary continually siding with their paymasters despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence of federal government overreach is troubling and disappointing.
That's what generational trusts are fer ! HeeeHeeee!
So whose the Craig Phillips of the current administration? The current administration is loaded with Obama folks and people like Brian Deese have their fingerprints ALL OVER THE NET WORTH SWIPE!
"In 2011, Deese was named deputy director of the NEC. In this role, he coordinated policy development for the White House on taxes, financial regulation, housing, clean energy, manufacturing, and the automotive industry. According to The New Republic, he was among Washington's "most powerful, least famous people".[11]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Deese
Judge Schlitz is embracing the bizarre proposition articulated by Justice Thomas that POTUS could have fired Mel Watt at will, DESPITE HERA SAYING IT WAS FORBIDDEN.
Thus advocating that a future POTUS can always ignore the law if in fact that law is Unconstitutional and the courts have yet to rule on the laws Constitutionality.
Since POTUS always had the power to fire the FHFA Director (but didn't know it - just like Toto and Dorothy could always return to Kansas but didn't know) it means Plaintiff Shareholders receive ZERO in recovery, according to J. Schlitz (page 12 - I added bold):
"In other words, the President
always had the power to remove the FHFA director (much like, in the Wizard of Oz,
Dorothy always had the power to return to Kansas). Cf. id. at 1793 (Thomas, J.,
concurring) (“while the [removal] provision does conflict with the Constitution, the
Constitution has always displaced it and the President has always had the power to fire
the Director for any reason”). Combined with the Court’s holding that every FHFA
director had full authority to carry out the functions of his office, it is hard to imagine
how the removal restriction that never had legal effect could have caused any legally
cognizable harm, as any harm would have been due to the President’s own mistake of
law and not to any unlawful action by a director.2"
Since lawsuits cost time and money, these types of rulings destroy a major motivation for American Citizens to challenge Unconstitutional Statutes written by the Legislative Branch and embolden any future POTUS to IGNORE THE LAW AND DO WHAT HE WANTS UNDER THE GUISE OF "WHAT I'M DOING IS CONSTITUTIONAL THEREFORE ITS OKAY TO IGNORE THE LAW."
The Executive Branch seems to be waiting for the Judicial Branch to clarify some of the major legal issues surrounding the Net Worth Swipe.
Who exactly is heading any alleged 'administrative reform' of the GSES?
Clearly a Constitutional Violation occurred with the inability of the POTUS to have control over Mel Watt and yet no damages?
Judge Schlitz seems to be splitting hairs because the Trump letter (which clearly says he would have fired Mel Watt on Day 1) doesn't satisfy the conditions for a remedy?
Looks like J. Schlitz is reaching here, "...and it would be far too easy for a former President—motivated perhaps by a desire to harm a political rival or force a new administration to implement his preferred policies—to circumvent this
holding with after-the-fact assertions about what he would have done if he had only
known he had the authority."
Either side likely would have appealed the lower court Judge and this may be decided by the appellate process anyway.
No, just declare HERA and Dodd Frank UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ANY AND ALL ACTIONS BY THEM VOID, THE COURTS DO IT WITH CRIMINAL STATUTES ALL THE TIME!
This is the problem when the SCOTUS USES A SCALPEL INSTEAD OF A BULLDOZER!
Look at Collins, YOU GET THESE CONVOLUTED REMEDIES THAT LACK ANY DAMAGES!
Using the Scalpel (i.e., REWRITING HERA to remove the offending Unconstitutional Language) ENCOURAGES LEGISLATORS TO EXPERIMENT WITH NOVEL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND UNLEASHING THEM ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Judge Schlitz's decision kinda takes away any monetary renumeration that future Plaintiffs will have to mount a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FUTURE STATUTES.
Didn't Professor Schlitz say it's about the money at Law Firms? Why wouldn't that apply to Prospective Litigants challenging federal government overreach in Acts of Congress that are deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
HeeeeHeeee! Schlitz also makes, Milwaukee's Best Beer (which I consumed with my fellow undergraduates back in the day , but this Chick Fila Peppermint Bark Shake gets it done
!
