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.
There's no such thing as "Scotus Law". It's all about the compliance with the statutory provisions as they are written. Your assertion that requesting a tiny amount of dollars is a good strategy, because later we would get more, is laughable and a shameful attempt to shield the plaintiffs from criticism for not demanding a restitution of the Core Capital in full ($301 billion), primarily because that's why there is a RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS in the law (Retained Earnings is Core Capital)
Glen Bradford has spent 12 years lying to investors under the orders of Berkowitz, who happens to have his office very close to his apartment.
Now I post an exhaustive relation of statutory provisions and he insults me.
The retail investor will strike back.
The NWS is legal because HERA authorizes unlimited yield SPS. Other theme is that the Capital distributions are restricted unless it's applied toward repaying the obligations SPS.
And other theme is that, prior HERA, there was another provision with low cost UST backstop that is the one that will prevail at the end.
Fell free to read the law.
THE NWS IS LEGAL. The only caveat is that it must be applied towards the reduction of the SPS (HERA's Restriction on Capital Distributions, exception B) and, later on, towards their recapitalization, 12 CFR 1237.12 (1).
The story of a Taking or Nationalization is a lie.
THEIR STATUS IS CONSERVATORSHIP
Robert repeats the Govt's lie contending that the loan cannot be paid back. No one cares what the Govt says. The Rule of Law prevails and the law says that Capital distributions (like dividends) are restricted unless it's applied towards the repayment of the obligations SPS.
PERIOD!
Pagliara's secretary?
Cantinflas, it's challenged daily on Twitter.
The warrants are an issue since 2008, because under SEC rules the UST beneficially owns a 79.9% stake in FnF regardless of being exercised and that's why FnF report earnings on a diluted basis.
You are referring to the Portuguese, who works for Pagliara and other plaintiffs that are negotiating with the Govt using the warrant to trade, seeking a settlement that includes a swap JPS for Common Stocks.
Once the warrant is exercised, the litigation would be resolved at the time that the UST had sold its shares on the market to its cronies 10 years before. This is why the corrupt plaintiffs don't challenge the warrant.
The Conservator is constitutional, the Regulator is not.
According to the Scotus-appointed amicus, the FHFA, as conservator, has limited powers, thus, the President can fire him for cause if the FHFA director violates his powers, which is what has happened.
The Regulator is unconstitutional because it has an additional duty inserted in HERA to "ensure that FnF's operations are consistent with the Public Interest". That's limitless powers and thus, unconstitutional.
@Guido, your understanding of the Secret Plan is wrong.
1) $300 billion for the Recapitalization?
2) I've never said that the Supreme Court "will direct the parties to the Secret Plan."
Two statements wrong out of two.
Don't dare to ever give me orders on when I have to explain the Secret Plan. It's explained daily in my comments and based on the law in force and Finance.
I never directed you to a blocked site. I post my Twitter account for everbody else and it isn't blocked. I have blocked you on Twitter, which is very different and I blocked you for obvious reasons.
This is the current situation including the effect of the SPS increased for free that the companies aren't recording on the balance sheets.
Other theme is the Secret Plan that leads to a $163 billion refund (SPS overpayment, TCCA fees, etc) and SPS increased for free cancelled. In that case, FnF would have $8 billion SURPLUS of Core Capital over the Risk-Based Capital requirement, that is, Adequately Capitalized.
This is important because it means that, in the case of a Taking today, the UST would have to pay full Fair Value of the stocks.
EVALUATION OF 12.5 YEARS IN CONSERVATORSHIP
(*)Deficit of Core Capital over:
Minimum Capital requirement: $245 billion
Risk-Based Capital requirement: $399 billion; with buffers: $514 billion
(*)Deficit of Common Equity over:
3% of assets for the release: $431 billion
4.5% of risk-weighted assets: $461 billion.
And the conservator's power is "put FnF in a sound and solvent condition".
For your mental health, I recommend you to bet on a Secret Plan of repayment of the SPS and recapitalization, according to Law, and that the new SPS increased for free are barred in the Charter's Fee Limitation, otherwise you will turn crazy, because these numbers are crazy.
