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.
warrants? ... warrants are issued directly by the company ... how would you establish a position in the warrants?
No, no, no ... this is the choo choo administration that is here to save existing shareholders with the rule of law and fairness! ... they've got our backs! ... stratospheric capital requirement? ... fake news! ... effective continuation of NWS? ... fake news! ... endlessly battle and delay court justice? ... fake news! ... our fate is in the hands of our sworn saviors! ... close your eyes and rejoice! ... only lemmings feel otherwise! ...
I sadly believe that the current WH/admin want to hurt existing shareholders, and they want/need a SCOTUS victory to do that ... but IF DT loses ... then HE may have missed his chance to hurt existing shareholders and reward HIS buddies (i.e., without SCOTUS ruling) ... but the NEXT prez will get HIS chance to do the same thing, but reward HIS buddies ...
robert, bite your tongue ... don't you know this WH/admin is just looking for SCOTUS to provide cover to treat EXISTING shareholders fairly? ... the gov't is our friend and they are here to help us! ...
reaching agreement on ending the NWS and returning the over payment will do nothing to deter those that think they will file law suits over the exercise of the warrants ... the NWS was the 20% taking ... the REAL theft was the 80% warrants ... though, unless FHFA is ruled unconstitutional from day one, the warrants will be exercised/sold ... yes, they are an f'ing outrageous taking ... but who will be a credible plaintiff to file a decades long, expensive suit to prove that? ...
... unless ... WH waiting for support to crush EXISTING shareholders with SCOTUS ruling against P's ... it COULD happen ... Congress hates us, WH/admin. fighting us tooth and nail ... most courts have rule against us, kept hidden docs secret and allowed unfathomable delays ... we should NEVER take for granted that RRR = good for EXISTING shareholders ... nor that immoral/unethical behavior = illegal ... once we were placed in cship, common sense and fairness were suspended ... if they ever really existed in the first place ... forever zero or hero
+ a few pennies = Choo Choo Express
- a few pennies = OTC (and lemmings!) manipulation
good grief ... "K.I.S.S." on steroids?
its F'ing highway robbery in broad daylight ... but the gov't will simply say FnF were insolvent, regardless of the fact that they really weren't AND the pps was far above $0.00001 at time of issue ... and ... as we have so painfully learned, the gov't has UNLIMITED TIME AND MONEY to defend law suits ... so new law suits won't be any deterrent to the gov't and, possibly, not to any new investors - IF new investors are even needed (i.e., vs recap via retained earning over X years)
My 100K common shares would likely be worth many millions if the warrants are cancelled or repurchased at a nominal sum ... but the main headline on the day that happens will likely be "Hell Freezes Over" ... ; )
and one step further down ... click on the attachment ... many thanks to Yanks and you
https://www.fhfa.gov//SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Comment-Detail.aspx?CommentId=15558
just searched FHFA comments and nothing came up?
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/RegulationFederalRegister/Pages/Commentonrule.aspx
Hadn't read this ... thanks ... and count me in if we are allowed to sue ... the warrants were the real theft ... that's my story and I'm stickin to it!
the big question is how much of the warrant and cap raise dilution is ALREADY built into the price ... no one actually knows ... but given what may be an impossibly long and expensive pathway to void the warrants ... and the assumption that some amount of cap raise is unavoidable ... it is at least reasonable to think that most of those two events are factored in ... if so, two main things are left ... retire the NWS/return the over payment ... and release/relist ... and I think those are worth a lot more than $1-$2 per share ...
I did completely read both docs you directed me to (again, thanks) ... the two questions are:
1. Whether FHFA exceeded its statutory powers
under 12 U.S.C. § 4617 when it agreed to transfer the
Companies’ net worth to Treasury in perpetuity in exchange for no meaningful consideration; and
2. Whether under the statute’s succession clause,
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A), FHFA succeeded to shareholders’ right to sue FHFA for wiping out their investments.
Assuming you are referring to #2, are you saying the "wiping out of their (shareholders') investments" refers to the claims (beyond the NWS) that plaintiffs will be allowed to pursue with a favorable decision? Or, to say it another way, was Wash Fed the only one who decided to go after the cship itself and roll the dice on the succession clause - and they too can decide to appeal their dismissal to SCOTUS? Many thanks ... and hope I am not trying your patience
PS this is the reference to the warrants ... even the plaintiffs make them sound like the warrants were part of the consideration for the credit line from Treasury ... and NOT something that was illegal or a taking (at least to me)
Pg 12
Second, FHFA agreed that the Companies would
issue warrants entitling Treasury to acquire 79.9% of
their common stock at a nominal price. Id. ¶ 67. As
Treasury noted at the time, the warrants were designed to “provide potential future upside to the taxpayers,” id., but this upside would be shared with the
Companies’ other preferred and common shareholders.
