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.
Thanks for the update KT, so how much fnma common did they hold at the end of 2Q22, any idea? Thanking you in advance!
No, I generally agree with you here, Judges typically bark and scream and say don't do it again and give them a slap on the wrist!
The only reason that it might matter is if Judge Royce Lamberth can truly see the injustice that has taken place here to the shareholders and this is the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back."
Powerful insight there Skepi, have you worked your way up to the Chairman of the Activity Bus Committee at the nursing home and you planned a trip to the local courthouse to watch the action live?
You may want to warn your fellow seniors that if you get a volunteer bus driver that closes the bus door and looks back at the passengers stating he is a self proclaimed Wise Man, then RUN do not walk to the emergency exit at the back of the bus! !
Nice! Amazing how the "free world financial press" has continually ignored what's happening to the property rights of Americans shares in two of the largest financial intermediaries in the world.
5,056 days since the CONservatorship began! August 17, 2022 will be the 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE NET WORTH SWIPE!
Let's all mail a crisp $1 bill each to Sandra L Thompson with a little note, letting her know how we are contributing cash to help build CET1 Capital at the GSES after $308B in much needed capital was transferred to the UST in return for nothing.
Federal Housing Finance Agency
c/o Sandra L Thompson
Address:
Constitution Center
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20219
Please note: that all mail sent to FHFA via the post office is routed through a security process that may delay the delivery by approximately two weeks. For time sensitive correspondence, please plan accordingly.??
https://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/Contact
Damnit, whose scooping up these shares, they still haven't hit my lowest entry point of twenty six cents! !
The bigger point is that Judge Lambert doesn't like it when Gubmint officials lie to him. Can you think of any Gubmint officials that have lied in the GSE pending litigation?
Do you need to phone a friend, because I'll wait.
Thanks for your time and well thought out responses! It's probably 2 to 3 years, minimum, for the current pending litigation to exhaust all appeals and could be longer, especially with interlocutory appeals and the recalcitrant and over confident Uncle Suggy who possesses both unlimited time and resources and is in no hurry to correct the mess they've created during the 13+ year CONservatorship.
With the SCOTUS appearing to be moving forward with limiting the 4th Branch of governments use of control over virtually every aspect of Americans lives by these unelected bureaucrats, the shareholders legal arguments relating to federal government overreach may become more compelling.
Now is the time to flesh out the potential counterarguments and arguments under various legal theories to attempt to right the wrongs for shareholders that have taken place here.
I suspect that Yellen and a few others in the current Administration, have a rough idea that the GSES 13+ year never ending "temporary CONservatorship", is the direct results of misguided bad policy choices from previous administrations. Tweeting them about just how badly the government has behaved here seems to help reinforce that. Thanks!
The Major Questions Doctrine deals with whenever a federal agency sets major policies involving the national economic policies that belong to our elected officials in the US Congress. For example, how to structure the housing finance system in America (in WV v EPA, it was the energy source mix of the national electric grid).
To date, the US Congress has been unable to come to a consensus on the future of the housing finance structure in the USA.
HERA seems pretty clear, either the FHFA is to keep them in conservatorship (in which case the intent of HERA is to rehabilitate and release) OR receivership (in which case liquidate and pay off creditors).
As we all know, the FHFA on August 17, 2012 in conjunction with another federal agency, US Treasury, decided to make it impossible to rehabilitate the GSES and forced the US Congress to come up with a solution to determine how the future of housing finance in America will be determined.
The argument is simply, the US Congress tasked the FHFA with either rehabilitating or liquidating the GSES. The FHFA, via the 3rd Amendment, through Unelected Federal Agency Bureaucrats decided they would not do this but would instead force the US Congress to come up with a future plan for housing finance in America by ignoring HERA's mandate to preserve and conserve or liquidate.
Here's the FHFA testimony to the US Congress subsequent to the 3rd Amendment. https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=Statement-of-Edward-J-DeMarco-Acting-Director-FHFA-Before-the-US-Senate-Committee-on-Banking-Housing-and-Urban-Affa359.aspx
"FHFA’s 2012 Strategic Plan for the Operation of the Enterprise Conservatorships
In early 2012, recognizing that the conservatorships were over three years along and not likely to end soon, FHFA developed and formally communicated to Congress a strategic plan for the companies to pursue while in conservatorship, pending legislative action. This Strategic Plan has three goals:
Build. Build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market.
Contract. Gradually contract the Enterprises’ dominant presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking their operations.
Maintain. Maintain foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability for new and refinanced mortgages.
These goals satisfy our statutory mandate as conservator, are consistent with the Administration’s call for a gradual wind down of the Enterprises, and preserve all options for Congress while establishing a stronger foundation on which Congress and market participants can build to replace the pre-conservatorship government sponsored enterprise (GSE) model."
