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.
"Not public, Hub! We are on our toes here."
Yes, they can not fool us.
"Mislead who? Not us here on I hub."
yes.
"The issue concerning the succession clause is "
Obi,
Defendant's twisted interpretation of HERA succession clause in the context of conservatorship (or receivership) appears to be totally ridiculous. It was never meant to be used for nationalization and robbing of conservatees (private shareholder companies) because Congress never authorized it.
Succession clause was meant for enabling conservator to manage the conservatees without undue interference from shareholders and finally end the conservatorship when conditions for conservatorship no longer exist.
But Defendants want courts to interpret HERA succession clause so as to authorize FHFA conservator to nationalize and rob the conservatees. This seems to be the main issue here.
Suppose if CFC determines that conservatorship and NWS are unauthorized acts, then can CFC invalidate these acts?
"This is kinda a big deal folks."
May result in reviewing all the conservatorship plots that resulted in harm to companies.
If FHFA and FnF hire right insurance investment advisers (not crooks from WS), then they will tell FHFA/Gov what should be right capital for FnF (insurance companies).
If FHFA and FnF hire bank investment advisers then they will tell that all should have bank like capital.
"As much as we all hate GasBag he does bring exposure to us. A 5 cent pop is better than nothing. The recapitalization amount $150B sounds about right. However that is not the IPO amount as he states in the video. Retained earnings over 5 years will net $100B. So the true IPO number is $50B. Quite manageable over this time frame if spread out through multiple offerings."
If Calamari revises capital rules to insurance company like capital then FnF need only 1% to 2% capital and not bank like 4% capital.
"Converting pref to common warps the laws of space and time - it cannot be done!!!!!"
It makes no sense to convert JPS to CS unless done at appropriate premium and not at discount as per wishful thinking of some JPS holders.
Q&A for Keynote Speaker Craig Phillips
December 2, 2019
https://housingfinancestrategies.com/235-2/
"FHFA conservator (Private companies)."
What I meant was the agreement was signed by the FHFA conservator for private companies FnF.
Obi, Thanks
"Please review Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)"
Obi,
The ruling seems to be in favor of shareholders who bought after NWS agreement. But NWS agreement is not a law or regulation but it a private agreement between US and FHFA conservator (Private companies).
Besides NWS has been ruled as not valid by 5C. Things seem to be complicated. NWS Taking happened without a valid law or valid regulation.
Then why Judge Sweeney is trying to reinterpret the law?
How does transfer of property rights extinguish the constitutional rights of new owner?
----------------------------------
"nothing IMO"
Thanks, there are no valid reason what so ever to keep FnF shares trading on unregulated OTC markets considering the systemic importance of these companies and plans for largest SPOs in the history.
The sooner the up listing takes place it is better for all.
Obi,
What are the accepted legal principles about "Taking" when it comes to company shares (contract agreements) and date of ownership.
When shares are transferred all the rights get transferred. There are no laws that punish investors for speculative investments.
If "Taking" were to happen when some one owned the shares and when these shares are transferred to others, then shares are transferred along with baggage of this "Taking". Besides "Taking" continued to happen even after transfer.
How does taking vanish when shares (contracts) are transferred?
Judges and attorneys can add lot of mischievous twists to the interpretations. Since this question does not seem to be a novice question presented to judiciary, why the answers remain still ambiguous.
"I will disagree - again"
Any way it does not make much difference whether few agree or disagree.
A normal interpretation of HERA based on all historical and traditional legal interpretations makes it clear that HERA and other laws were violated to impose conservatorship unlawfully and also to rob private shareholder companies.
The current FHFA director MC who helped to write HERA has clearly written that the laws were violated. The previous director Mel Watt told congress that laws were trumped by SPSPA private agreements. What more proof do you want?
The official statements by FHFA clearly state that HERA mandates FHFA to preserve and conserve FnF assets but FHFA pleads to the contrary in courts.
Do yourself a favor - please read recent court filings and rulings to understand the issues involved rather than trying to repeat the misguided and unsupported views.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-563/123839/20191127103429028_USSC%2019-563%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf
"Sadly nobody will ever go to jail. The guy that knocks off the corner liquor store for $100 gets 20 years. The white collar criminal that steals Billion$ with a pen walks with all the money they stole and not so much as a slap on the wrist. Just a sad fact of life.
"
Sadly here, the short sellers and bankrupt establishment were big beneficiaries of lawless mob conservatorship. The short seller and bankrupt establishment used taxpayers as cover to hide their crimes.
Lawless mob conservtorship is not without the criminal violations.
"Someone posted this earlier:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-563/123839/20191127103429028_USSC%2019-563%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf"
LOL, It is amazing that defendants (Gov and FHFA) have been able to win so many cases in lower courts based on their brazen cock and bull story and are now seeking the review by SCOTUS.
There is no way that all of these lower court Judges are really senile to believe Gov's brazen cock and bull story story and dismiss the cases against establishment. For sure the lower court judges are part of the establishment and they have been ruling in favor of establishment despite anything else.
Patswil, Thanks
action8101, Thanks