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 judge with the mortgage fraud background is Amal Thapar. IMO for a judge, he certainly has above-average knowledge of the secondary market.
Aside: Curious intersection of my personal life here. FWIW I am not spilling tea here. All public and all verifiable.
One of my clients became indirectly involved with Amal when he was an Assistant US Atty in So Ohio. I once had the pleasure of talking to his boss, and the FBI agents who arrested the suspected mastermind in a Cincinnati area mortgage fraud scheme—Randy Davidson. I recall being told Davidson ‘went quietly’ but was not happy having to surrender his firearm and his passport. Ultimately he pled down to felony tax evasion, while always insisting (with a straight face) he committed no mortgage fraud. My sense of Amal— as I followed the case for years out of a general interest — was that you wouldn’t want to go up against him in court, golf or a card game. GLTA.
Under a HERA Conservatorship, Layton cannot restructure equity without FHFA approval. He should’ve taken the Director golfing and asked.
FHFA is waiting until after both the ECR and the Capital Planning Rules have the full force of law. That then gives FHFA the fullest possible administrative justification for whatever it chooses among the practical outcomes.
But all those new loan disclosure docs mandated by Dodd Frank via HMDA, RESPA and TIL will inform consumers so much *better* now. Right?
Sign & initial here. Pound of flesh there.
Anyone? Bueller?
Uh … no.
There is just the 1 complaint. And despite the court already calendarizing pre-trial matters, I want to again suggest ‘caution’, friends. The calendars are managed to local and federal rules & timelines, thus the court simply cannot wait until ruling on a MSJ before beginning the onerous and pre-trial calendar.
Bottom line: until Lamberth rules on the motions for summary judgment, a trial cannot occur And Ps could lose that ruling.
"But here the LP is a counter of obligation from F and F to Treasury as counted by Treasury".
I would have said it as: "And here the LP is ALSO a counter of obligation ...". Then I think you've got it 100%.
The LP's primary purpose was, and is, to set the UST's priority
The LP's secondary purpose was, and is, to count the total obligation.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision on 2/22 was a 3 judge merits panel. The CAFC rarely grants en banc rehearings:
“Because each merits panel may enter precedential opinions, a party seeking en banc consideration must typically show that either the merits panel has (1) failed to follow existing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent or (2) followed Federal Circuit precedent that the petitioning party now seeks to have overruled by the court en banc.”
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/case-filings/petitions-for-rehearing-rehearing-en-banc/
If either of the above criteria can be met by Ps then they could get a rehearing en banc (all judge-hands on deck). I just don’t see how.
“He doesn't understand that people will simply refinance high balance loans and 2nd homes with the tbtf banks and other financial intermediaries (that offer lower rates and fees) and that the gses' market share for these types of mortgages will decrease.”
IMO The intent is twofold & linked:
(1) to price the Enterprises right **out of the market** in these 2 segments. As you imply this huge bump aint necessary - and frankly it’s a loss. Thus, mission counterproductive. So…Why do it?
(2) It’s a ‘forward’ quid pro quo to the big banks, in exchange for banks now agreeing (being basically pushed) to dip toes into this legally-suspect “targeted lending”.
Theconference in NYC starting tomorrow is all about this.
Reread my post. Por favor, amigo. I spoke to nothing you replied about.
The CAFC Takings claim dismissed on 2/22 created even more, not less, burdens for plaintiffs.
Takings was always the goalpost. But the CAFC refs ruled a fumble anyway: ‘no property’ to be taken. Game over.
No one knows whether an appeal on 2/22 CAFC panel will be for rehearing
en banc or to SCOTUS. No court has disagreed with the CAFC, and the CAFC is by Congressional design the leading authority on takings law. Sorry, Charlie.
Funding unearned down payments by yet another stealth tax. What could go wrong?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/home-loans-brokered-by-nonprofits-helped-fuel-the-housing-crisis/
I took “triple train” as reference to the first 3 passenger cars in Atlas Shrugged. ;)
“With all Due respect. I believe it’s gonna be our finest hour.”
- Gene Kranz, NASA Chief Flight Director, Apollo 13
“I don't know what month...”
IMO either Octobruary or Decembril.
Oh please…
Credit where credit due. IMHO You are correct on this Carlos.