HERA did not empower the FHFA with deciding whether or not the US Congress should replace the pre-conservatorship GSES. That was (and still is) the proper role of our elected officials not DC Bureaucrats.
Amigo, what do you think after the years pass and all the appeals are exhausted, that I launch a lawsuit against Uncle Suggy challenging the 3rd Amendment under the Major Questions Doctrine?
Can you run it by your legal team and let me know what they think?
From today's WSJ Editorial, the successful attorneys who beat back Gubmint Overreach by a Federal Agency last week: "In these cases, the agencies acted outside their expertise and certainly didn't promote political accountability. The legislative process of political compromise was bypassed and democracy subordinated to government lawyers stalking dusty library shelves in search of vague and outmoded statutes. The West Virginia decision buttressed legislative authority yet led to strident criticism from legislators, dramatizing how comfortable Congress has become in abdicating its responsibility for difficult policy decisions."
"West Virginia limits Chevron by fleshing out the "major questions doctrine," a longstanding judicial presumption that when an administrative agency asserts authority over questions of great economic and political significance, it may act only if Congress has clearly authorized it to do so. Or, as the Constitution puts it: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
West Virginia's critics focus on its policy impact because its legal merit is so compelling. By proscribing ambiguous congressional delegation where it matters most, the major questions doctrine re-establishes judicial authority and legislative responsibility. Absent a clear statutory delegation of the power to regulate, the executive branch can't regulate at all. Where statutory language is clear enough to grant regulatory authority, it should eliminate substantial ambiguity about how that authority can be exercised. This effectively strips agencies of much of their regulatory willfulness, compelling them to regulate only as Congress intended. The domain of Chevron deference is limited to filling in the interstitial details of statutes in which Congress has decided the policy stakes.
West Virginia and the major questions doctrine are certain to surface again soon. Take the Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed climate-change disclosure regulations. The SEC has a statutory directive to protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and maintain the efficient operation of capital markets. It has neither the expertise nor the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. In light of West Virginia, the SEC ought to withdraw its proposal.
The Federal Trade Commission is contemplating a regulation that, without any clear statutory authority and departing from well-established FTC practices, purports to ban mergers even when no anticompetitive harms are visited on consumers. The Education Department proposes to eliminate basic mandatory procedural due-process requirements, such as a live hearing and cross-examination, in Title IX regulations that govern disciplinary procedures in universities.
Going forward, the first question in any important case concerning agency power is whether Congress actually intended for the agency to be regulating at all, not whether agency attorneys were clever enough to find a vague statute to justify a new rule. The power of the administrative state is certain to recede, bolstering democratic accountability, economic growth and liberty."
I'm keeping this guy's name handy: Mr. Rivkin was lead outside counsel in the case brought by 27 states challenging the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, in which the Supreme Court issued a 2016 stay. Mr. DeLaquil is lead counsel for Westmoreland Mining Holdings, a party to a case the court decided last month with West Virginia v. EPA.
Look at the bright side, 3 shares of Fannie Mae stock and some found change in the sofa cushions and/or car seats and you've got lunch...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/11/costco-ceos-one-word-answer-to-whether-he-would-raise-the-price-of-hot-dogs-no.html
Why would the FHFA EVER end the temporary CONservatorship when it will always be in "their best interests" to have 100% control of these two private corporations.
Nationalization in the USA by the USA, UNBELIEVABLE!
Maybe Bernie Sanders in 2024 will save us, right?
The 3rd Amendment was a horrible decision by a federal agency that has had negative repercussions ever since, ESPECIALLY UNNECESSARILY INFLATING GFEES FOR HARD WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES.
Shame on Uncle Suggy!
Nice, these Gubmint officials shouldn't be stealing/running trillion dollar corporations.
What would Janet think? Play nice, just because Uncle Suggy misbehaved doesn't mean we should stoop so low. Nahhh, go ahead and send it !
HeeeHeee! No unlike some of our fellow shareholders the GSE holdings in my portfolio mix are a small percentage of my overall net worth.
And getting smaller. !
It's gotta be tough for those who purchased jps (including small community banks and financial intermediaries) that originally incorrectly assumed that since they are US Government Sponsored that their holdings should be safer than blue chip private corporations jps as da Gubmint is there to SPONSOR (NOT RAPE!) the GSES!
I guess we've all learned something here, shame on Uncle Suggy, I hope he doesn't get away with misbehaving, we'll see what happens.
Well if you want to come back up here, I still have the condo I lived in when I worked at Fannie Mae. The current tenant is retiring from da gubmint and it's in the Ballston area of Arlington. You can walk to Metro.
Hard to beat where you live now. Is it possible to get tired of living on the beach?