??? if shareholders can't bring suits while FnF are in cship, how did the collins NWS challenge get to SCOTUS?
great article - thanks ... makes it seem even more likely that SCOTUS will find the "for cause" constitutional violation severable, so HERA and FHFA will survive ... so will the warrants and only question is will there be retro relief on the NWS ... which might not be granted, but still voided if FHFA is found to have exceeded its authority
Aside from HERA itself being found unconstitutional (above) and/or warrant taking not ripe until they are exercised, are there any other legal theories on how warrants will be voided?
Ok, first, thanks again for the links, really appreciated. Bottom line - I think the warrants will stand legally:
- its far from certain we will get any favorable rulings ... some justices have held that the "for cause" constitutional violation is both severable AND does does not warrant retrospective relief ... it remains to be seen which way SCOTUS will rule on BOTH of these issues (some feel the Selia Law ruling settled both of these issues, but clearly there are enough differences between CFPB and FHFA that SCOTUS granted the certiorari petition)
- while plaintiffs claim that FHFA is unconstitutional on a number of grounds, they ONLY ask to vacate the NWS ... I did not see a single mention of asking for the warrants to be set aside (nor the PSPA for that matter) ... so even IF SCOTUS rules that the FHFA is unconstitutional, will that automatically vacate ALL FHFA decisions, including the cship itself? If that were to be true, then why focus on the NWS when the retro remedy for an unconstitutional agency would automatically void ALL decisions? I admit that it would be totally arbitrary for the court to award retro relief that only vacates the NWS and magically insulates ALL other decisions, but the apparent TOTAL absence of any other requested remedies makes me feel that is exactly what is most likely to happen (assuming we get any kind of favorable ruling at all).
- Having said the above, IF FHFA is ruled unconstitutional and only the NWS is vacated, I do wonder if other suits will arise that will challenge the cship itself (or will they be precluded by statute of limitations?)
- I'm still amazed and totally mystified with all of the fuss focused on the NWS, a 20% taking, when the 80% warrants are where the real theft occurred
cheers, shadow
RS does NOT change % ownership, only pps (up or down) ... isn't % ownership only changed when shares are bought/sold (by individuals) or issued/retired (by corporation)?
Really appreciated (all docs)!! ... and will circle back IF I can add anything useful!
Guido, thanks ... favor, please ... is this the reply you are referring to:https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/17-20364-00514168238.pdf
not sure why plaintiff's would settle before SCOTUS decision (next June?) ... odds seem very high that, at minimum, nws is reversed ... if plaintiff's do lose, that would seem to fundamentally undermine capitalism and rule of law ... welcome to russia? ... oh well, i guess tom cotton will just tell us it was a necessary evil ... because, you know, the ends justify the means ...
Warrants question ... why do some believe that SCOTUS accepting the Collin's case creates a chance that warrants will be reversed? ... is it that a retro remedy on the "for cause" issue could invalidate all FHFA actions, including the cship/10% draw/warrants/nws/etc. ... or some other legal angle? ... sorry I'm still confused about this and TIA
ditto
agreed ... DT's mo is to push everything to the courts ... and that is what he has done here ... in spades ... election outcome not a factor ... if he wins, he plugs along in courts ... if he loses, he will likely have much bigger problems
Yes, my error ... 79.9 does not trigger concolidation ... but if you think taking has already occurred, why no law suits other than wash fed?
yeah, but warrant holders don't vote, don't get dividends (if declared) and don't count those shares towards ownership % - which, if they did, the gov't would have had to add TRILLIONS of debt to its balance sheet, and that hasn't happened yet ... so maybe the taking hasn't occurred ... which is GOOD because if a taking had occurred and no one filed a suit, that would be very BAD
If warrants exercised, I don't have the right connections to file a suit, but I would be totally ready to join such an effort and contribute up to $10K ... not a huge sum by litigation standards, but hopefully others will be similarly inclined ... just let us know ... maybe then we would get to see the thousands of hidden documents ... thanks, shadow
Guido2, thanks and good to know ... I need to so some research on Bryndon Fisher, which I will do ... many thanks for the guidance
ok, then can you show me even one article or statement by any one (other than posters here) that says that? ... just one ...
