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.
Interesting. Typically higher density residential zoning will require more local governmental services. For example, in Newark, CA it's about $13.5k/yr to edumicate ( ) the K-12 kids. Then there's fire, police, public works, etc...
Seems like commercial zoning would be least costly for local gubmints but I haven't really studied the issue that much...
They knew it was wrong too, it was disappointing to say the least! The courts don't want to force their paymasters to part with billions and a former billionaire POTUS allegedly didn't have enough time to get it done.
Was SM hamstrung by the simple fact that no court has to date struck down the Net Worth Swipe?
What's the next filing due for Lamberth?
The Upzoning movement could have legs across the USA, I'm all for it, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT IN MY HOOD! Heee! Heee! ! I guess the heart of the matter is simply whether or not local governments should have control of future land use or leave it to the state legislators.
Higher density development around major transportation points seems like a no brainer, but is that where people necessarily want to live?
What do you think?
NIMBY is still alive in CA, despite a new upzoning law passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor: "By any objective measure, nothing that happens in Woodside, Calif., is going to make much difference to a state whose housing crisis is characterized by some of the nation’s highest rents and home prices and has more than 100,000 people living on its streets. The town, a wealthy enclave of the Silicon Valley, is less than 12 square miles and contains about 5,000 of California’s 40 million residents.
But earlier this year, when Woodside’s government made a curious announcement that the town was being designated a sanctuary for mountain lions — a move that, as it happened, would also protect a hamlet of multimillion-dollar homes from a new law allowing duplexes across the state — the response was an object lesson in how California politics have shifted as housing has become voters’ primary concern.
The Department of Housing and Community Development, California’s main housing agency, said it was investigating the mountain lion plan. The state attorney general followed with a letter (and a news release announcing the letter) that said the proposed sanctuary was illegal, and accused the town of “deliberately attempting to shut off the supply of new housing opportunities.”
Source: todays NYT
I think the government swept 2013 Annual Earnings of $84 BILLION (fnma) and $48.7 BILLION (fmcc) was the biggest heist of private shareholder property by ANY government EVER!
They knew EXACTLY what they were doing...
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/29129-freddie-mac-records-487-billion-2013-net-income/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/business/economy/fannie-mae-reports-84-billion-in-profit-for-2013.html
"By contrast, the GSEs today have little such structural illiquidity and are minimally susceptible to a loss of liquidity: about 90% of their assets are funded by pass-through MBS29, where there is no maturity transformation whatsoever and whose investors have zero ability to “run.” Also, they are not in the business of giving their customers lines of credit that can be suddenly drawn upon in a time of stress. Thus, the going-concern buffer for the GSEs should be much lower than the 4% of risk-weighted assets developed for banks in 2009 (i.e., $146 billion).
"For each dollar of assets on a bank’s balance sheet, a bank takes considerable risks, with credit risk, interest rate risk and liquidity risk being the largest and most well-known.31 The GSEs have structurally only a small fraction of the interest rate and liquidity risk found in banks, as about 90% of their assets are financed via pass-through agency MBS, which substantively lay both such risks off onto the MBS’s institutional investors.
"Unfortunately, the ERCF ties many of its capital requirements to assets and RWA just as is does for banks, which leads to the overstatement of the GSEs’ need for capital, as GSE assets and RWA have such low-risk intensity as compared to banks.35
Setting such a high ERCF-based capital requirement—an estimated $185 billion more than the stress-based requirement— acts as an unnecessary tax upon American homeowners37. I have roughly estimated that the $185 billion difference increases the mortgage rate to the average homeowner whose house is financed via the GSEs by about 0.21%, which for a typical loan of $350,000 translates into a “tax” of $735 per year, or $61 per month.38 This tax would be paid by roughly one of every two homeowners in the U.S., as the GSEs finance about half of all first-lien residential mortgages in the country.
"If it is too high, the economic equivalent of an unnecessary tax on homeownership will be created, which is contrary to the long-standing and bipartisan public policy goal of supporting sustainable homeownershi5. It is therefore incumbent upon the FHFA to find the “just right” Goldilocks level of capital requirement, i.e., enough for fully adequate safety and soundness, but not materially more."