The requirement for the release is CET1>3% of their Assets.
If you want to calculate the CET1, you have to subtract the JPS valued at par value ($33 billion) from the Core Capital (-$194 billion), so the CET1 is NEGATIVE -$227 billion.
Now you can calculate the requirement and the deficit of Capital.
@navycmdr, you've posted a wrong analysis, thus, you are misleading the investors.
The Capital requirements are met with the Core Capital or the Total Capital, and you've posted the Net Worth.
The Core Capital is published every quarter in the earnings reports. Look it up in the report as of end of 2020FY or the 1Q2021 in FMCC's SEC Filing.
FnF post a Core Capital of around NEGATIVE -$144 billion.
As negative Core Capital we have to add the offset when FnF increase the SPS for free. So, the real Core Capital is -$194 billion.
By the way, due to the offset mentioned, the Net Worth that you are pointing out, represents only the value of the SPS, no Retained Earnings anymore. So, all the NW is owned by the UST.
Also you have to take the Adjusted Assets, not the Assets.
Just read my comments to see all the in-depth analysis regarding FnF.
***BOMBSHELL*** NEW ANALYSIS POINTS OUT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DON'T REQUIRE THAT THE CANCELLATION OF SOME SPS, BE DEEMED TAX-EXEMPT INCOME (CORE CAPITAL)
The fact is that in the lawsuit and in the oral arguments, they only request a refund of $29 billion as a tax credit and the SPS be deemed "repaid", like any other obligation that FnF pay down quarterly with their cash. Both have no effect on the Core Capital and thus, whether the plaintiffs win or not, the deficit of Core Capital over the Risk-Based Capital requirement would be the same as today: $399 billion and $514 billion if we include the "prescribed buffers".
The only difference with the current situation is that now there are $243 billion SPS outstanding, and with the lawsuit it'd be $50 billion because they only challenge the $191 billion SPS at the time of the lawsuit and they don't mention that the new SPS increased for free have to be deemed repaid as well.
For the capital requirements ($320 billion published in the last earnings reports; $205 billion without the buffers, because FNMA said $75 billion worth of buffers and FMCC didn't disclose it. I assumed $40 billion) what only matters is the Core Capital.
My prior analysis pointed out that the $191 SPS would be cancelled and thus, FnF post earnings and core capital. But this is not what the plaintiffs require.
This shows their attitude: they seek to deplete the Core Capital in order to increase the Capital needs, for the assault on FnF at rigged prices (secured deals)
I'M THE ONLY PROFESSIONAL IN FINANCE HERE AND THE ONLY ONE THAT POINTS OUT THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN.
For instance, Bradford has just written about "the hard work of the lawsuits to save some semblence(sic) of the rule of law."
The Law is unique and it must be upheld in its entirety, not some semblance.
This is why all the deranged illetarates insult me. I'm the only one with knowledge in Finance here.
The fact is that FnF have a NEGATIVE Core Capital as of March 2021 of -$194 billion. I've just included $50 billion more negative core capital to the one reported in their earnings reports, due to the SPS that are being increased for free every quarter and why I filed a SEC complaint because the companies aren't recording it on the balance sheet, neither this offset nor the SPS themselves.
The corrupt plaintffs don't challenge this fact, they agree with the 10% dividend and it would lead to multiple stock offerings because the Capital requirement published in the earnings reports is $320 billion and also a swap JPS for commons to comply with the CET1 ratio and the requirement for the release from conservatorship.
Help me to beat up all the deranged people that insult me. The plaintiffs are the mafia too and they've paid many people to praise them and harass me.
THEY REQUEST THE OVERPAYMENT ABOVE THE 10% DIVIDEND, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE 10% DIVIDEND!!!!
That is, a refund worth $29 billion, but they request that it be recorded as a Tax Credit, which isn't CORE CAPITAL.
They don't request that the new SPS increased for free every quarter be cancelled, in the attorney's recent letter to Scotus.
You don't understand that the Capital requirements are met with the CORE CAPITAL. So, talk to me in Core Capital terms because the lack thereof would end up in multiple stock offerings to meet the Capital requirements.