Yo: 6.7 d/n/a to the SPS/commitment tying
“Fhfa unsealed summary judgement”.
To clarify, the hyperlink is FHFA’s *MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT* and Supporting Brief (47 pg total). The Court published it in unsealed form on 4/14.
That aside, I surely thank you for sharing.
Yeah but is turnover there much worse than the average? The pandemic.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/582220-ceo-turnover-spiked-in-early-2021-study/amp/
You are drawing a conclusion. Badly. SCOTUS never opined as to whether what was transferred was plaintiffs’ property. No property, no taking.
Foreign sovereigns might? Not for the MBS market value, rather for some kind of a political arbitrage.
Thanks
IMO this is inevitable & necessary. Fed has run out of magic tricks.
Hope everyone likes their current mortgage rate. Tip your servers, tip your bartenders and always tip your cap to a friend.
GLTA ??
This move has already been reported and was anticipated by the market. But…What will institutional investors think of buying MBS at resale? Money talks. Stay tuned.
Listen: Kthomp19 is correct. Again. We can keep explaining it to you. We can’t understand it for you.
I agree
I agree with stockprofitter's answer.
If I owned shares that put me into 2 different classes, I might ask if I still also only get 1 choice that covers all those classes. But it sounds like that's not your situation. FWIW, your state bar may have a free resource online or toll-free that can also get you an answer. GL.
“You can be owner of 10 accounts and act differently on each as owner of that account - with the associated shares held there in”
Yes. But the choice has an important and mutually exclusive effect. If you opt out you *cannot* recover from the class itself—whether it settles or wins. This rule is an *absolute bar* in America (note: shares held outside the US may be subject to different laws).
So for example, say you opt in to the Certified Class on accounts 1-9, and opt out on #10. Account # 10 can *not* recover on any class settlement; #10 can only sue individually.
Agree. Politics is forever ingrained in F/F. But whatever our personal politics, here on THIS BOARD, political posts should have some vitality of relevance to the F/F saga. This really should ‘go without saying’. But, well, you said it — and— *well said*. Thanks. Peace.
PACER proposal
I don’t see why thousands of shareholders should have to be forced to shell out *a dime per page* to PACER —a federal enterprise, no less.
I would like to see the motion for summary judgments recently filed by each party in the Lamberth breach of implied duty of good faith case in DC district court.
I propose:
Might one of us who has these PDFs (I do not) post them? If so one or more of us can repay your total cost (Payor). Like Venmo or whatever. I am in.
Thoughts? Takers?
I am OK publicly agreeing here by posting to repay my final cost share (e.g., by Venmo). Anyone else think this could work?
Isn’t SCOTUS role just to lob fat pitches just to reaffirm SNL writers still cant hit?
Quote: “What will FHFA do [if] the GSEs are released?”
Walk off the film set of The Walking Dead?
Seriously though, they will just continue on as federal regulator for:
(1) Fannie
(2) Freddie
(3) All Federal Home Loan Banks
Source:
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 12 USC 4501
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4501
”If you hold Fannie Mae Common you will also receive this Notice in the mail”
Why?
“Lets not talk about rship…believe its not going to happen.”
FWIW, I agree it is highly improbable at this time. But l respect those here pondering the conditions that might yield recvship ; IMO it is an important thought-exercise.
“The initial reason to go with cship over rship is that the gov dont want to put fnf on their books. It would effect the credit rating of the USA and would have been during a financial crisis too.”
Agree; there is wide consensus on all these points, reported by mass media and discussed in business and legal academia.
But. IF receivership does someday loom, FHFA will have to be Receiver. HERA removes Bankruptcy courts entirely from this end game, just as the FDIC displaces those same courts’ role if the liquidation is a federally-insured depository bank.
One final thought to chew on: the FDIC has a history of using capital planning rules as not only performance yardsticks but also ‘beat sticks’: if it becomes evident to the FDIC that a bank in Conservatorship cannot reasonably escape insolvency by the end of a bank-designed capital restoration plan, the FDIC will quickly appoint itself Receiver and pull the gallows lever, leaving the bank to tilt its head silently into its own noose. Query: Might FHFA use the upcoming enterprises’ 5-year plan toward this same end?