J. Schlitz is as baffled by the convoluted Collins call for damages as the rest of us:
"To be honest, this passage is baffling, and the parties and this Court have
struggled to make sense of it. The Supreme Court says that the unconstitutional
removal restriction was never part of the governing law. In other words, the President
always had the power to remove the FHFA director (much like, in the Wizard of Oz,
Dorothy always had the power to return to Kansas). Cf. id. at 1793 (Thomas, J.,
concurring) (“while the [removal] provision does conflict with the Constitution, the
Constitution has always displaced it and the President has always had the power to fire
the Director for any reason”). Combined with the Court’s holding that every FHFA
director had full authority to carry out the functions of his office, it is hard to imagine
how the removal restriction that never had legal effect could have caused any legally
cognizable harm, as any harm would have been due to the President’s own mistake of
law and not to any unlawful action by a director.2
Nevertheless, immediately after explaining that every FHFA director had the
authority to carry out the functions of his office and that the removal restriction was
and always had been a legal nullity, the Court opined that the plaintiffs could,
theoretically, establish that they were harmed by the (non-existent) removal restriction.
Outside the context of a President actually attempting to remove a director and being
legally enjoined from doing so—a situation in which it is at least plausible to regard the
director’s subsequent actions as ultra vires—it is difficult to know what to make of this
statement. The core of the Court’s analysis is that, while the removal restriction is
unconstitutional, that fact does not render the agency’s actions unconstitutional. How,
then, could the plaintiffs possibly be entitled to any remedy?
In his Collins concurrence, Justice Thomas suggested a way out of this
conundrum. As Justice Thomas observed, the majority opinion “glossed over a
fundamental problem with removal-restriction cases such as these: The Government
does not necessarily act unlawfully even if a removal restriction is unlawful in the
abstract.” Id. at 1789 (Thomas, J., concurring). While a government official’s mistaken
belief about the scope of his own authority does not render an otherwise lawful act
unlawful, Justice Thomas suggested that, in certain cases, the agency action may be
subject to challenge under the APA as “‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Id. at 1794 n.7 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)).
Having puzzled over the matter at length, the Court concludes that Justice
Thomas’s suggestion is the only way to harmonize the seemingly contradictory
language in the majority opinion. Justice Thomas both recognizes that every FHFA
director had the authority to carry out the functions of his office and leaves a path open
for a litigant with standing to show that a particular agency action was arbitrary and
capricious for purposes of the APA because the action was attributable to the agency’s
incorrect belief that the director was removable only for cause. Importantly, such
claims would not be constitutional claims, because, again, every director had full
authority to carry out the functions of his office. Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1788.3
With this framework in mind, the Court turns to plaintiffs’ claims."
Glen's got it right here: https://www.glenbradford.com/2022/12/fnma-fanniegate-1241/
FHFA (like the CFPB) is an Independent Federal Agency with little to none Congressional oversight, these 2 federal agencies need some oversight from the Legislative Branch and the Supremes may end up making that happen.
What was his reasoning exactly? Appeal?
Since the Plaintiff Shareholders are paying ALL the legal bills and fees of all 3 Defendants (i.e., FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the appeals process will likely drag on for years to come, why would you settle?
Plus, the venue is a company town WHERE WE ARE SUING THE EMPLOYER OF THE COMPANY TOWN.
Ain't Amerika a great kinda place !
Thanks! It looks like Senator Bill Hagerty is the Co-Sponsor and will try to have the bill go forward after Toomey leaves next month.
The American Public thinks Fannie Mae is a chocolate company, I don't see Sherrod (the Chair of the SBC next month) introducing a bill during the next 2 years entitled, "Restore Justice to the GSE Shareholders Act". !
I think that there may be another pretrial Motion or two, then a new trial in the 1Q23 or 2Q23, per FamilyMang chart. I may be wrong.
then who - whom - checks SCOTUS
The Gubmint made that argument, here's what the court said: "The Bureau's arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. First, it contends that there is no constitutional infirmity because its funding scheme was enacted by Congress. In essence, the Bureau contends that because Congress spun the agency's funding mechanism into motion when it passed the Act, voila!—the Appropriations Clause is satisfied. The Bureau's argument misreads not only Supreme Court precedent but also the plain text of the Appropriations Clause.