"In May 2013, Fannie Mae was allowed to release the valuation allowance on their DTAs, recognizing a $50.6 billion profit. Freddie Mac followed suit and released $23.9 billion. The total DTAs kept off of the books, combined, was $74.5 billion. These non-cash losses were unnecessary.
In Fairholme Fund's suit against the United States, filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Cooper & Kirk PLLC note that $161 billion of the total $187 billion in Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement costs were primarily for non-cash accounting losses. $26 billion of the SPSPA costs were for interest charged on those non-cash items."
Thanks, Navy! The $50 BILLION in DTA'S, the pending BILLIONS in recoveries from the TBTF banks dumping their garage mortgages on the twins, the pending reversal of FHFA's bogus oversized and mandated Credit Loss Reserves THEY FORCED the twins to book, ALL POINT TO THE LARGEST HEIST OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY THE US GOVERNMENT since its inception! Unbelievable that the federal government is unaware of this!
Navy, I found this in todays WSJ, and as I recall you had refied with NFCU using a VA loan (thanks for serving!) and with the doubling of mortgage rates over the last 6 months, a large FRM on a property with a super low mortgage rate is now an asset to prospective buyers: Want a Lower Mortgage Rate? Take Someone Else's Loan; Loan assumptions remain rare, but interest in them is rising as buyers face mortgage rates near multiyear highs
Dave and Melissa Hostetler considered cutting the list price again on their Rockville, Md., home in June. Instead they decided to dangle another goody before prospective buyers: their low-rate mortgage could come with the house.
Mortgage assumption, as the practice is known, is garnering attention for the first time in years. It is typically allowed in government-backed mortgages like the Department of Veterans Affairs program the Hostetlers used when they bought their house in 2019. Offering up an old mortgage can make a house more affordable , saving buyers hundreds of dollars a month compared with market rates north of 5% .
"We came on the market a week or two after interest rates had spiked," Mr. Hostetler said. "We missed the market in timing."
A prospective buyer who had already toured the house decided that taking on the 3.375% interest rate on their 30-year fixed VA loan sweetened the deal. The four-bed, three-bath house sold for the $834,000 asking price last month.
Higher interest rates are prompting many home buyers to seek alternative ways to lower their mortgage costs. Some are using bigger down payments or turning to adjustable-rate mortgages that offer a lower rate for the first few years. Mortgage assumptions aren't common, but there has been more interest lately, say lenders, real-estate agents and government officials.
In a standard home sale, a buyer takes out a mortgage at going rates to pay the seller. The seller uses the money to pay off their own mortgage and pockets the rest of the cash.
An assumable transaction is different because it doesn't replace an old mortgage with a new one, but instead transfers the old mortgage to the new owner. The seller is relieved of the remaining mortgage liability, so the balance gets subtracted from the purchase amount owed to them. The buyer must come up with cash to cover the difference.
That difference can be substantial if the seller has paid off a big chunk of their mortgage or the home's value has jumped, so a buyer may need a large down payment or a second mortgage, which would almost certainly have a higher rate. That, as well as the sometimes restrictive and bureaucratic nature of loan assumption, means the option isn't viable for many buyers.
"While the interest may be spiking, I don't know how much ultimately we will see in the number of assumptions," said Chris Birk, vice president of mortgage insight at Veterans United Home Loans, the largest VA lender. He said the company had done seven assumptions since 2020, compared with more than 170,000 purchase loans.
A spokesman for the VA said the agency has recently received more inquiries about loan assumptions. A spokeswoman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development said the agency expects more borrowers to explore the assumability option in its Federal Housing Administration loan program, but it is too early to know how many assumptions will happen.
A recent search on Zillow Group Inc. turned up hundreds of listings that tout assumable loans. They are typically referenced in property descriptions next to details about wainscoting , subzero refrigerators and en-suite bathrooms .
The listings are catching the eye of buyers like Tom Slattery, an officer in the Coast Guard, who browsed Zillow and other sites every day this summer with his wife for houses with assumable loans. They recently went into contract on an Alexandria, Va., property and they are taking the seller's 2.75% VA loan. He guesses it will knock more than a quarter off their monthly costs.