Answer IMO, yes. They might. It occurs to me that the F/F plans (tentatively due to FHFA in May) appear to be timed precisely to facilitate the all-important FHFA decision on warrant execution (or not) because the warrants are set to expire in 2028. Hmm.
100% correct
It is really to hard to make apple to apple comparisons because of the one-off nature of the Enterprises. I would start with the FDIC.
The FDIC is both the same and different. I suppose some comparison is to be expected because BOTH serve a public mission (precluding bank panics and instilling broader confidence). Like the FHFA, the FDIC is also both the federal regulator and liquidator of any and all of its covered institutions. But the FDIC is more: it is also a nationalized for-profit insurance company which expressly guarantees that covered institution's citizen deposit accounts will be made whole. So far, so good. Not materially different at this high view from a constitutional viewpoint.
But look closer and here is my problem with the FDIC: No Bankruptcy judge or Trustee can lawfully administer a case where they personally have any vested financial interest (deposit account owner, shareholder, etc...) because of the obvious conflict-of-interest: serving as both receiver and claimant. YET. The FDIC almost *always* is BOTH: the case's *largest* unsecured claimant (seeking as it always must to recoup its claims paid out on insured depository accounts), AND, the 'judge' who decides any dispute of priority and amount. Any guarantee is subject to fraud risk, but that is not my real concern. It's the fact that Congress seems fine letting unelected officials decide private rights disputes with a clear conflict of interest.
All banks receive a silent subsidy estimated at up to X basis points, implicitly built into their cost of funds that otherwise, they would need to pony-up for. And coincidentally it is these same banks who voice concerns over F/F. Timothy J. Howard, former CFO of FNMA, mentions this obvious contradiction from time to time, so credit to Tim.
Maybe the FDIC was necessary 100 years ago. Maybe not. But in an era of global wireless communication, smartphone banking, FinTech, block chain, and AI, I am all for putting the FDIC back into its Frankenstein hole once and for all.
No I don’t think that doctrine really fits. But The nature of the claim would dictate the best circuit. IMO better claim cannons all have been shot.
Can you point me to a page #?
Yes, but, this assumes 2 things. Allow me to lay out these assumptions a bit, but first, let me warn everyone to buckle in because ‘this is about to get really boring.’
On retrospective remedy, SCOTUS in Collins held simply that the “possibility” that the for-cause provision harmed plaintiffs could not be “ruled out”. Nothing more.
Alito’s approach differed from what most serious legal commentators expected, which was for SCOTUS to apply and order an automatic (strict) remedy, whereby what the unconstitutionally appointed Official **believed about his own status was irrelevant** (see, e.g., Bowsher v Synar). So the absence of constitutional power was both necessary and sufficient.
Finally, Seila Law flashed some hope for retrospective relief but also was different factually (an insulated ‘full’ Director) and Chief Rogers seemed to have allowed for the idea of a prior unintended ratification to trump his post-hoc Invalidation of the order (again, which should instead be automatic as per Bowsher).
In contrast, in Collins we now are advised by SCOTUS that POTUS’ subjective understanding of the constitutionality of the removal provision is not only NOT irrelevant—it is necessary ! But is it also sufficient? Hmm.
I get the feeling this case still has some factual intrigue yet to be revealed, whether here in Texas or up in the DC Circuit. Intrigue is best served as a cold surprise.
—Please comment (yay/nay?) on My New proposed legal-ish Tagline below—
Who knows what
EVIL l u r k s
in the hearts
Of unelected officials?
ONLY
the
Shadow Docket
knows.’
Wrong.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 2/22 reversed a district court order which had denied USG motion to dismiss the Takings claim.
Copied below is your errant section 28 USC 2101(b), then, section 28 USC 2101(c) which immediately follows it and which in fact applies, not 28 USC 2101(b).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101
(b) Any other direct appeal to the Supreme Court which is authorized by law, from a decision of a district court in any civil action, suit or proceeding, shall be taken within thirty days from the judgment, order or decree, appealed from, if interlocutory, and within sixty days if final.
(c) Any other appeal or any writ of certiorari intended to bring any judgment or decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the Supreme Court for review shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the entry of such judgment or decree.
Furthermore, 28 US 2101(c) is also tied to procedural Rule 13 of the US Supreme Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx
“Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning
1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is fled with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment.”