Start with the clause's text: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." U.S. CONST. art I, § 9, cl. 7 (emphasis added). A law alone does not suffice—an appropriation is required. Otherwise, why not simply travel under the general procedures for enacting legislation provided elsewhere in Article I? The answer is that spending only "in Consequence of Appropriations made by law" is additive to mere enabling legislation; appropriations are required to meet the Framers' salutary aims of separating and checking powers and preserving accountability to the people. The Act itself tacitly admits such a distinction in its decree that "[f]unds obtained by or transferred to the Bureau Fund shall not be construed to be . . . appropriated monies." 12 U.S.C. § 5497(c)(2). We take Congress at its word. But that is the rub.
The Bureau relies on the Supreme Court's statement that the Appropriations Clause "means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress." Richmond, 496 U.S. at 424 (quoting Cincinnati Soap, 301 U.S. at 321). But neither Richmond nor Cincinnati Soap purported definitively to map the contours of the Appropriations Clause. Regardless, Congress's mere enactment of a law, by itself, does not satisfy the clause's requirements. Otherwise, the Bureau's position means that no federal statute could ever violate the Appropriations Clause because Congress, by definition, enacts them. As discussed supra, our Constitution's structural separation of powers teaches us that cannot be so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 182 (1992) ("The Constitution's division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.").
The converse argument, that Congress can alter the Bureau's perpetual self-funding scheme anytime it wants, curing any infirmity, is likewise unavailing. "Congress is always capable of fixing statutes that impinge on its own authority, but that possibility does not excuse the underlying constitutional problems. Otherwise, no law could run afoul of Article I." All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 238 (Jones, J. concurring); cf. PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F.3d 75, 158 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (en banc) (Henderson, J., dissenting) ("[A]n otherwise invalid agency is no less invalid merely because the Congress can fix it at some undetermined point in the future."), abrogated on other grounds by Seila Law, 140 S. Ct. 2183.
The Bureau also contends that because every court to consider its funding structure has deemed it constitutionally sound, we should too.[15] But carefully considering those decisions, we must respectfully disagree with their conclusion. Those courts found the constitutional scale tipped in the Bureau's favor based largely on one factor: a handful of other agencies are also self-funded. For instance, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that "Congress has consistently exempted financial regulators from appropriations: The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency all have complete, uncapped budgetary autonomy." PHH Corp., 881 F.3d at 95."
Yesterday was Pat Toomey's last SBC meeting as Co-Chair of the SBC, I believe as well as Senator Shelby (MC'S old boss, Sherrod Brown's right hand man is currently the head legal guy for Sandra).
Senator Sherrod Brown will now be Chair of the SBC and will no longer have to Co-Chair with the opposing party, starting in January.
The Supremes will not have a decision on the CFPB case until the end of June 2023 and therefore the SBC and the US Congress will have some time to deliberate on how to fund the CFPB in new legislation if necessary.
Will the double insulated from Congress's Appropriations Process of the CFPB funding mechanism if found to violate the SOP Doctrine also apply to the FHFA?
Don't know for sure, but I think David Thompson added it in the 5th Circuit case if I'm not mistaken or the issue may be percolating in another legal action so we'll see what if anything happens.
That's the beauty of the Seperation of Powers Doctrine, Checks and Balances thwart the natural human desire to have more power.
Like CFPB, the FHFA is Double Insulated from the Congressional Appropriations Oversight Process by (1) Setting their own budget and (2) Obtaining their federal agency funding from OUTSIDE THE UST.
This will be interesting to watch.
HeeeHeeee! Elizabeth looked a little frayed today at the CFPB SBC Hearing today!
How dare those evil Shareholders get rid of her beautiful creation, the ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT FHFA AND CFPB DIRECTORS AND NOW ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF THEIR FUNDING !
"Given that the executive is forbidden from unilaterally spending funds, the actual exercise by Congress of its power of the purse is imperative to a functional government. The Appropriations Clause thus does more than reinforce Congress's power over fiscal matters; it affirmatively obligates Congress to use that authority "to maintain the boundaries between the branches and preserve individual liberty from the encroachments of executive power." All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 231 (Jones, J., concurring).
The Appropriations Clause thus embodies the Framers' objectives of maintaining "the necessary partition among the several departments," THE FEDERALIST NO. 51 (J. Madison), and ensuring transparency and accountability between the people and their government. The clause's role as "a bulwark of the Constitution's separation of powers" has been repeatedly affirmed."