Lamberth is the first case that is going to trial, I believe. Whenever I go to the SCOTUS webpage it says they are closed to the public because of the Cov, so I would check to see what the status is with Lamberts courthouse prior to planning a trip, I'd also check whether or not you are allowed to bring your cell phone inside the courthouse and if they have lockers you can rent nearby if they don't.
If you've never been to the nations capital, you should come up here if you have the time and I can take you and a companion to lunch and tell you some cool places to go to if you want.
My sweetie loves to cook, so we could have lunch at my house if you want. Warning, she clings pretty close to me and you will experience displays of public affection, HeeeHeee !
Sometimes cases are settled on the eve of trial or on the courthouse steps but Uncle Suggy has been a remorseless recalcitrant defendant and so far has eluded the wrath of any pecuniary penalties despite the shareholder plantiffs expenditures of probably close to $100 million in legal fees.
We'll see what happens.
Will Freddie Mac be released 1st? Who knows.
Heee!Heee! Glen said you kept leaving the toilet seat up and my new girlfriend hates that! !
If you come down, I'll definitely buy you lunch and hang with you as long as I can, but my new smoking hot Ukrainian American girlfriend wants to start a new family and keeps a tight leash on me. I need some more heirs, otherwise Uncle Suggy is going to take 1/2 my bounty whenever the big guy upstairs calls my number.
First world problems, right! HeeeHeee! !
Sounds like the Urban Institute needs to ask their very own Jim Parrott, about whether or not American Families are impacted by the outrageous August 17, 2012 3rd Amendment and why the GSES have such a thinly capitalized balance sheet.
"Researchers at the Urban Institute, a progressive think tank, said the new fee would threaten the single security system for which FHFA officials have professed support. The single-security approach had paved the way for long-term reform, Urban researchers wrote, by leveling the playing field between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities."
https://www.urban.org/author/jim-parrott
Brooge, as I recall it's located within walking distance to the SCOTUS in downtown DC and is Metro Subway accessable.
If you're in NYC, you could take the Accela Express down to Union Station and take the Metro Subway from their.
https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/senior-judge-royce-c-lamberth
Thanks Navy, I marked my calendar and can run down there and watch it, IF they are open to the public and I don't have a conflict in scheduling, it doesn't get postponed, or the parties decide to settle
IF I do attend, I'll try to go out to the hall and give you guys updates during any breaks, BUT the federal district court I usually go to bans the public from bringing their cell phones to court, so you guys may have to wait for an update until after the Judge adjourns the proceedings for that day.
Normally, I have a conflict in scheduling during most of these many legal proceedings involving the 13+ year CONservatorship.
Navy, if you want you could stay at my house and bring your dogs, I've got 5 acres and horses and plenty of extra bedrooms with private full bathrooms available and parking for an RV, I live in the same hood as Jusice Thomas and his wife Ginnie.
My smoking hot Ukrainian American girlfriend likes to cook and we'll provide for you, you can take the subway to the courthouse.
Just send me an email contact in a private message.
Welcome to Potterville America! Taking $308B+ from the gses capital rebuild and transferring it to the UST coupled with the outrageous and unnecessary 4.5% Capital Ratio has resulted in Americans paying 60bps versus 20bps ANNUALLY OVER 30 YEARS, tripling American Families annual costs to access the federal government guaranty.
Brilliant, Uncle Suggy, just absolutely brilliant!
"They'll never go pretend private again!" Jim Parrott
https://www.urban.org/author/jim-parrott
The US Congress could have decided to nationalize the GSES but didn't, they passed HERA instead. The UST and the FHFA decided to never let the GSES "go pretend private again".
This could be ripe for litigation under the Major Questions Doctrine as articulated by J. Gorsuch's Concurring Opinion in WV v Biden.
OMG! IT IGNORES CREDIT SCORES AND ALLOWS DSCR UP TO 65%. What could possibly go wrong?
""Our Equitable Housing Finance Plan lays the groundwork to meaningfully address housing barriers faced by Black renters and homeowners," said David C. Benson, President and Interim Chief Executive Officer, Fannie Mae. "We want to knock down these barriers, one by one, doing our part to undo the legacy of discriminatory practices that perpetuate racial housing gaps in America. The Plan is a solid step toward this goal and a milestone in our work to make housing stronger, fairer, and more sustainable for the people and communities we serve."
