220 minutes 221 minutes whatever it takes

This is an excerpt from a New York Times Article July of 1983. Less the Conservatorship this saga closely resembles FnF's. Even the stock-purchase warrants.
"Lee A. Iacocca, the chairman of the Chrysler Corporation, announced today that the company would pay off within a few weeks the remaining $800 million of federally guaranteed loans that saved the company from bankruptcy.

The announcement gave Chrysler the means to argue that the Federal Government was no longer at risk in backing Chrysler loans and therefore might consider concessions to the auto maker in disposing of 14.4 million stock-purchase warrants........"

yes I agree there may be some hypocrisy but one has nothing to do with the other. I had no indication that you were making reference to her hypocrisy.

So you don't think that these accusations if true should be addressed. The law she refers to seems sound and is to protect us shareholders.

Here is another angle that maybe of concern for the fhfa. That is. If we win this damages lawsuit one could say that the continuation of the NWS would also be a continuation of damages and every sweep is liable for a damages suit. This could be a catalyst to end the sweep and give political cover to bring the administration on board

The federal court data, provided by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
consisted of criminal and civil jury dispositions for all federal district courts for the period 1980
through 1997. The federal hung jury rates in the 14 federal circuits were much more uniform and lower than in state courts, averaging 2.5 percent for criminal trials from 1980 through 1997. *

*The hung jury rate was 1.6 percent for civil trials during the same period
https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/7074/hung-juries-are-they-a-problem.pdf

Does anyone know if some or all of the former F&F BOD's are on the witness list?

Freddie Mac (OTCQB:FMCC) announced today that it plans to report its second quarter 2021 financial results before the U.S. financial markets open on Thursday, July 29, 2021.

Don't you think you are way over complicating things? Assuming you are serious. Usually, solutions come in the form of "as simple as possible". I do not know what the solution is going to be, but I will make one prediction. I would bet the capitol requirement in the end will be a lot less than what it currently is. That alone solves a lot of the issues for release.

Does anyone know if it is unusual for a company(FnF) to have so many preferred series. I think I counted 15 different series of preferred for fannie alone

Technically Robert the director he hired had such a high capitol requirement that we my not have been better off. He also was still trying to shrink FnF's footprint in the secondary market. Therefore one could easily argue that it didn't matter anyways when the numbers are crunched.

I do not know if they would strike it down. Obviously this was not what the plaintiffs strategy was. I am not sure if the law is unconstitutional to begin with but my take is it is a law that has allowed/caused a taking of a private company profits. Maybe one could argue that they have written a law that steps on previous laws like the accepted legal definition and procedures of a conservator. I don't know but it is very hard for me to argue SC's opinion based on the way the law is written.

Primewa, You need to read the opinion. The judgement they made is spot on with the law congress wrote. It has to do with the part the states the agency can do what it deems necessary for the entity and or the agency itself. Therefor the NWS which benefits the agency (tax payor) is not acting beyond the scope of their powers. It is the law (congress) that is flawed here and it should be challenged. Does it suck? Yes. As a common holder since 2006 I hate the fact they seem correct in their ruling. If you have any insight as to why the ruling is wrong I am all ears.

Robert. That is only part of the damages picture. One must also show the president would have specifically changed something that has caused harm to the shareholders ie He would specifically have to indicated his displeasure with the NWS or something of that sort. So it isn't enough to say he would have him replaced because he could just replace him and take no action that helps the stockholder.

Now everyone just calm down. For fck's sake. We do not know what this administration is going to do. They have been pretty quite about FnF. Stick to the facts and stop the doomsday bulsht. There is enough to complain about just from the disappointment of the opinion today. These angry statements without actual facts backing them chisel away at your credibility.

I don't know how else I can say it, but it is congress that wrote the law. The judges just pointed out the obvious. I don't see this as a slick move by the judges. It is pretty clear in the text of the law. Look, I felt like a lot of you here, but after reading the entire opinion, I have shifted my blame to the Recovery act itself. I suggest everyone read the opinion. It is pretty easy reading. Then opine all you want

Here is the problem with winning the remand on the Constitutional Claim. One would have to prove that the takings would not have occurred if the president could have intervened. An example cited in one of the descents is if the president had made an attempt to remove the director unsuccessfully for the purpose of stopping the sweep. In other words the harm the plaintiff alleges must be directly traceable to the unconstitutionality of the "removal for cause" clause

QuoteThat's equivalent to saying that NATIONALIZATION is ok.

So the law as it is written is the problem possibly. Several on this site have speculated that they should have gone after portions of the Recovery act itself. Hopefully our current administration gets FnF back on course but I doubt we see any money returned unless the Recovery Act is litigated.

Quote: SCOTUS interpret that the Agency is equivalent to the public it serves. What a joke ? The NWS was to ensure that the GSEs can never exit the C-ship. May be that's what SCOTUS interpret as public interest.


How else would you or anyone interpret "Agency"

So the law as it is written is the problem possibly. Several on this site have speculated that they should have gone after portions of the Recovery act itself. Hopefully our current administration gets FnF back on course but I doubt we see any money returned unless the Recovery Act is litigated.

Your point is moot. They are allowed by the law to benefit "the agency" ie the tax payer

(a) The Recovery Act grants the FHFA expansive authority in its
role as a conservator and permits the Agency to act in what it determines is “in the best interests of the regulated entity or the Agency.”
§4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) (emphasis added). So when the FHFA acts as a conservator, it may aim to rehabilitate the regulated entity in a way that,
while not in the best interests of the regulated entity, is beneficial to
the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves. This feature of an
FHFA conservatorship is fatal to the shareholders’ statutory claim.