Wasn't Senator Elizabeth Warren a Constitutional Law Professor at some Law School, oh yeah, Haaaavard. !
("The Appropriations Clause plays a critical role in the Constitution's separation of powers among the three branches of government and the checks and balances between them."). As Justice Story said:
The object is apparent upon the slightest examination. It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money . . . . If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure. The power to control and direct the appropriations, constitutes a most useful and salutary check upon profusion and extravagance, as well as upon corrupt influence and public peculation."
Hmmm, peculation, sounds like the NWS:
Pec·u·lat·ed, pec·u·lat·ing.
to steal or take dishonestly (money, especially public funds, or property entrusted to one's care); embezzle.
"Justice Scalia similarly observed that, while the requirement that funds be disbursed in accord with Congress's dictate and Congress's alone may be inconvenient, "clumsy," or "inefficient," it "reflect[s] `hard choices . . . consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked.'" NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 601-02 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983)). In short, the Appropriations Clause expressly "was intended as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department." Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937)."
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3776771-majority-of-states-call-on-supreme-court-to-review-constitutionality-of-cfpb-funding/amp/
“Attaching the spending power directly to Congress — including power over agencies’ budgets — makes the federal government more accountable to the States,” the Republican attorneys general said in an amicus brief."
Pat Toomey's Grilling of Chopra begins at MM 44:
https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/12/08/2022/the-consumer-financial-protection-bureaus-semi-annual-report-to-congress
"Senator Toomey observed that the agency abuses its power because it knows Congress cannot currently use the power of the purse to rein in its overreach."
Senator Toomey's testimony begins at MM 33:
https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/12/08/2022/the-consumer-financial-protection-bureaus-semi-annual-report-to-congress
Will the fate of the FHFA be similar?
Senator Pat Toomey today at the SBC CFPB meeting addressing the likely Unconstitutional CFPB funding mechanism in Dodd Frank (Alex I'll take "Pending Supreme Decisions" for $200. !):
"In our constitutional system of checks and balances, only Congress has the
power to appropriate money. James Madison called this: “the most
complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the
immediate representatives of the people.”
But, the Dodd-Frank Act exempted the CFPB from appropriations. It
empowers the CFPB to simply take funds from the Fed, which is itself also
not subject to appropriations, thereby doubly insulating the CFPB from any
congressional control.
I acknowledge there are other financial regulators not on appropriations—
and we can disagree about whether they should be. But, it’s indisputable
that Congress has precisely zero leverage over the CFPB. It’s hard for me
to imagine our Founders intended an agency to have the power of the
legislative branch, and precisely zero accountability to the legislative
branch. And, in any case, clearly the CFPB is overreaching and doesn’t
care.
That’s why the Fifth Circuit recently found the CFPB’s funding structure is
unconstitutional. The court noted: “The Bureau’s perpetual insulation from
Congress’s appropriations power . . . renders the Bureau ‘no longer
dependent and, as a result, no longer accountable’ to Congress and,
ultimately, to the people.”
What can we expect from an agency designed to be unaccountable to
Congress, if not overreach and hubris? For example, under Director
Chopra, the CFPB unilaterally decided that Dodd-Frank’s grant of authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices—known as
UDAAP—now includes controversial disparate impact liability. It announced
this change by fiat, without rulemaking. It ignored not only the text of Dodd-
Frank, but also the fact that Congress never contemplated that UDAAP
would encompass disparate impact. Congress took the UDAAP language
from the FTC Act. For nearly a century, the FTC never interpreted that
language to include discrimination or disparate impact.
Finally, the CFPB
willfully ignored the fact that Congress overturned the CFPB’s disparate
impact guidance for auto lending in 2018.
It’s extremely implausible to think that an agency that was dependent on
Congress for appropriations would engage in activity so clearly contrary to
Congress’ intent.
These examples are just some of the symptoms of an agency that’s out of
control and knows Congress can’t use the power of the purse to rein in its
overreach. That’s why I’m introducing legislation—along with Senator Hagerty—to place the CFPB on appropriations. The best way to make the
CFPB accountable to Congress is through appropriations.
