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.
"Nobody is laying betting odds on HERA being flipped on it's head."
Did not all investors give up on FnF in 2008 including FDIC?
Did not Barry&co make it a administration policy to wind down FnF?
Did not they start NWS to bankrupt FnF?
Now we have Trump administration which has made it high priority to end conservatorship after 12 years of conservatorship.
So make your bets wisely. BTW this is not an investment advise.
"Wouldn't Collins be the perfect vehicle to send a strong message to Congress to QUIT EXPERIMENTING WITH NOVEL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, BECAUSE WE MAY NOT ALWAYS REWRITE THE STATUTES FOR YOU!"
HERA is abnormal. So In case of HERA, nothing wrong is going to happen if HERA is abolished. In fact only good things are going to happen if HERA is abolished. Rule of law will return and FnF will return to true owners.
Everything will become normal.
"The topic is the Fed and a possible Collins opinion reading thru to the Fed."
As of now Fed is safe, because all want to pretend that FED is independent and it seems to be working fine. But if FED gets in to controversies or challenges administration then axe is going to fall.
"I’ll ask again tor the fourth time. What is the alternative?"
RPS,
Calm down. We are not here to solve all the problems of the world. We are here as FnF shareholders seeking fairness and justice.
To pass the time during unending conservatorship we can discuss some problems of the world. There is no alternative to current constitutional Gov of three independent branches until Constitution is changed or just ignore constitution like 12 years of lawless FHFA conservatorship.
You seem to be skeptical about democracy. Any type of system when headed by crooked leaders looks bad. It requires good leadership to make any system look good.
"I disagree - the Fed is super important - ill believe it when it happens. I think the odds are less than 5%. Show me an alternative to the fed that works and I’ll be onboard.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, but it’s the only one we have” easy to throw stones at the Fed. Show me an alternative..."
You are making statements full of paradox.
If FED is that super important then how can it be unaccountable to all three branches of Gov in a democracy. BTW US FED system is a messy hybrid Gov-private system and nobody understands where gov control ends and private control starts or vice versa.
"The FHFA, on the other hand, is firmly outside the executive realm’s boundaries. The FHFA has also, as has been opined in the 5th circuit, went beyond well established conservator law. Does SCOTUS crush HERA? Do they make the director removable “at will” by POTUS? What is the appropriate remedy?"
1. If SCOTUS wants to make a political statement then it will change HERA and make it constitutional even though there is no severability clause in HERA.
2. If SCOTUS wants to interpret the laws and decide cases based on the text of the constitution as written, then HERA/FHFA has no place in our present system.
3. As a compromise SCOTUS can reinterpret HERA to conform to constitutional laws. This requires lot of convoluted thinking.
"A president, if allowed to have influence over an agency like the Fed, could arbitrarily determine monetary policy to meet short term political goals instead of allowing an independent Fed do what is best for the country via the voting members of the agency.
It won’t happen ..."
The two exception criteria is crystal clear.
POTUS and Congress as well as FED know the law and they are doing the balancing act to keep the banking lobby happy and at the same time fooling all that FED is independent.
If it comes to testing the law, FED does not stand a chance under current two exceptions criteria.
"So are you saying multi member boards running federal agencies are NOT ALLOWED?"
Yes, It is very clear from recent SCOTUS ruling.
Multimember is one of the many conditions that must be satisfied.
Here are all the conditions that must be satisfied.
1. a multimember body of experts
2. balanced along partisan lines,
3. appointed to staggered terms,
4. performed only “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial functions,” and 5. said not to exercise any executive power.
6. inferior officer who has limited duties and no policy making or administrative authority.
No executive agency can be independent of POTUS. If allowed then can not Congress (with 2/3 Majority) make POTUS powerless by appointing independent agencies?
FHFA/HERA violate all the (1-6) conditions.
"This involves the self-same issue embedded in the ACA dismantling that is on the Supreme Court agenda on November 10th. The administration says that flaws in the ACA require the entire law be vacated. There is a strong similarity between this and the Collins case upcoming December 9th."
Very good point.
“What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
"RPS is right, Multi member federal agencies ARE allowed under USSCT precedent."
