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.
You are incorrect my friend.
A) Thompson isnt even the lawyer speaking at oral arguments for these cases, its Patterson.
B) You really think Cooper & Kirk (the plaintiffs lawyers), ask for snr pfd conversion in the briefings, but during oral arguments ask for something completely different? You know how that would look in front of a judge? I assure you they are asking for write down OR snr pfd conversion to common in both oral arguments and the briefings.
At the end of the day if you want to hold common shares that is on you, I am just trying to inform you of the realities and protections left for common shareholders. Whether you choose to ignore reality or accept it and adapt is up to you. Would be a shame to hold all this time and end up having the GSEs being released only to be diluted 99%+ and make no money in the process, while the JPS offer you 20x upside from current levels w/o any of the snr pfd conversion to common dilution risk.
" I dont think Plaintiff's lawyers will argue that if they have the opportunity"
They already did, on 3 separate occasions.. in Bhatti, Rop, and Collins.
The Lamberth trial is for monetary compensation for breach of contract, not to undo the NWS and prevent dilution.FMCC common are part of trial, but the damage there is limited to $1.6b+interest total, of which $45.5m (about 30cents per share) is for FMCC common (the rest is for JPS).
It doesn't really matter what the judges think. P's are offering 2 remedy options, 1 is better for the government than the other (snr pfd conversion to common). If there is a settlement, this proves the plaintiffs are willing to settle for conversion. The judges have no power over settlement. This is important because there will be no one representing common shareholders behalf at the settlement table if there is one, they are out of the game after SCOTUS dismissed the takings case.
All of it, including the increase since the amendment to let them retain cash in exchange for $ for $ increase in LP.
Common has no protection left against 99%+ dilution, no one is left defending them in the courts.
I can assure you that the prayer for relief from the Collins/Bhatti/Rop plaintiffs are for either 1) write down of snr pfd liquidation in full or 2) convert the snr pfds to common. Option 2 is much better for the government so I don't see why they would settle for anything less if push comes to shove.
All the remaining separation of power cases plaintiffs left (collins/bhatti/rop) are asking for the snr pfds to be converted to common. So there aren't even any lawsuits left with plaintiffs that would be against snr pfd conversion, in fact its the opposite, they are requesting it!
The real number for balance sheet consolidation is also >95% not 80%. UST owned 92% of AIG via preferred conversion to common and no consolidation was required FYI.
Just uploaded it
The bear case is that all litigation is fruitless and the status quo lasts for another 15+years of organic earnings retention, at which point the GSEs are recapitalized (organically) and the NWS simply turns back in line with the last PSPA amendment.
The hope is that any one admin between now and then would like to monetize the GSEs, as no one has access to ANY GSE funds prior to that point in time. A simple NPV will tell you that $200b+ of value today (assuming snr pfd conversion), + a perpetual commitment fee, is more enticing in value than an annual $25b NWS turning on in 15+ years from now that is unaccessible to any admin prior.
Wow you think its 50% odds SCOTUS agrees to hear the takings case (vs 1-2% odds on them typically agreeing to hear any case petitioned to them)? Thats about as bullish as i have ever seen you!
This is true, as long as they have the ability to convert the snr pfds to common (which they do), the warrants are worthless to the treasury bc they already own 99%+ via the snr pfds.
This is incorrect. There will be a new trial sometime in the spring
All the amicus briefs will come after it’s confirmed scotud is taking the case
The takings case and the CFPB case have nothing to do with eachother. We will hear back if SCOTUS accepts the takings case by mid jan and it has nothing to do with the CFPB case.
The later. So if scotus affirms the cfpb ruling, 5th circuit has green light to apply the same ruling + remedy to collins.
On CFPB appropriations claim, by end of June latest.
On whether they accept to hear our takings petition, by mid January latest.
The 5th circuit would order and enforce it if they rule that a) FHFA violates appropriations and b) proper remedy is to vacate challenged action (identical to their CFPB ruling), this issue now sits squarely infront of them. Not sure what the confusion is.