Through its rulemaking, the CFPB can exercise legislative power. What’s
ambiguous about the first line in Article I of the Constitution: “All Legislative
powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”?
At the very least, Congress should carry out the responsibility that the
Constitution assigns to us, and exercise control over agencies like the
CFPB that exercise legislative power.
But that’s not all this legislation will do. It will also replace the agency’s
single director with a five-member, bipartisan commission, like the SEC and
FDIC. This structure will ensure that the CFPB considers a diversity of
voices when it forms policy. And it’s not a new idea. Bipartisan legislation to
convert the CFPB into a commission has been repeatedly introduced.
These accountability measures will help make the agency more
responsible, balanced, and measured. And Congress will have to accept
some responsibility for what the CFPB does.
What’s more, if Congress does not put the CFPB on appropriations, the
Supreme Court will likely force us to. The Court is expected to consider and
uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the CFPB’s funding structure is
unconstitutional. If it does, I have no doubt Congress will act swiftly to
provide the CFPB with appropriate funding.
After all, Congress is
experienced at the appropriations process.
But, by acting now, through legislation, Congress can ensure the
smoothest possible transition. This is in the best interest not only of the
CFPB and Congress, but also consumers and the economy. That’s why I
call on all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me in
supporting this sensible legislation."
HeeeHeeee! Here's some excerpt's from J. Schlitz's famous law article (best read with an ice cold beer that made Milwaukee famous, because when you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer !):
ON BEING HAPPY, HEALTHY, AND ETHICAL 1995 Vanderbilt Law Review
Some sage advice to law students from Professor Schlitz:
"This is the best advice I can give you: Right now, while you are
still in law school, make the commitment-not just in your head, but
in your heart-that, although you are willing to work hard and you
would like to make a comfortable living, you are not going to let
money dominate your life to the exclusion of all else. And don't just
structure your life around this negative; embrace a positive. Believe
in something-care about something-so that when the culture of
greed presses in on you from all sides, there will be something inside
of you pushing back. Make the decision now that you will be the one
who defines success for you-not your classmates, not big law firms,
not clients of big law firms, not the National Law Journal. You will
be a happier, healthier, and more ethical attorney as a result.26"
This is interesting, J. Schlitz and his wife were partners at a Law firm that won a $5B judgment in the Exxon Valdez case, they gave up their partnership shares (as the payment would take considerable time) so that he could teach at Notre Dame Law School and she would purse another venue:
V. SOME PARTING WORDS
To an unfortunate extent, this Article has been an exercise in
"do what I say, not what I do." As I said, I joined a big law firm after I
finished clerking, and, despite the best of intentions, I quickly got
sucked into the game. It is very, very hard to avoid the pressures and
temptations pushing you toward the big firm, very, very hard to avoid
playing the game once you arrive at the big firm, and very, very hard
to stop playing the game once you have left the big firm. I failed on
the first two counts and continue to fail from time to time on the
third. But I want to leave you with the following, by way of illustrat-
ing that it is never too late to change-even when you've failed as
much as I have.
My firm was lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez
oil spill litigation. In 1994, while I was still a partner, we won a
judgment of over $5 billion.3
8 We partners all knew that, if and when we collected that judgment, even the smallest partner's share would
be a few hundred thousand dollars. Most of the partners would be-
come millionaires.38 Because my wife and I would both be partners,
we would enjoy two slices of this enormous pie.
At about the time of the Exxon Valdez verdict, my wife and I
were beginning to feel that, somewhere along the line, we had lost our
way. We were working constantly. We were under constant pressure.
We were constantly feeling guilty about the hardships we were impos-
ing on each other and on our children. The life we were leading was
not the life we had envisioned. We had strayed from the values with
which we were raised.
In early 1995, we decided to leave big firm practice, and to
leave the Exxon money behind.3 7 We decided to give up a ton of
money in return for work that was more enjoyable and less stressful,
and for more time with each other and our children.388 All of this, we
decided, was more important than money--even lots and lots of
money.
I don't claim that we made an enormous sacrifice. We did give
up a lot of money, but we still get paid well, and we have great jobs.
Nor do I claim that we have stopped playing the game-that we have
no regrets, that we never look back, that we don't care about money
any more. None of that would be true. Living a balanced life and de-
fining success for yourself are lifelong struggles, and they do not end
once you leave a big law firm. The one thing I can promise you is
that, as we rediscover every day, they are struggles well worth under-
taking."
