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.
Hi YanksGhost,
Regarding October 11, 2019 SCOTUS Conference.
Because the CFPB is not defending the constitutionality of Section 5491(c)(3) (Dodd-Frank) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 - and recommends that the Writ of Certiorari be granted to Seila Law, LCC, CFPB suggests to SCOTUS that the court should consider appointing an amicus curiae to defend the Court of Appeals ruling against Seila Law.
Also see: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151494609
Looks like we are just following the Dow.
Yes. Following the DJI since 1:09 pm EST (1 minute increments). Will that change?
I have often wondered about something else: why were the commons not de-listed earlier? I see that, for 30 straight days starting December 1 2008, FNMA closed under $1. Shouldn't the NYSE have forcefully de-listed FNMA at that point?
No. The NYSE does not "forcefully delist" companies that are not in compliance with listing rules. There are delisting procedures found in NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 8 Suspension and Delisting - mainly 802.02 and 802.03 and 804.00 the formal delisting procedures when a cure is not forthcoming. see: https://bit.ly/2Vvjdfz
Regarding the December 1, 2008 to 30 days later period see below.
Before delisting, the NYSE sends a notice listing non-compliance and waits for a company response indicating a plan to reach compliance or to voluntarily delist or become subject to negative delisting procedures. Companies are given a 6 month cure period.
In the case of FNMA, FNMA fell out of compliance under 802.01C - Price Criteria for Capital or Common Stock. See: https://bit.ly/33gFjVL
The item is reproduced below:
Given the enornimity of FNMA and its affect on America, as well as the egragarious nature of the NWS which "Threatens" not just FNMA, but our American way of life to include private property (home ownership), isnt the court's responsibility to protect Americans, from criminals, even when the criminals (in this case) are our government?
In part yes. The judiciary serves as part of the civil and criminal justice system.
Criminal Justice System
https://victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/the-criminal-justice-system
Criminal Justice System
https://www.bjs.gov/content/justsys.cfm
What are the differences between the civil and criminal justice system?
https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and
Isnt it true that people will die because of a implosion of economy.
(More people commit suicide and murder in a very poor economy).
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1233
That depends on which country and economy is considered. The reverse of what is stated above is found in developed countries.
For example,
Old age mortality and macroeconomic cycles
https://jech.bmj.com/content/68/1/44
In developed countries, mortality rates increase during upward cycles in the economy, and decrease during downward cycles. This effect is similar for the older and middle-aged population. Traditional explanations as work-stress and traffic accidents cannot explain our findings. Lower levels of social support and informal care by the working population during good economic times can play an important role, but this remains to be formally investigated.
As an example, many Veterans die waiting on VA benefits:
https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-veterans-die-while-waiting-for-va-benefits-muschick-20180329-story.html
Further, about 20 Veterans die, each day, to their own hand due to suicide.
https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=4074
It is disheartening.
Here is Secretary Wilkie in 2018: He starts at 15:00.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?451762-1/va-secretary-wilkie-testifies-agency-priorities
Secretary Wilkie in March 2019
https://www.defensenews.com/video/2019/04/09/interview-veterans-affairs-secretary-robert-wilkie/
For comparison:
Mortality in the United States, 2017
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db328-h.pdf
Suicide
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml
That is, hasnt America "waited long enough" for justice and should something not be done to stop the illegal confiscation of private property, which can lead to not just economic problems, but to deaths related to economic conditions??
The wheels of civil justice turn exceedingly slow. So many cases and so few competent judges and clerks.
Obit, the term "post decisional injunction" is (one of many terms) I invented. Since you indicated it was unlikely to qualify for a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, I thought, Why not a "post decisional" injunction?
Understood.
In other words, is an "injunction" limited to "preliminary"?
Here is link to a clearly written description about injunctions and the different types of injunctions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction
In the case of the en banc decision, frankly the decision "fell short" of a shareholder remedey, but indicated shareholders were "injured" by the NWS.
Of course, this NWS happened, in part or in whole, due to the unconstitutionality of the structure of FHFA.
Given the "injury" due to shareholders, and, due to the "schedule of further injury", that is, further NWS payments (which I consider a confiscation of private property) the Fifth Circuit "non actions" in this regard cause further damages to the shareholders.