Once again here are the excerpts from SCOTUS seila law vs CFPB ruling. It is very easy to read and understand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_bq7d.pdf
page 2:
Free Enterprise Fund left in place only two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power. First, Humphrey’s Executor permitted Congress to give for-cause removal protection to a multimember body of experts who were balanced along partisan lines, appointed to staggered terms, performed only “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial functions,” and were said not to exercise any executive power.
Second, Morrison approved for-cause removal protection for an inferior officer—the independent counsel—who had limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority. Pp. 11–16.
Page 16:
These two exceptions—one for multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power, and one for inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority—“represent what up to now have been the outermost constitutional limits of permissible congressional restrictions on the President’s removal power.”
"Bcde - in the 5th circuit and in Seila - the single vs multi is a very important distinction. Even at face value, a ton of agencies would be invalidated with the idea there is no difference - don’t die on that hill defending multi vs single"
You can read and decide for yourself. It easy to understand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_bq7d.pdf
page 2:
Free Enterprise Fund left in place only two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power. First, Humphrey’s Executor permitted Congress to give for-cause removal protection to a multimember body of experts who were balanced along partisan lines, appointed to staggered terms, performed only “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial functions,” and were said not to exercise any executive power.
Second, Morrison approved for-cause removal protection for an inferior officer—the independent counsel—who had limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority. Pp. 11–16.
Page 16:
These two exceptions—one for multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power, and one for inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority—“represent what up to no whave been the outermost constitutional limits of permissible congressional restrictions on the President’s removal power.”
"Multi vs single is an important distinction."
Read SCOTUS ruling in CFPB.
all independent agencies that do not conform to these criteria
1. "A multi member body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power."
2. " “inferior” officers, who have limited duties and lack policy making or administrative authority, such as an independent counsel." "
"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/154723/20200923140924837_19-422%2019-563%20tsac%20Vartanian.pdf
"
Clrealy conservatorship was a fraud started by the Hank&co and perpetuated by the Barry&co.
SCOTUS should reverse all the frauds committed by the FnF Conservators and not just the NWS.
"The FDIC is run by a board structure NOT a single director like FHFA:
"
With recent SCOTUS ruling on CFPB, no executive agency can be independent. It does not matter whether multi member or single member.
May be, SCOTUS will make it more clear in its next ruling on FHFA. Many amicus briefs have requested SCOTUS to review its decades old rulings that have created exceptions.
"Well why did Congress create a single director, fireable for cause only under HERA, do you know?"
It is simple to understand except that Hank and Co fooled all saying one thing then doing sinister things.
FHFA is modeled exactly same as FDIC, with almost similar laws except that HERA is for GSEs. The working of FDIC is very well understood in terms of conservatorship and receivership. So all thought it is a good thing.
But Judge Lambert and FHFA made it totally different than FDIC with their weird interpretations HERA.
"We've come along way with the litigation, it would be hard to believe that the USSCT would allow the status quo (i.e., the nationalization of 2 private corporations by the government) to continue as well as no restitution available for Plaintiffs!"
This is the sad part. To begin with it should have been routinely avoided at the legislature, then at the POTUS level. After this when it was taken to District Court, the Judges should have used little bit of common sense instead of taking the easy path of siding with Gov. The appeal's court judges were not any better.
Now the lawsuit is at SCOTUS after more than 8 years to decide on simple questions on Constitution that all school children taught routinely as the universally accepted fact. We can only hope that SCOTUS will not make school children doubt what they have been taught about Constitution.
"Hard to manage a corporation appropriately when the government forces you into "conservatorship" and the US Congress treats you with continuous hostility, isn't it?"
In a system of separation powers & checks and balances, Judiciary is the judge and it has failed the country. Judiciary has allowed mixing and matching of power based on ideology rather than constitution.
Judiciary should strictly follow constitutional principles and abolish laws that violate the constitutional principles of separation powers & checks and balances.
"The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a committee of federal financial regulators chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, announced in July that it was going to review the secondary mortygage market. I subsequently wrote a paper about what could and should be included in their review. On September 25, FSOC released the results."