"Now, no one is going to say this to you. No one is going to take
you aside and say, "Jane, we here at Smith & Jones are obsessed with
money. From this point forward the most important thing in your life
has to be billing hours and generating business. Family and friends
and honesty and fairness are okay in moderation, but don't let them
interfere with making money." No one will tell you, as one lawyer
told another in a Charles Addams cartoon, "I admire your honesty and
integrity, Wilson, but I have no room for them in my firm."25 6 Instead,
the culture will pressure you in more subtle ways to replace your val-
ues with the system's."
"Basically, what happens is that big firms "buy associates' time
'wholesale and sell it retail.' "203 Here is how it works:2 4 As a new
associate in a large firm, you will be paid about one-third of what you
bring into the firm.20 If you bill, say, 2000 hours at $100 per hour,
you will generate $200,000 in revenue for your firm. About a third of
that-$70,000 or so-will be paid to you. Another third will go toward
paying the expenses of the firm. And the final third will go into the
pockets of the firm's partners. Firms make money off associates.
That is why it's in the interests of big firms to hire lots of associates
and to make very few of them partners. The more associates there
are, the more profits for the partners to split,2°6 and the fewer part-
ners there are, the bigger each partner's share.
After you make partner (if you make partner-your chances
will likely be about one in ten07), you will still be exploited, although
somewhat less. "
That was my understanding as well, HENCE THE GSES MBS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE IS NOT EXPLICIT RATHER IT IS IMPLICIT!
Much to our good friends dislike in the Financial Establishment !
This has historically (pre 14+ year CONservatorship) been a MAJOR reason for the having the Private Capital in a 1st Loss Position/Public Mission structure of the GSES.
That's right, the US Constitution and the foundational principles that form the bedrock of our Democracy has been badly beaten up here and we as Shareholders are the only ones who can reign in this abusive and coercive use of governmental overreach.
Happy Holidays to you and yours, and hope you continue fighting for Justice with me and the other Shareholders in 2023!
Oh yeah, you don't happen to know the link to the oral arguments do you?
Plus Fannie Mae has another $8.4B in Credit Loss Reserves.
https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us/investor-relations/quarterly-and-annual-results
Seems like a strong book of business:
Borrowers who refinanced in 2020 were more well off financially than those who refinanced in 2019:
? A higher share reported their household income was $175,000 or higher in 2020 (29 percent) than in 2019 (20 percent).
Similarly, a higher share indicated that they owned stocks, bonds, or mutual funds in 2020 (53 percent) than in 2019 (43 percent).
? Relatedly, 76 percent of borrowers who refinanced were not at all concerned about qualifying for a mortgage in 2020, up from 66 percent in 2019.
https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-and-CFPB-Release-Updated-Data-from-the-National-Survey-of-Mortgage-Originations-for-Public-Use-121322.aspx
Judge Schlitz seems like a heavyweight in the Judicial Branch, which case is he deliberating?
Does the SPSA say that the UST will provide UNLIMITED FUNDING or is it capped?
You know, when I worked for Fannie Mae and pre CONservatorship, the only UST Commitment at the time was a $2B Line of Credit at the UST.
The fact of the matter remains, that despite all this "living will" talk and plans, the federal government will likely step in during the next inevitable financial crisis to rescue the TBTF banks and the GSES simply because they are the lynchpins of the US Economy.
Right now the Federal Debt Outstanding is $31T, do we really need to pile on more Federal Government Liabilities by making the GSE MBS federal government guarantee EXPLICIT?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN
It'd be a great underdog story, if I was able to release the boot off the necks of the shareholders!
But I like the current round of cases making their way through the federal courts, plus do you really think that the federal government wants to officially turn Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into another HUD?
The relationship between the GSES as private corporations and the federal government has traditionally been symbiotic, with the federal government having the benefits of drawing the best of private enterprise and avoiding $7.5T on the federal government balance sheet.
Does this or any future administration really want to change that?
It's a small position relative to my portfolio mix but not insubstantial. It's enough of a position for me to be motivated to launch a new lawsuit if this 1st round of cases yields no fruit.
That's why I like to go to the courthouse and watch the Lamberth case.