These damages have the potential of being "fatal" to fannie shareholders, that is, it could "wind down" fnma.
Much worse, lets talk about "damages" to America.
Yes.
Isnt it true that FNMA enables average people, and especially minorities to buy a home that other wise could not become homeowners??
Yes.
And, destroying the very institution which facilitates low down 30 year fixed rate mortgages for "average" people, would not only be bad for minorities, but bad for the middle class, and bad for America.
Indeed.
If you own a home in America, and need to sell it, chances are very good the buyer will finance through FNMA/FMCC. So destroying FNMA (by allowing confiscation of all monies needed to capitalize the company) hurts buyers, hurts sellers, hurts builders, hurts builder suppliers, hurts construction workers, hurts companies who supply things like applicances, landscape, title services, home owner warranties, and "virtually all" American made products for the home? (Which is pretty much everything).
Yes. Housing starts, buying, selling, and financing housing, housing furnishings, maintenance and remodeling, rents and utilities play an essential central role in the US economy accounting for about 15%-17% of GDP. http://eyeonhousing.org/2018/10/declines-for-housing-share-of-gdp/
Given the "thin ice" that the government has put FNMA in by confiscating arounnd 200 billion dollars of needed capital, further confiscation of FNMA capital by the government could actually cause an implosion of our economy, where homes can hardly be bought or sold, would not need to be built, and they couldnt afford to remodel or repair them either, since many homes are repaired "for sale", but when no sale can be effected because of a lack of acceptable financing our economy and way of life would implode.
I dont think there would be a single American "not affected" by a destruction of fannie and freddie.
Yes. That is so.
You are welcome Foodirectr. It was a pleasure.
You are welcome Rk3.
so - what I purposefully called departments are Executive agencies and places like EPA and the like are Federal agencies
There is the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and 15 departments in the Executive Branch.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Treasury
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Please read the Sourcebook on the EPA and the section What is a Federal Agency? The EPA is not clearly a federal agency since its structural status is still in flux, and therefore, the EPA is not a good example of a (non-independent) federal agency since it has been classified both ways.
Applicable examples of (non-independent)federal agencies are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
the report DJT asked for and which came out - I think - one day before the fifth circuit saved us
The Statement of Work in the RFP will be a building-out of that plan rather than building on the Treasury Housing Reform Plan.
Is there something that could be done with respect to being place on the OTC.
First, it is necessary to examine the FHFA reasons for delisting because these reasons are to be challenged in a complaint.
The FHFA directed delisting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the New York Stock on June 16, 2010 was publicly announced and officially recorded as being "related to stock exchange requirements for maintaining price levels and curing deficiencies." Specifically stated in a FHFA press release:
Great find. I tried to locate this on gselinks.com, but was unable to locate it — is it there?
No. Not yet.
It is here: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/18-cv-03478-0038.pdf
Here is the 2018 edition of the Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies (Second Edition)
https://bit.ly/2LOWDLw
Definition of Independent Federal Agency - pp. 42-44
In the first edition see pp. 48-50
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/Sourcebook12.pdf
FHFA is not part of the executive branch (as your email implies - I think twice)
Yes.
While highly independent - it is the executive as its not legislative or judiciary ?
It is an executive agency and it is not part of the Executive Branch of government or the Executive Office of the President.
There is no definitive definition but it has been defined with two aspects. The second aspect is being challenged in the Supreme Court:
1. FHFA is an independent federal agency since it is established outside the direct aegis of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the 15 executive branch departments. FHFA is not required report to a higher official and in this way it is seen as independent. HERA specifies what FHFA has to do with Congress.
2. FHFA has been an independent federal agency also because the Director had a for-cause removal statutory protection and by that was insulated from any political interference by the President or elected officials in the Senate and House. The same goes for the CFPB.
There are many independent federal agencies. Here is a link to a text that covers it all.
Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/Sourcebook12.pdf
Here is a clearly written description
https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/independent-agencies/
Other material
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVMAN-2018-12-03/pdf/GOVMAN-2018-12-03.pdf
I got a bit lost
Re these two acts ---
Two acts are required to officially end the conservatorships. The receipt of a signed consent letter from Treasury allowing FHFA to end the conservatorship. An official statement and document from the FHFA Director declaring the end of the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I agree - if DJT and SM and … really are on our side - this is a must do.