I've been a commons shareholder since 2009 and I always felt that the third amendment being illegal was a no brainer. The portion of the Supreme court opinion below today has convinced me that the third amendment is not illegal. So I disagree with your characterization of "this is a bad legal decision" Does it suck? Yes. But is see no way to argue the point it makes.
(a) The Recovery Act grants the FHFA expansive authority in its
role as a conservator and permits the Agency to act in what it determines is “in the best interests of the regulated entity or the Agency.”
§4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) (emphasis added). So when the FHFA acts as a conservator, it may aim to rehabilitate the regulated entity in a way that,
while not in the best interests of the regulated entity, is beneficial to
the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves. This feature of an
FHFA conservatorship is fatal to the shareholders’ statutory claim.

The following Quote from the Freddie meeting today, in my opinion, is the most exciting/promising statements I have heard in 11 years. Not only because of it's content, but also, it came from the David Brickman the flippin CEO of Feddie flippin Mac.

"I will close by saying that more so than any time in the past 11 years, we at Freddie Mac believe our fate is in our own hands."

For what it"s worth, when I bought into FnF commons about 10 years ago I felt very sure that FnF would pull through due to it's irreplaceability. The only doubt I had was the possibility of a new FnF being created. My thoughts were, even if a new FnF were formed, I would be made whole. I had faith in the legal process as naive some may think that is.
This statement triggered, for the first time ever, me to let my guard down and truly accept that the end,for sure, is near.

They (politicians) keep saying that FnF are a duopoly and make it seem that FnF are the only ones competing in the mortgage (MBS) Ginnie and FHA even though they are not profit driven they still take a huge hunk of the secondary mortgage market which no matter how you slice it they are in direct competition to any institution trying to break into the secondary mortgage MBS market.

I said nothing about the sweep in my statement

I know, but the point is he thinks it is constitutionally structured even though they ruled it wasn't. As if he is ignoring the courts like a dictator. At minimum he should have acknowledged the decision and maybe disagreed. Imagine if you were one of the judges in the majority on the ruling and you saw this would that not infuriate you. They have the final say.

OH he said plenty about the commons. He said if they are capitalized etc etc they will trade and he also mentioned there were a couple of scenarios they won't trade.

I just watched the CNBC interview with Dr. Calabria. The statement that sticks out the most is "....I believed it was legal then and believe it is legal now..." He is in essence saying that who cares what the courts ruled I believe I am right and therefor I am dismissing the powers of an entire branch of government.

And still spelling it like a child. It's 'psych'.

That is/has always been my plan too.

If I understand the ruling correctly, the NetWS was absolutely deemed "illegal". Does anyone think a next step from someones lawyer would be an emergency injunction from them continuing the sweep at all?

Are F&F divies taxed at 15%

"Well, Obama was unable to get Obama care funded by a GOP dominated congress. So, he concocted the "secret plan" to take over fnma and fmcc and confiscate the profits to fund Obamacare."

I agree with you on the corrupt takings portion of your post. Your time line is 100% wrong as it was not Obama who "took over" F&F it was done during the Busch administration. As I'm sure you know. Do I think President Obama continued and escalated the takings? Yes!

I do not assume to know what either Administration was thinking/planning when they started/continued the takings, but Busch seemed to intend this as a temporary solution to the mortgage market's continued operation. I base this on the fact that he is on record stating this from the inception of the conservatorship.

Now President Obama on the other hand, as far as I can see, really doesn't go on record anywhere as to what his intentions/legal standings are for the GSEs. But this does not automatically make him complicit in a crime, in my opinion. Simply because I have seen no proof presented to support this. On the other hand. It is tempting to say "If it walks like a duck...." but I must take caution in accusing anyone without proof in part because there are many instances in history that a President's staff has misled/deceived or even gone rogue.

In conclusion, We need to see the entire paper trail of the F&F fiasco prior to casting blame. Even with the entire picture in hand there maybe some reasonable/legal reasons that each part of the timeline played out by the trio of administrations. I do have my doubts to the latter.

Maybe they feel this falls under the defense that has got them this far, which is: FHFA is able to do whatever is deemed by them to be in the best interest of the GSE's. So far this defense has successfully cast a very large blanket over many of their shenanigans.

Would it be unheard of for a judge to tell, let's say, both parties that since the defendants do not want to argue constitutionality of the FHFA director that the enbanc decision is greatly affected by the defense not defending the constitutionality of the director. Thereby giving them the opportunity to amend this portion of their defense.This would be wise on the judges behalf so as to avoid an inevitable appeal by the defense on that point of FHFA director constitutionality

It is contradictory to write an entire article promoting property rights and not include the warrants as takings. When the author himself states:
"In addition, Treasury received warrants to purchase 80% of the common stock of each enterprise for virtually nothing."

This lack of concern for the warrants'"takings" makes me question the authors motives or perhaps his myopia.

Of course congress can change any one thing in HERA. They amend laws all the time. Why do you think they can"t do that in this case.

I just sent this to my two senators feel free to use it maybe we can get them to start small.

It seems, based on a recent fox interview, FHFA Director Mark Calabria is touting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have capital standards in line with banks. This would cause the cost of financing to rise considerably. This flies in the face of F&F's affordable housing mandate. It is easy to show that this standard applied to F&F is misguided just by looking at historical residential mortgage delinquencies and you will see that banks are generally 3 times the delinquency rate of F&F. I have children who are coming to home purchasing age and I want them to be able to afford financing a home. Senator I want to be frank with you I have been following this F&F dilemma since the conservatorship and many of the comments I am hearing is that congress is not getting anything done in general. Please consider this one small step and try to get other Senators to get a bill together to set the capital standard for F&F at the more appropriate rate of 1.5% max. This is a link that will explain the technical's in plain English as to the logic for the capital standard I am asking you to endorse. https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2019/06/19/assessing-the-fhfa-capital-rule/

thank you