I've written that FnF would need $155 billion of Capital if the plaintiffs win.
Add the conversion of JPS for Commons to meet the CET1 ratio and the requirement for the release from conservatorship.
The warrant, if it isn't challenged, it's exercised. It's pointless to claim that it will be challenged once it's exercised and the common stocks are circulating on the market. The damage would have been already done and you want to start another 12 years of litigation with the Government.
WE KNOW THE TRICK OF THE NEVER-ENDING LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOVT. By the time there's a ruling, the UST would have finished off the sale of its stake on the market 10 years before.
I've posted an analysis that shows that FnF would end up with 58 billion common shares together.
IF THE PLAINTIFFS WIN, I WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF 97% OF MY WEALTH!!!!!!!
The fair value drops from $200 on average FnF, to $7ps and we would get there in 10 years' time, because there will be a roadmap of stock offerings the coming years.
If you don't understand concepts in Finance, like Core Capital, dilution, EPS, swap JPS for Commons to meet the CET1 ratio and the requirement for the release from conservatorship, etc, step aside.
The corrupt plaintiffs don't challenge what has deprived FnF of their core capital, like the 10% dividend or the SPS increased for free. Let alone the Warrant.
You mean the corrupt plaintiffs.
That plaintiff is an activist hacker sharing the attorney with Berkowitz. Nothing weird.... Lol
YanksGhost in Yahoo:
Even with all the dilution, the average target price of FnF is almost $7ps.
It turns out that my bet is that the Supreme Court will never rule about #Fanniegate.
The plaintiffs only request a $29 billion refund as a Tax credit, so it won't be recorded as Core Capital.
All the Core Capital (earnings) generated during 12 years in conservatorship is gone. Even now that they are allowed to retain earnings, there's an offset that reduces the Retained Earnings when FnF increase the SPS for free. So, zero Capital built. (this operation is missing every quarter in the balance sheet and it isn't challenged in Court)
Plus the dilution of the Warrant. It's a devastating scenario if the plaintiffs win.
So, FnF are deep in the hole and the plaintiffs don't challenge it.
Is it a surprise if I tell you that Berkowitz and John Paulson/Blackstone(Moelis plan backers) work for Mnuchin?
It's clear that the plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to get involved in this conspiracy. The conspiracy that they brought a flawed lawsuit in the Supreme Court that would lead to a massive issuance of stocks.
***A VICTORY IN THE SUPREME COURT IS DEVASTATING***
A VICTORY IN @Scotus IS DEVASTATING
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) May 24, 2021
With the SPS cancelled (not requested with the SPS for free), $155b deficit of C.C. over Risk-Based Capital requirement. The plaintiffs request a $29b refund as Tax Credit(not C.C.)
The stocks' Fair Value drops to $7.#Fanniegate @TheJusticeDept https://t.co/zzZ2OvL6gF
Are you really asking
You don't have to believe or don't believe in the scenario that will happen if the corrupt plaintiffs win. It will be the reality, so you'd better begin to crunch your numbers. You are 12 years late.
A conversion of the JPS for Common Stocks to meet the CET1 ratio fast, as required for the release from Conservatorship, would increase the dilution of the existing shareholders to almost 97% and the target price drops to $7ps.
Who is the moron that keeps praising the plaintiffs and their allies Bradford, Pagliara, Howard, Rosner, ACG Analytics, etc?
A victory of the corrupt plaintiffs is devastating for the share price.
HOW TO CALCULATE THE TARGET PRICE IF THE CORRUPT PLAINTIFFS WIN
Only the Warrant is a 79.9% dilution. Total shares combined would be 9 billion.
Later, FnF would have $155 billion deficit of Core Capital over the Risk-Based Capital requirement, after the SPS are cancelled.
Assuming an average price of the stock offerings of $4ps, there will be 39 billion more shares outstanding.
Total common shares outstanding = 48 billion.
That's a dilution of 96% of the existing shareholders.
So, the target price of $200 combined, now it's $8ps.
These are round numbers because the target price of FMCC is higher than FNMA.