My question
If done - can it be undone by a conflicting Executive Order ? My impression is that such reversal is hard if the FIRST Executive Orders have strong data - rationale - and argument (as actions to reverse a prior Executive action cannot be arbitrary an capricious -- as we have witnessed)
?
Highly doubtful to no.
How about injunctive relief protecting the GSE’s intellectual property from pirates disguised as Contractors? I believe I read from an article that the powers that be want F&F to share their intellectual property to level the playing field?
I may have misunderstood this, does anyone else remember the article? I can’t find it.
A March 26, 2019 American Banker article by Edward Pinto refers to "remedying all GSE data monopolies, intellectual property ownership and technology that serve to restrict private competition or provide the GSEs an unfair advantage."
For those who read the scope in detail
My sense is the GOV (the 600 workers) did do a bunch of work (with or without outside help) --- THE REPORT
So - I assume- guess - the GOV (FHFA in particular) feels they have gone as far as they can - with ideas and outlines - options
Now if the GOV - FHFA wants to go to a next level of detail - with data and data and data - they believe they need help to get to that NEXT LEVEL
I wonder
Is there mention - as I would suspect or hope - of building on the report?
(in essence fleshing it out with lots of data based scenarios and impacts and ..)
?
What report donotunderstand?
Thanks, obi, for your usual thoughtful and comprehensive response.
You are welcome YanksGhost. Always a pleasure to dialogue.
I think I will amend my view to clarify that the solicitation is for an Advisory Firm to avoid interpretation that is one individual. I, myself, have a Financial Advisor so I do get the difference as noted. It was not my intention to suggest or imply that a lone individual was being retained to perform the project for FHFA.
Yes. That was clearly understood considering the firms mentioned.
I will be interested to see how news outlets react to all this.
It will be a surprise if news/media people dig it up from https://www.fbo.gov. Or, perhaps, read about it on the forums.
Thanks. Have a nice Sunday.
Thanks. Enjoy.
Obi, if money wasn’t an issue. What would you sue the government for, knowing what we know today.
Hypothetically, to file complaints, there must be substantial holdings of pre-conservatorships Fannie and Freddie preferred and common stock as a long term investment. That is, before 2008 or at least before 2012.
If the above condition is met, the following complaints would be filed in 2012:
In the US Court of Federal Claims, file a complaint seeking just compensation for a regulatory taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
In district court, file a complaint for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief of injury suffered by agency violations of the APA and HERA through vacating the net worth sweep. File a complaint for declaratory judgment and compensation on claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding liquidation preferences and, breach of the implied covenant with respect to dividend rights.
Ok. But what about a "post decisional injucunction" to prevent further taking of shareholder property with the Fifth Circuit??
Or is there such a thing, Obit??
Unfamiliar with the term "post decisional injucunction." What is the origin or source that term chessmaster315?
Good day, Obi.
Good day, YanksGhost.
Could we briefly revisit the RFP discussed vigorously yesterday?
Yes.
I spent much of last evening reviewing the solicitation and most of the attachments, especially the Statement of Work in Attachment A which seems to carry the majority of content that would be of interest to investors. My conclusion after a lot of reading and a mighty headache is that the "Contractor" designation applies to any party being awarded the services contract. That same word appears in almost every solicitation in the site's link to other, open solicitations (tab at the bottom of the entry page).
Yes. "Contractor" is used as well as "Vendor" and "Offeror." These terms apply to the party submitting a required proposal in order to be the sole winner in receiving the stated contract.
Several opinions yesterday were expressed that a "Contractor" was not indicative of FHFA soliciting a Financial Advisor, citing your observations as corroborative of that conclusion. Your opinion carries and deserves a lot of weight on this forum. Could you clarify your interpretation on this?
Yes. First off, the term "financial advisor" is not used in the FHFA solicitation. This is an assumed designation. That designation and others were used as a term for an individual person applying for a job or an individual person (non-corporate) vying for a contract or that the solicitation sought an individual for a job or to fulfill a contract. However, an individual person could not perform the statement of work and the solicitation was not seeking an individual.