"We were just pretty ecstatic to realize that we could get a home that would have been at the tippity top of our budget and now we can be in there more comfortably," he said.
The universe of potentially assumable loans is large, given that government-backed loans account for about a fifth of the $14 trillion-plus in mortgage originations in the past half decade, according to industry research group Inside Mortgage Finance.
But loan assumptions don't pan out for many transactions. Richard Pearrell, the real-estate agent at eXp Realty who sold the Hostetlers's house, said he also worked with another seller recently who had a VA loan, but the balance was about 25% of the asking price, too small to make the assumability feature worth it to a typical buyer.
Everything aligned for the Hostetlers. The loan balance was roughly 80% of the purchase price, and the buyer had been planning to use a substantial down payment anyway. Because Mr. Hostetler is a military veteran, he is eligible for the VA loan program and he had used it a handful of times, most recently when he refinanced in 2020 as rates were falling.
The buyer isn't a veteran, but the program's guidelines allow a civilian to take over the loan using the seller's entitlement to the program. That means Mr. Hostetler will have limitations on taking a new VA loan until this one is fully paid off. Mr. and Mrs. Hostetler and their daughter recently relocated to the Austin, Texas, area, but didn't use a VA loan for the home they purchased there.
Both sides of the transaction had to go through the lender's manual approval process for loan assumptions, Mr. Hostetler said. They made the sale contingent on the lender, U.S. Bancorp, approving the loan assumption, but managed to get the green light in time for closing.
A spokesman for U.S. Bancorp said the lender currently has three times its normal volume of assumptions.
The buyer must pay a funding fee of 0.5% of the value of the loan to the VA upon assumption of a VA loan. The seller must obtain a release of liability from the lender to avoid remaining on the hook for the loan.
"No one had done these in years, so it was new to everyone in the transaction," said Adam Isaacson, vice president at TTR Sotheby's International Realty, one of the buyer's real-estate agents. "We were all learning as you go."
The doubling of the 30 year fixed rate mortgage over the last 6 months is slowing the pace of housing sales from record breaking paces during the last 2 years and that's probably a good thing because double digit home price appreciation when incomes are rising in the single digits is not sustainable in the long run.
Here's an article from todays WSJ, that's worth a read: A Different Take on the U.S. Economy: Maybe It Isn't Really Shrinking; Gross domestic income, an alternative to gross domestic product as a measure of output, points to a stall instead of a recession
When the Commerce Department reported last month that U.S. economic output contracted for two consecutive quarters during the first half of the year, it raised fears the U.S. might be in recession, defined in a popular rule of thumb as two negative quarters of growth. New data sends a different message: rather than in recession, the economy might be in something closer to a stall.
Economic output can be measured two different ways: gross domestic product, or gross domestic income. For every dollar an individual spends to buy some good or service—a restaurant meal, a car, a doctor's visit—another individual earns a dollar of income to make and deliver that good or service. GDP captures the spending side of these transactions, GDI the income side.
In theory, GDI and GDP should equal each other, though there is always some statistical discrepancy because they are measured using different data sets and different sources. This year the discrepancy has been unusually large. During the first half of the year GDP contracted at a 1.1% annual rate, adjusted for inflation. At the same time, GDI, made up of a measure of corporate profits, wages and benefits, self-employment income, interest and rent, expanded at a 1.6% annual rate, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.
It is hard to know what is behind the discrepancy. In a time of great economic volatility the statistics measuring the economy can be less reliable. Some economists look for a clearer picture by averaging GDP and GDI. That measure of output barely moved at all, rising at a 0.2% annual rate, adjusted for inflation, over the first six months of the year. This is more consistent with a stalling economy than one in recession.
"The economy is stagnating, but it's not declining," said Robert Gordon, a Northwestern University professor and longstanding member of a committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research, which dates the beginning and end of recessions.