If SCOTUS affirms the 5th circuit ruling in totality and the 5th circuit affirms the same ruling for us in the FHFA Collins case, the NWS would be vacated without any need for future lawsuits.
That is the remedy we are requesting in Collins for the appropriations violation and the remedy 5th circuit granted in the CFPB case (vacate challenged actions while in violations of appropriations claim).
Ideally they affirm 5th circuit ruling for retrospective relief and leave it up to congress/legislation to remedy the appropriations defect moving forward (prospective relief).
The GOP AMICI CURIAE BRIEF wants SCOTUS to affirm the 5th circuit ruling in full, which if SCOTUS agrees with would be positive for us.
The only remaining question would then be the remedy. The Fifth Circuit was right to vacate a rule enacted without constitutional funding. “An agency’s funding is the very lifeblood that empowers it to act.” CFPB v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 33 F.4th 218, 241 (5th Cir. 2022) (Jones, J., concurring). And the Bureau does not convincingly explain how severing some provision of Section 5497 could provide it with the “proper appropriation” that is “a precondition to every exercise of executive authority by an administrative agency.” Id. at 242. So the court appropriately vacated the rule before it. No money, no power.
The Fifth Circuit was right in every regard. The Court should grant the Petition and confirm the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. Otherwise, uncertainty will lurk in the financial markets—and States could well be left standing on the sidelines with little power to do anything but watch the chaos unfold.
Can the Plaintiffs request a bench decision this time?
Can the Plaintiffs appeal the limited potential damages before proceeding to trial or are they locked in?
Not sure where you heard that from, but they were misinformed. Takes time to setup new trial, could be 6-9 months after mistrial typically.
End of Q2
This isn't about common or preferred shareholders, its about solving the affordability housing crisis which is bigger and more important than our little corner of the world. And to date nothing the government has done with regards to the NWS/conservatorship has been ruled "illegal" unfortunately. So unless that changes they are free to do so as they please for the "best interest" of the public.
How the Biden admin can unilaterally generate ~$250b in funding to solve the housing affordability crisis!
How the Biden admin can unilaterally generate ~$250b in funding to solve the housing affordability crisis!
— familymang (@familymang1) December 19, 2022
A thread🧵...👇#HousingCrisis (1/4)
This is incorrect, new trial will be set for back end of Q2.
Yes this democratic judge will dismiss both our scotus remand + our appropriations claim. He said so on the call yesterday. But its irrelevant what he rules. It will immediately get appealed and the 5th circuit en banc is who will decide these 2 issues in the Collins case, and our odds are looking good there. The faster this district court judge rules the faster we can get back to the circuit that matters.
Don't worry you didn't miss much. This is just the district court formality for the collins case. Judge on the call said he agreed with government on everything. He is a democratic judge who has a history ignoring his appellate courts precedent (5th circuit). Once we lose we can appeal it to the big leagues, 5th circuit en banc, so the faster he rules to dismiss us the better. The 5th circuit judges represent our only hope. 9 of them have already previously ruled in our favor and they will get another crack at it shortly.
We already lost ROP appointments claim last month 2-1... Only hope is we appeal to en banc or scotus.
It's paid for by FHFA, and FHFA gets its money from the GSEs, so therefore its ultimately paid for by the GSEs. Very simple.
Yes, we will lose this case. The collins district court case is irrelevant. Its a democratic judge who has no interest in our claims. He admitted that he agreed with the government on the call yesterday. This is just a formality, hopefully he can rule ASAP so we can appeal Collins back to the 5th circuit en banc (where Judge Willet & Co. sit). That's where the real battle for Collins will take place, not the district court.
You are correct. GSEs are liable for any trial liability, as they stated in their 10Q's today.
$FNMAS $FMCKJ
— familymang (@familymang1) November 3, 2022
Trial update: Jury request + Judge response pic.twitter.com/Jq3EMRqk0g
this has explained multiple times already.. just look at my post history. long story short its all lamberth is allowed plaintiffs to ask for.
as check would be say a buck on common and ?? 5 on JPS ?
so now F and F further from capital requirements