In Section C.9 (a) NONDISCLOSURE OF CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION, INCLUDING FHFA NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION (JUN 2019) Contractor "....means Contractor and Contractor’s directors, officers, employees, subcontractors, agents, or consultants. Also, throughout the solicitation, "contractor's employees," "employees" and "personnel" are referred to for various purposes. For example in Section F, the offeror is instructed and required to propose in detail key personnel.
You are welcome Ace Trader.
That is a good question to ask the next time there is a Investors Unite teleconference.
Why can’t they file an injunction to stop FHFA and UST making changes while court proceedings and final judgement is awarded to shareholders!!
It can be filed.
A preliminary injunction can be filed to maintain a status quo. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a preliminary injunction must fulfill all four criteria given below:
Thank you Obiterdictum!!!
You are always welcome Lotto65.
You post a short paragraph, takes me 2 hours of research to comprehend. Happy you here with us! Go FnF!
Please know that knowledge of this particular subject matter and associated knowledge domains have been accumulating for about 11 years.
Meaning, you are a hell of alot smarter than me.
That may not be so. Doing research and reporting it is a learned skill. It takes a bit of practice and experience and some smarts. And not a great amount of smarts are needed to strictly follow and master a simple set of rules.
Yes, all proposed legislation failed over a 11 yr period, which is why republicans in the committee essentially told the administration to act b.c there is housing reform exhaustion in congress. Get the GSEs of the Gov books as much as possible before 2020.
I’m still of the mindset that even if a Dem is elected in 2020, enough progress will have been made that it will be irreversible by a new Dem administration. Calabria has a 5 yr term - understand a constitutional challenge to the structure of FHFA, but I don’t think the agency as a whole is in jeopardy of being dissolved on an unconstitutional basis.
The administration will act. The question is how?
Almost any administrative act performed by the current FHFA Director and Treasury Secretary under a Republican President can be reversed or modified in the same manner as being done now under a Democrat President, if a Democrat is elected.
A key administrative act is needed that can insulate against reversing the actual administrative progress being made in housing finance reform, namely, the delivery of Housing Finance Reform Plans, increasing the applicable capital reserve amounts, temporarily suspending the NWS, building core capital, working to establish a capital rule, contemplating and executing recapitalization capital raise plans, etc.
That key administrative act that is not easily reversible or modified is the act of ending the conservatorships.
Two acts are required to officially end the conservatorships. The receipt of a signed consent letter from Treasury allowing FHFA to end the conservatorship. An official statement and document from the FHFA Director declaring the end of the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In the Treasury Plan there are 31 recommended administrative acts. The most important ones at the moment are given below and they have or are being acted on.
Hi Rick,
Same job posting. It is just that the statement of work is not for a single financial advisor. It is for an outside Contractor who will work and coordinate others to accomplish the statement of work. One person alone could not do it all.
It is a bit of wonder that FHFA personnel along with GSE personnel could not fulfill the statement of work in-house.
Hi Rick,
The RFP is not for a financial advisor. The RFP is for a Contractor that can marshall the personnel (subcontractors, firms, individuals) to carry out the Statement of Work as contracted.
See: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=68766fcb597990a22e5e5187f7f57ddf
note
being cynical !!!!
the need for expertise in complicate fields and the potential for all types of outcomes to actions - is why the regulated often beat up on the regulators ---- and why utilities do well - even when regulated
thus - the cynical side of me has less fear of being regulated than the middle side which has near zero fear to begin with --- i.e. being a regulated utility may be a way to guarantee a good life
What are the actual benefits of cynicism or trust? Harboring either of these and the similar appears leads to various kinds internal and external unpleasantness when either are proved to be wholly unwarranted.
Consider the shattered trust in government, financial, economic and political leaders involved with FNMA. What does it lead to on this forum?
as the call feature in most is at the discretion of the company and not the security holder (no PUT provision) - not sure how a call feature impacts.
When a preferred share is called for redemption at the discretion of the issuer/company, the issuer/company may redeem the preferred shares, in whole or in part, out of funds legally available. The reduction of company funds is the impact.
As you know, redemption may be done by an issuer/company in order to retire redeemable, higher dividend rate preferred shares (i.e. 8.25%) for a lower dividend rate preferred shares (i.e. 5%) and in doing so must pay a pre-stated call price and any premium above par value.
my comments were that the explanation of the WHY did not sufficiently distinguish preferred stock from bonds.