The bureau doesn't follow the rule of thumb that two negative quarters of GDP growth mean recession. It defines a recession as a broad, sustained and significant contraction in overall activity, viewable across a range of statistics. It looks at measures including employment, business sales, manufacturing production and income. Among its favored measures is the average of GDI and GDP. Looking at these numbers, Mr. Gordon said, "You couldn't call this a recession at all."
Some studies have shown that GDI might be a more reliable real-time gauge of activity than GDP. In a 2010 study, Jeremy Nalewaik, then a Federal Reserve economist, found that GDP tended to be revised toward income measures over time. If this year follows the pattern, the GDP contraction might be revised away in the years ahead.
Chris Varvares, co-head of U.S. economics at S&P Global, offers a long list of reasons why the economy may have stalled. Record fiscal stimulus enacted in 2020 and 2021 is diminishing at a rapid rate; higher inflation has reduced households' real purchasing power; the Fed has been raising short-term interest rates to counteract inflation, squeezing the housing market; supply-chain disruptions have made it harder for companies to source products.
Add it all up, and an economy that emerged from the earlier stages of Covid with a great deal of momentum in the second half of 2020 and 2021 has lost it in 2022. "The economy has been torqued by a very unusual set of forces related to the pandemic, policy responses and now Russia's invasion of Ukraine," Mr. Varvares said. "Don't get hung up on labels. Whether it is shallow growth or a shallow contraction, it will still feel bad."
What happens next will depend a great deal on the behavior of inflation during the next few months.
According to the Fed's preferred measure, the annual inflation rate decreased to 6.3% in July from 6.8% in June, thanks in part to falling energy prices, data released Friday showed. Many financial-markets participants have been hoping that the inflation slowdown will be sustained and the Fed will be in position to slow its campaign of interest-rate increases . In that scenario, consumer spending, business investment and housing would rebound, and the economy would emerge from its stall to renewed expansion.
But a rebound in energy prices because of the war in Ukraine or other factors could forestall any sustained improvement in inflation...
What is hard for people (including MC) to realize is that the GSES ARE NECESSARY as buyers of last resort when the American Housing Market inevitably experiences a downturn and the "Free Markets" head for the sidelines.
Also, the TBTF banks and other financial intermediaries love the status quo as the unnecessary 60bp to 70bp guaranty fees charged by the GSES as a result of the Net Worth Swipe and outrageous 4.5%+ capital requirement are juicing their bottom lines for the last decade+!
Who pays for these unnecessarily inflated gfees? Hard working American Families who ALL need housing!
NICE! "Yet when asked to produce documents in litigation by Fannie and Freddie’s shareholders, the Obama administration made the unbelievable claim of “executive privilege.” According to New York Times financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson, “the government has invoked presidential privilege on 45 documents created either by officials at the Treasury or the F.H.F.A., the regulator charged with conserving Fannie and Freddie’s assets.”
"But the really amazing thing is that we know very little about what prompted Obama and Geithner to pursue this highly controversial policy, because according to the NYT’s Morgenson, the Obama administration “has fought every discovery request made by the Fannie and Freddie shareholders.”
Amendment an unprecedented power grab that violates shareholder property rights, but the process used by the Treasury Department to develop the Amendment provided neither an opportunity for public comment nor the customary transparency safeguards that permit we the people to hold our government accountable. To this day, the Amendment’s provenance remains secret.”
"We asked the heads of the subcommittee to “demand greater transparency and accountability on this matter by requesting that the Treasury Department turn over to your committee, or otherwise make public, any and all documents shedding light on the alleged need for and legal rationale justifying the Third Amendment, as well as all documents detailing the Amendment’s development and evolution, such as those customarily contained in the administrative docket for an agency rulemaking.”
"Not only is the 3rd Amendment an unprecedented power grab that violates shareholder property rights, but the process used by the Treasury Department to develop the Amendment provided neither an opportunity for public comment nor the customary transparency safeguards that permit we the people to hold our government accountable. To this day, the Amendment’s provenance remains secret."
A DECADE AFTER THE NET WORTH SWIPE AND ZERO TRANSPARENCY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 'OUR DEAR LEADERS'!