since the current administration has done EVERYTHING to hurt EXISTING shareholders, how can some folks think the same administration will not exercise the warrants? ... at this stage, I am not aware of any suit that even challenges the warrants ... I suppose its theoretically possible that a court could rule that a non-severable termination-for-cause structure retroactively voids ALL prior FHFA actions, including the cship, nws and warrants, but is that what folks are counting on? ... if its some other legal angle, then why haven't we seen that reflected in a suit? ... yes, I understand that folks are saying that AIG and other were allowed to buy back their warrants for a de minimis amount, but, again, if those cases are relevant precedent, why haven't we seen law suits reflecting that? ... is that because suits won't (can't) be filed until the warrants are exercised? ... but if that is true, how come I NEVER read anything by any big players that that is the case? ... tia, shadow
Ok, after just 12 years of debate, I think we have definitely reached a consensus ...
- the nws definitely will, or will not, be reversed
- the warrants definitely will, or will not, be voided/cheap buy back
- collins orals definitely will, or will not, take place this year
- a consent decree definitely will, or will not, be issued before the election
- the reserve requirement definitely will, or will not, be reasonable
- the jps definitely will, or will not, be converted
- rbg definitely will, or will not, make it to jan 20 2021
- i definitely will, or will not, live to see rrr
- dt definitely will, or will not, get re-elected
- dt definitely will, or will not, eventually be proven right ... about everything
- i definitely will, or most certainly will, be placed more on ignore
ahhh, harmony is such a beautiful thing ...
what is their motive? you're joking right? what was their motive when they:
- drafted HERA with the anti-injunctive clause AND that the conservator "may" (optionally) conserve assets, instead of "shall" (obligatory) conserve assets
- gave their buddies advance notice of the cship at eton park, letting them get out before the public announcement and ensuring the lies about insolvency and an impending collapse would look valid
- fraudulently wrote down assets in collusion with the auditors no less
- forced them into cship
- forced a 10%, non-repayable draw
- took warrants for 80% of the companies
- took the remaining 20% with the NWS
- lied about a death spiral just before historic profitability
- fought and delayed EVERY law suit as fiercely as possible
- proposed reserve requirements that are so excessive they could cripple the recap and force business to competitors
yeah, they ain't got no motive to treat us bad ... none ...
really do hope you're right ... it would obviously be a game changer ... even with excessive reserve requirements and a jps conversion (i have no idea if that will happen), cheers
holy crap ... yes, you are right ... so the math looks even worse ... my apologies and good catch!
your speculation may or may not be right ... for now, the likely thousands of incredibly sophisticated investors (i.e., the market) that track two of the world most profitable financial institutions seem to believe otherwise (the vagaries of the OTC notwithstanding) ... meanwhile, we were just told that scotus orals will likely not occur until next year, so this could easily drift downward until then ... thanks and good luck to us all
not sure what all the fuss is over returning the nws "over payment" ... what ever that figure is, the gov't will get 80% of the benefit when the warrants are exercised ... this whole focus on the nws vs the warrants reminds me of the joke about the guy looking for his keys at night under the street light when his car was parked down the street ... a good Samaritan wanting to help asked "why are you looking here when you car is way over there?" ... the driver said "because this is where the light is" ...
let's says the over payment is $30B ... divided by 1.2B common = $25/sh x 20% (common's share after warrants) = $5/shs ... and that's before recap dilution ... and the infamous jps conversion ...
our bumper sticker should say ... "It's the warrants, stupid" ... or maybe just "I'm stupid" ...
proposed 4%+ reserve requirement not a major step backwards? ... just because it isn't finalized, no harm, no foul? ... just like the warrants, not exercised yet so all good? ... never seen so many folks bend over backwards to rationalize their continued support of an obviously anti-FnF administration ...
skeptic, i would be fully in your court except for the en banc decision and sweeney's pointed comments likening the gov't behavior to the mob ... having said that, I have been unable to understand the optimism for any near term outcome, much less a favorable one, and agree the likely one year delay (+ growing delinquencies/defaults) could depress share price further ... who would have ever thought our own gov't, especially under DT, would have done this and/or continue to fight against a reasonable settlement ...
not sure why some think good news is just weeks away? and between pandemic/economy and election, it seems hard to imagine any kind of administrative/settlement before the election ... and much less by October (SC orals) ... so we wait ... and watch re-runs ; )
so, does the presumption of retrospective relief not only allow for the possibility of voiding the NWS, but does it also even raise the possibility that the cship itself could be unwound? ... but even if yes, wouldn't someone have to be asking for that?
and, can anyone help me understand how Sweeney's dismissal of WF was a good thing? ... especially for the warrants? (sorry ano, I am so far below your intellectual pay grade that I need help ;)