Understood.
Did your explanation need to be perfect for your main point to be right No of course not.
Yes.
Does that negate that some of the writing about preferreds was "defeccient" on a BOARD where at least 5 posters keep talking about debt debenture interest when talking about preferred stock and thus distinctions should be as clear as can be
Clarity and accuracy in financial terminology is important for understanding and can be critical to understand actual world occurrences as they are and not as imagined. For example, warrants being seen as collateral.
do not see a clash and can easily agree that I pointed to concerns with the less important part of your post
No clash. Understood.
to paraphrase
"who knew that providing liquidity to the housing finance market could be this complicated"
And the complexity of the knowledge of mortgage finance, logisitics and operations, etc. required to understand the secondary mortgage market is what stumps, stymies and confuses legislators. How many legislators in the House and Senate have the required business acumen to understand exactly what the GSEs do? How can one create legislation about what one does not fully understand?
So, so legislators come to depend on lobbyists, think tanks, various "experts," etc. to actually write proposed legislation. This how and where special interests enter their agendas and plans directly into House and Senate bill proposals.
Below is a report on model legislation, where non-legislators write bills for legislators.
In order of complexity
Visual
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/asbestos-sharia-law-model-bills-lobbyists-special-interests-influence-state-laws/
Text and Video
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/03/abortion-gun-laws-stand-your-ground-model-bills-conservatives-liberal-corporate-influence-lobbyists/3162173002/
to paraphrase
"who knew that providing liquidity to the housing finance market could be this complicated"
And the complexity of the knowledge of mortgage finance, logisitics and operations, etc. required to understand the secondary mortgage market is what stumps, stymies and confuses legislators. How many legislators in the House and Senate have the required business acumen to understand exactly what the GSEs do? How can one create legislation about what one does not fully understand?
So, so legislators come to depend on lobbyists, think tanks, various "experts," etc. to actually write proposed legislation. This how and where special interests enter their agendas and plans directly into House and Senate bill proposals.
obit
over many years of buying 10000 types of securities (or names)
I agree preferred is not in market cap - as is not in the formula
Yes. The primary idea of the post.
I do think the description of preferred make them TOO bond like
For the purpose of explanation, the bond aspect was highlighted and so it appears that way.
"As the Treasury plan states, this is done to increase competition in the secondary mortgage market."
Obi, Thanks,
You are welcome bcde
Financial establishment is working very hard to get Gov explicit guarantees for private MBS using every possible trick. This is the main reason for continued Conservatorship. FHFA Conservatorship has violated every possible law but still all three branches Gov and media have done nothing much to end this lawless conservatorship.
There is no way any one can trust financial establishment (Wall street bankers, traders, MBA and think tank lobbyists). When was the last time the financial establishment ever promoted competition to make things better for common people? This is how financial establishment has fooled the people all along.
One can clearly see what happened when the financial establishment was freed from the Glass-Steagall Act. Within few years, financial establishment created worst financial crisis (2008) of the century through dishonest and fraudulent profiteering. Also one has to look at how the financial establishment has used its iron grip on Gov, to destroy the competition though lawless FHFA conservatorship.
GSEs were started decades back to help common people to own homes and escape from the clutches of loan sharks and evil landlords. There is no way competition is going to substitute Gov affordable housing policies.
Most lawmakers know these facts, and there is no support for removing the GSE charters. Also there is no way lawmakers will approve Gov explicit guarantees for private MBS. This is the lesson all have to learn from 11 years of lawless conservatorship.
There is a clear multi-level political divide on this issue of federal charters.
There are legislators who do not want the federal government involved in housing finance and want free market enterprise activity to determine housing and company outcomes, not the federal government. There are legislators who want the federal government to control the financing and direction of the secondary mortgage market and seek to continue to nationalize and directly control the GSEs goals and actions. There are those who see a hybrid solution of having a paid for government backstop while having the companies privatized. There those who want to dissolve the GSE and create new companies. Most legislators have no clue of what is to be done and follow the agenda of their party affiliation. In other words, the inaction of the legislature over the years is due to their confusion and conflict about what to do. The evidence is found in the plethora of failed legislative proposals. It is not black and white.
For examples see: https://bit.ly/332FeVt and https://bit.ly/2LP6xgj