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/housing-inequalities-black-homeowners-and-renters
https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/originating-underwriting/mortgage-products/refinow-expanding-refinance-eligibility-qualifying-homeowners?_ga=2.228548573.1756055211.1657274369-477116570.1653068466
In Miller v Vilsak, a federal Judge in Texas (5th federal circuit) granted an injunction prohibiting a USDA program funded by $5B in loan forgiveness for 120% of USDA backed farm loans to : “socially disadvantaged farmer or
rancher” (“SDFR”) is defined as “a farmer or rancher who is a member of
a socially disadvantaged group,” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(5), which, in turn,
means that the members of the group “have been subjected to racial or ethnic
prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to
their individual qualities,” id. § 2279(a)(6). American Rescue Plan"
So I have no idea what a Special Purpose Credit Program is or does, but if it provides subsidies to people based on race, to the disadvantage of others, there should be no question that it would fall under the well established Strict Scrutiny Standards and that would require the FHFA to prove to a Judge that the program is narrowly tailored to address a compelling need to redress past specific government minority discrimination by the agency and/or the federal government in housing.
If a shareholder initiates the lawsuit, the shareholder can end the lawsuit by explaining to FHFA that they will end the lawsuit if the FHFA and UST can do a 5th Amendment to the SPSA.
Heee! Heee, it was a SOP case, not a Takings Case, but the COFC 3 Judge appellate ruling if it remains will be very troublesome.
I say let's sue the sh*t out of Uncle Suggy, I think it would be fun if a shareholder sued FHFA to stop them from implementing the current administration's latest program, the NAR/MBA backed Special Purpose Credit Program. A Temporary/Permanent Injunction issued by ANY federal circuit Judge would be enough to get the FHFA'S attention and the Plaintiff shareholder(s) could agree to withdraw the lawsuit in exchange for some concrete resolution with UST on release from the never ending temporary 13+ year CONservatorship.
Of course, litigation sometimes has unforeseen consequences, especially if Mr. Yi convinces Sandra that they can hire the best blue chip law firms money can buy to defend the program and if successful create precedent and the ability to open the flood gates of government money on these types of programs. The icing on the cake for Sherrod Browns right hand man, Mr. Yi and Sandra Thompson would be that they get to add the expense on the annual appropriations extracted annually from the gses net income and captial rebuild.
Other litigation avenues for leverage on CONservatorship resolution with UST and FHFA could include suing on the Major Questions Doctrine as articulated by Gorsuch last week, the Void for Vagueness legal doctrine, and others.
The alternative is to hope for the benevolence of our dear leaders to the shareholders and that's never going to happen!
Merika, my kinda place !
You need to get over several hurdles when suing involving a civil lawsuit, generally the legal system is designed for the benefit of highly trained and educated people, but some Judges give extraordinary deference and help to Pro Se, litigants. This is why you really need to hire a boutique law firm, specifically one that has extensive experience in suing Uncle Suggy over federal agency overreach. Typically referred to as Administrative Law Firms
I'm sure Chicago has plenty. But bring your check book, they will probably want a 6 or 7 figure retainer, JUST TO BEGIN, and as we have seen when suing a recalcitrant adversary with both unlimited resources and time, you may have to dig deep!
Why do you think Elizabeth, Bernie, Sherrod, et. al despise and attack the evil hedge fund guys and S&P 500 corporations, they are part of the select few who can afford the time and expense involved.
Just Google these 3 legal terms. After reading and studying, I will try as best I can to answer any questions you may have.
Standing:
Mootness:
Ripeness:
Wonder if Chief Judge Roberts had a chance to check the stock price this morning !
She's meeting with the interior decorators and architects for the new sauna to be installed in her office at FHFA HQ !
Nice! Good luck to you and I appreciate your time, efforts and resources fighting one or more of the multitudes of federal government overreach associated with this most bizarre 13+ year CONservatorship.
Why not file a Motion in your local Federal District Court and get a Judge to issue a Nationwide Injunction on the Special Purpose Credit Program?
https://texaslawreview.org/demystifying-nationwide-injunctions/
You think that would get Sandra's attention?
I'm asking for a friend !
Or are you guys just going to sit there and b*tch and moan all day?
The GSES Special Purpose Credit Program sounds like it could be Unconstitutional according to one letter to the WSJ today. This is from the 2003 USSCT case, Gratz v Bollinger 539 U. S. 244 (2003): "We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protec-
tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution
that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI. See
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 281 (2001); United States v. Fordice,
505 U. S. 717, 732, n. 7 (1992); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S. 287, 293
(1985). Likewise, with respect to § 1981, we have explained that the pro-
vision was “meant, by its broad terms, to proscribe discrimination in the
making or enforcement of contracts against, or in favor of, any race.” Mc-
Donald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 295–296 (1976). Fur-
thermore, we have explained that a contract for educational services is a
“contract” for purposes of § 1981. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160,
172 (1976). Finally, purposeful discrimination that violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will also violate § 1981.
See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S.
375, 389–390 (1982)."
Wonder if anyone will ask a federal Judge for a TRO?
It'd be one way to get Sandras attention if a shareholder had a TRO issued.
Could it be used by the shareholder as leverage to get her talking to Yellen about ending this 13+ year temporary CONservatorship?