Some Doug Duncan, in todays WP: "Housing remains clearly on the downtrend - and has been for several months now - due to the combined effects of outsized home price increases and the significant and rapid run-up in mortgage rates," Doug Duncan, the chief economist at Fannie Mae, said in a statement. "The question for many market observers is how quickly, and with how much additional tightening, the core inflation rate will come down to the Fed's preferred target. In our view, the labor market's continued strength suggests that the Fed is likely to maintain its aggressive posture through the end of the year."
all of the exhibits and emails in fhfa case are very disturbing to a common person reading them
FHFA filed two additional motions under seal this evening, and those
documents presumably ask Judge Lamberth to limit what the jury
will allowed to see and hear
Glen, are you able to access this via PACER?
"There have been no material updates for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2022. Both entities continue to build capital through retained earnings and now hold combined capital of $91 billion, up from nearly zero. As we have stated previously, as principally common shareholders (we own a small amount of preferred stock), we own valuable perpetual options on both entities that over the long term we believe will be worth many multiples of today’s prices once re-privatization occurs."
That's right, also the federal government decision makers in charge of the 14+ year CONservatorship could end it with a settlement with Shareholders that makes them whole again.
But Uncle Suggy has been as recalcitrant as ever, we'll see what happens next in this drama filled story.
You're earlier post about the TBTF banks being winners here is spot on, their profits from the 60bp+ gfees the GSES must charge hard working American Families has made their mortgage portfolio lending much more profitable.
The Gubmint is being sued (and rightly so!) all over the place by shareholder plantiffs that have had to watch their United States government steam rolling over their economic rights for the last decade plus. It's easy to forget all the latest statuses of the different stages of litigation. Good luck to you and all the shareholders who have come this far!
It was filed a couple of weeks ago I think, familymang thought that the SCOTUS would probably decide on what to do with the Petitions during September sometime. This defacto Nationalization by "our dear leaders", looks, smells, and walks like a Takings Clause violation, we'll know shortly I believe what the SCOTUS is going to do or not do.
Even if the SCOTUS grants one or more of the Petitions, I believe that the next stage would be to hear arguments from both the shareholder plantiffs and the government and then they will rule and that will take awhile.
I'm sure you could care less (just give me back my d*mn economic rights, Uncle Suggy!) but this Takings Case could be required reading for law students for years to come, exciting stuff, right !
These are just Petitions for a Writ of Certerrori. The SCOTUS has total discretion as to whether they Reject or Accept one or more of the Petitions.
If the SCOTUS rejects the Petitions then the 3 Judge ruling in the COFC stands.
If the SCOTUS accepts one or more of the Petitions then the Takings Cases still have legs.
The Wheels of Justice move slowly my friend, ETERNAL PATIENCE IS A MUST!
Looks like theses are the issues knocking on the door at SCOTUS via Petitions for a Writ of Certerrori:
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, Inc, v US: Issues: (1) Whether, if the United States causes a company to transfer private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company to the United States for the public benefit, the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking; and (2) whether the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by petitioners are cognizable property rights protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
OWL CREEK ASIA I, LP, v US: Issue: Whether, if the United States causes a company to transfer private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company to the United States for the public benefit, the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking.
CACCIAPALLE v. United States: Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in barring as “substantively derivative” the claims of private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the taking of their shareholder rights and the transfer of 100% of their economic interest to the U.S. Treasury, without making a determination as to whether the private shareholders had identified a valid property right that they directly owned and that the government had taken; and (2) whether the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by shareholders are cognizable property rights protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
BARRETT v US: Issue: Whether the government’s uncompensated appropriation of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s earnings and net worth effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Nice! "This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether the government’s decision to essentially nationalize the country’s largest federally backed mortgage-securities companies in the wake of the Great Recession was an unconstitutional “taking” of private shareholders’ assets."
"Four years later, however, with the companies on their feet, the government changed its mind. In what came to be known as the “net worth sweep,” the agency and the secretary of the Treasury Department amended a series of stock-purchase agreements to direct the companies to begin returning nearly all their net worth above a survival amount back to the U.S. Treasury each quarter. The money is distributed to American taxpayers."