FSOC is mostly UST/FED organization. BTW pro bank UST and FED have been responsible for imposing conservatorship and continuation of conservatorship.
Lawless Conservator is using pro bank FSOC endorsement to support his hare brained Capital rule plan. It clearly shows conflict of interest and violation of independence of Conservatorship to use endorsement of pro bank FSOC. BTW all know that UST totally controls puppet agency FHFA.
"As Plaintiffs’ brief notes (at 28-29), Treasury could have exercised the common-stock warrants it had pur-chased in 2008 in the initial transaction, obtaining 80% of the common equity of the Companies for a nom-inal price."
These are JPS plaintiffs. Moreover it is hypothetical rhetoric. If Gov were to exercise 80% warrants then FnF (majority shareholder gov companies) would have been subject to all Gov regulations and FHFA could not have robbed Gov companies.
Gov FHFA can only rob private companies and not the Gov itself.
"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/154721/20200923140708824_19-422%2019-563InstitutionalInvestorsac.pdf
Amicus brief / Institutional investors
"
How about some individual small investors filing amicus brief as individuals on how lawless decisions of FHFA conservator has affected their lives.
The filing does not have to be legalistic but in common man's words describing how lawless decisions of FHFA conservator has affected their constitutional rights and how Gov made false promises to mislead them.
"If plaintiffs have no incentive to challenge
unconstitutionally structured agencies in court,
Congress has no incentive to ensure that newly
created agencies are consistent with the
constitutional design."
Excellent point.
What incentives congress and bureaucrats have to stop abusing the rights of citizens, if courts just keep on correcting the laws and ignoring the lawless decisions of bureaucrats?
Courts needs to reverse all the harm caused by such bureaucratic abuses in order to create strong disincentives to prevent bureaucratic abuses and overreaches.
Courts not only need to reverse all the harm caused by such unconstitutional laws and decisions but also create strong disincentives for bureaucrats. This is especially important for unaccountable independent agencies like FHFA.
"What is the use of corrupt lawmakers set out to subvert the foundations of law itself? "
Many Politicians are known to be opportunistic and corrupt, and nothing can be done about it except the constituents who elect them.
The judges are held to very high standards and if judges do not do their job as part of checks and balances, then country and people suffer.
"Manipulators and crooks are the most dangerous factors to the stability of financial systems!
In order to safeguard the financial system, manipulators and crooks should be wiped out."
Agree 100%.
"That's a blatant violation of the US Constitution under any analysis regardless of the application.
"
The Judges need to be sent to law schools to relearn US constitution. If politicians can fool judges so easily, then what is the use of such judges.
"World class Manipulator
Wold Class in "crooked books"
World clas in theft..they make Bernie Madoff seem like a petty thief."
Agree in a way, when FHFA is seen collaborating with other crooks contrary to the mandate that it must act as an independent agency or conservator.
FHFA is a "world class puppet paper tiger" being manipulated by the professional crooks. This makes FHFA very dangerous threat to the constitutional system of separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances. FHFA and HERA need to be abolished.
"FHFA recognizes the seriousness of the stability risk posed by Enterprise activities to the financial system and commits to the Council that we will ensure that risk is mitigated."
FHFA Director is beating the drum of fake alarm even after 12 years. During last 12 years FHFA actively undermined FnF with every possible dirty trick. FHFA/HERA is itself the biggest risk to FnF and financial system.
In 2008, irresponsible decision of FHFA to impose conservatorship on FnF, triggered financial crisis in to worldwide financial meltdown.
Simple remedy is to abolish FHFA and HERA.
"Any thoughts or comments, as a "World Class Regulator","
For the last 12 year "Worst Class Regulator" and "Worst Class Conservator" who has violated every known decency, democratic principle and constitutional principle.
Today DJT said this about judge Amy Coney Barret on her nomination to SCOTUS. Not only all the Judges and Justices need to take notice of this but also all the bureaucrats and especially FHFA Director who is not accountable to any branches of Gov. If FHFA Director does not like the laws or the system then he should not be in those positions against their beliefs.