On the other hand, under the Secret Plan, the UST would have to reimburse $163.5 billion to FnF and they would have a Capital Surplus over the Risk-Based Capital requirement (without the buffers) and the warrant is cancelled. Zero dilution.
This is why the plaintiffs are corrupt and they just pursue stock offerings at rigged prices.
Once Scotus rules, $8ps in 10 years' time. Because the corrupt plaintiffs don't challenge the themes that have stripped FnF of Core Capital, like the 10% dividend and the SPS for free. The Warrant either.
They request a $29 billion refund as a Tax Credit, which isn't recorded as Core Capital.
So, it would lead to multiple stock offerings at rigged prices for John Paulson and Co. Every two years there will be stock offerings beginning at $3, later $4, $5, etc.
In other words, secured deals for investors under a Communist regime and an economy devasted.
This is what a victory of the corrupt plaintiffs means.
The secretary of Pagliara says:"Great WSJ STORY!!:Green Friday"
Gary Hindes is crushed today on #Fanniegate.
ANOTHER SHAMEFUL ARTICLE BY GARY "BIDEN's FRIEND" HINDEShttps://t.co/F7LyFmhhos
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) May 21, 2021
180º turn, he requests a $100b SPS overpayment refund(it's $110b),as a magic back-end resolution of Consrvtrshp,not based on the Law & Finance in force since day 1.#Fanniegate @TheJusticeDept @Scotus https://t.co/TgAPdp5W4t
Gaby Heffesse endorsing the Moelis plan, sponsored by John Paulson and Blackstone.
I warned you. This is a gang that wants to rip off the shareholders : Pagliara, Bradford, ACG Analytics, etc
kthomp19 is the guy called MIDAS on Twitter.
I blocked him long time ago, and he just tweets that people should block me on Twitter.
He claims in this post that the increase in the Liquidation Preference
CONFIRMED: PAGLIARA LIED TO INVESTORS ON MAY 3RD.
@navycmdr should explain what's his relationship with the conspirators.
The Ihub administrators shall take measures against this user that was utilized by Pagliara to mislead the investors in FnF and, in turn, Ihub was a tool for their plot.
This is a very serious allegation.
CONFIRMED: PAGLIARA LIED TO INVESTORS ON MAY 3RD
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) May 11, 2021
He used @navycmdr(another @USArmy retiree that works for the cyber misinformation warfare unit, like Col.Phil in the elections:https://t.co/GVniSY8eHf) to spread the lie that he sold 100% Commons.https://t.co/P3AzZYtxX8 #Fanniegate https://t.co/FUIZmcNAbH pic.twitter.com/tW83X69HfE
How can you say:
After more than 12 years in Conservatorship,I'm not going to tell you which are the limited powers of the conservator, set forth in the law.
Gaby is paid by the Moelis gang to harm the shareholders.
With this, the removal-for-cause provision is constitutional, because once we understand that the FHFA-C has LIMITED POWERS, then the conservator can be easily removed for cause.
So, the problem is the FHFA-R that has coercive powers instead of limited powers and not the removal-for-cause provision, the only constitutionality claim brought by the corrupt plaintiffs.
Also the plaintiffs brought a flawed constitutionality claim, because they don't signal a provision in the law that makes the FHFA unconstitutional.
The Scotus-appointed amicus said that the FHFA-C is constitutional because it has limited powers. But using his same arguments, the FHFA-R is unconstitutional, because it has "coercive power" in the director's duty: "the activities of FnF must be consistent with the Public Interest."
Gaby Heffesse made a collage by gluing pictures on a cardboard. She just made up a percentage of victory in two conflicting parties now in Court. An 8-year-old girl could have done it.
Anyone that puts some percentage of victory to the Govt is simply a lunatic, but she's paid to create content.
She should have posted this matrix, but it would have been equally ridiculous:
Victory of the Equity holders
She just wanted to reiterate that the Plaintiff brought an APA claim, when this case is about multiple breaches of the statutory provisions. APA claim is when some regulation harms your interests.
Read my comments with true in-depth analysis, with the real debate based on Finance and Law, because the plaintiffs brought a flawed case to the Supreme Court and thus, the Justices won't rule based on the plaintiffs' arguments.