If you read the post, it was from the latest filing by the Lamberth Plaintiffs. According to the filing, through the 1st half of 2022 and starting January 1st 2013, the GSES have collectively transferred $330B to the US Treasury.
Did you bother to read the filing? Or am I going to have to spoon feed you again ! HeeeHeee! Just kidding, sort of
!
Navy, ya gotta see it live my friend, come on over! The Jurors will see you in the audience and they will see the actual Americans that have had their Economic Rights in their property taken from them by this atrocious federal government overreach.
The Lamberth Plaintiffs stated the same thing in their latest filing. Let's see if the Jury can realize that fact or will it fall on indifferent ears?
Survive as in not be struck down by a court? Almost certainly, because it has survived every legal attack so far that has tried to get it unwound.
The NWS, seniors, and warrants were all 100% legal.
"Consequently, from 2013 through to the second quarter of 2022, Treasury has received
over $245.9 billion in Net Worth Sweep cash dividends, and over $84.3 billion in increased
liquidation preference corresponding to GSE net worth increases – for a total of over $330 billion
since the Net Worth Sweep became effective on January 1, 2013."
We wouldn't still be in the CONservatorships had the government acted in good faith and did the right thing!
This looks like it could be interesting: Dept. of the Treasury Memo from Mary Miller to Secretary Geithner and Deputy Secretary Wolin re: California and Nevada Trip Notes. Exhibit PX-0194 dated 05-24-2012
and this one, : Email from Nicholas Satriano to James Griffin, Jr. re Highlights of Susan McFarland meeting 6/13/12 with Satriano and Galeano. Exhibit PX-0200. dated 06/14/12
Something about Golden Years ahead? !
The Lamberth trial would be a great time to remind our fellow citizen jurors of Jim Parrott saying, "All future profits go to the US Treasury NOT the shareholders."
Oh, so you want to know exactly what is meant by Arbitrary and Unreasonable Conduct my friends? Why Instruction #30 answers this very question ! :
"INSTRUCTION NO. 30
Arbitrary and Unreasonable Conduct30
As I instructed you previously, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires
a party in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable actions that have the
effect of preventing the other party to the contract from receiving the benefits of the agreement.
Arbitrary actions or decisions are those taken or made without appropriate consideration
of or regard for the existing facts and circumstances, or that are not supported by fair, solid, and
substantial cause in light of all the facts and circumstances.
Unreasonable actions or decisions are those that are not guided by reason, that are beyond
what can be expected or beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness, or that are lacking
justification in fact or circumstance.
An action or decision is arbitrary or unreasonable if it is made or taken for the wrong or
unsound reasons or is not supported by fair, solid, and substantial cause taking into account all the
facts and circumstances. Failure to consider significant alternatives to the course ultimately chosen
is evidence that the decision was arbitrary or unreasonable.
In deciding whether Defendants’ agreement to the Net Worth Sweep arbitrarily or
unreasonably destroyed Plaintiffs’ rights to receive the benefits of their shareholder agreements
with the GSEs, you should consider what if any need there was for the Net Worth Sweep at the
time it was agreed to, taking into account all the facts and circumstances at the time, the process
that FHFA followed and the care it did or did not take in deciding to enter into the Net Worth
Sweep, and whether or not the Net Worth Sweep was consistent with the publicly stated goals of
the conservatorship made in September 2008."
Of course guess who will likely object to the proposed jury instructions? Buhler, ANYONE?
Instruction # 29: "Although the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (“HERA”) gave the FHFA discretion
to act in the best interests of the GSEs, the FHFA, or the public, that does not mean that the FHFA
could do whatever it wanted. As explained above, the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing required the FHFA to refrain from exercising its discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably in
a way that prevented Plaintiffs from receiving the benefits of their bargain under the contracts. To
prevail, Plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that in agreeing to the Net Worth
Sweep, Defendants exercised their discretion under HERA and the contracts arbitrarily or
unreasonably in a way that destroyed or injured Plaintiffs’ rights to receive the benefits of their
contracts with the GSEs."
Nice! From the latest filing: "Had there been no Net Worth Sweep, the GSES would have fully repaid Treasury, with interest many years ago."