DJT:
"Amy Coney Barret will decide cases based on the text of the constitution as written. As Amy has said being a judge takes courage. You are not there to decide cases as you may prefer.
You are there to do your duty and follow the law where ever it may take you.
That is exactly what Judge Barret will do on the US Supreme Court."
"What problems would the shareholders face with such an outcome:"
You are 100% correct in expecting that SCOTUS should set a precedent by reversing all the harm done by unlawful FHFA conservator what ever it may cost FHFA.
If Gov wants to use FnF as public policy institutions, then Gov can not harm them without harming the economy. So not a such possibility.
"If there is no law preventing this, no stipulation in the cap rule at minimum, who does not believe this will happen again? Especially if SCOTUS only slaps the government on the hand.
"
There is no way congressional law or any law can prevent it except SCOTUS ruling based on constitution.
Congress and administration will continue to burden private individuals and institutions with unfunded mandates.
In the recent hearing, ideologue Mark Calabria could have told congress to stop imposing unfunded mandates on FnF. But Calabria could only muster enough courage tell the congress that GSE will recover the costs through fees unless Congress appropriates the funds for mortgage forbearance costs.
"Congress will have no incentive to
avoid creating administrative-agency structures that
violate separation-of-powers principles if it concludes
that courts will do no more than tell the government,
“Don’t do it again.”"
This is exactly Gov bureaucrats are used to and they continue to violate the rights of citizens.
"the risk panel agrees the gse's are light on capital."
May be it is a good thing to get over with this and quickly end the conservatorship.
Anyway no private investor is going to invest fresh capital in FnF as long as FHFA/HERA are not abolished.
FnF can reach $250B capital on their own if lawless Gov conservator stops robbing their capital.
"Because FHFA is unconstitutionally structured,it has lacked authority to act throughout the entire decade of its existence"
"Unconstitutionally structured" is weaker argument compared to the SCOTUS ruling that no executive agency can be independent irrespective how it is structured.
So any decision taken by such a agency should be reversed in complete.
"They ask for everything and hope to get a portion. Best part is everything they ask for is within reason and legit in any court."
Yes, Plaintiffs need to ask for all the remedies that are allowed under the laws.
"Almost impossible."
SCOTUS has the authority to do what is right.
The laws are not about what is feasible but what is right.
The listed items are all possible without any harmful effect on the economy or any entity. In fact if these items are implemented it will strengthen economy and trust in rule of law.
"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/154595/20200922104336414_Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Timothy%20Howard%20for%20Filing.pdf"
Very nicely written brief by TH for SCOTUS.
The brief mostly explains false narratives used by fellow travelers to rob private shareholder companies for the benefit of their cronies.
Considering the false narratives used by the fellow travelers to impose conservatorship and rob FnF, the right remedy should be to
1. reverse all harmful effects of conservatorship, spspa, warrants and NWS ....
2. impose punitive damages against FHFA conservator and appropriate actions be initiated against the fellow travelers for abuse of public authority.
3. to prevent future abuse and overreach by bureaucrats, HERA and FHFA should be abolished and make all Gov agencies publicly accountable.
"So you agree that the NWS is an abusive and coercive use of governmental power that should never stand, as there is no way to pay it off?"
Everything starting from Eaton park meeting, pre and post conservatorship shady activities, forced asset write down, SPSPA, warrants, NWS all seem to be comparable to RICO acts, but carried out by revolving door bureaucrats without any accountability.
NWS was gross unlawful in any democratic world.
"Actually, the Fed is a private for profit corporation like FnF but they're closely held as opposed to publicly traded FYI smile"
FRS is a Gov agency. FRBs are corporations in which private banks own stock and get paid dividend at 6%. FRB management is mostly appointed by the private banks. But overall it is a shady arrangement and nobody understands how the system works.
"A 300 billion settlement to shareholders wont bankrupt USA."
It never belonged to US Gov. So it is never going to hurt US Gov or anyone.
Besides FnF are US Gov public policy companies. So it is going to strengthen the US economy.
Guido2 Thanks.
"I agree 4-4 decision with Roberts making the final call !!
Showing how the Judicial system is screwed up."
In such 4-4 situation, lower court ruling prevails.