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.
Yes, and what you say may happen. If a jury trial ever happens, which if memory serves plaintiffs asked for a bench trial (judge only), although there may be other venues attempting to go to a jury trial.
AIG was successful in using Paulson’s, Geitner’s, etc., words against them and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. I think a jury would be better than a bench trial. Who knows? I’ll keep monitoring …
If it gets to a jury trial - summary judgement to be filed by gov across the board
Kthomp - why are preferred shares now basically 1:1 with commons? Preferred have lost so much value relative to commons. Preferred's are DOA.
Ace Trader - a no brainer? Where have I heard that before?
What a colossal waste of time trying to convince folks about par and contract claims.
When does FNMAT = FNMA?
I have no more skin in the game but enjoy frequenting to be entertained by Preferred Shareholder hilariousness.
The market has spoken ... period. Your JPS shares have lost incredible value relative to Common shares.
Kthomp - and yet preferred shares have lost significantly more value than common shares. The market has spoken and all of the rosey predictions for preferred shares have virtually no value.
The administration needs to be charitable and offer preferred holders a buyout at 20% par and commons at 5 bucks. That’s as much as anyone is going to get because SCOTUS ruled the gov can do whatever it wants and if it weren’t for the “bailout” common and preferred would have nothing. Take it or leave it … all lower courts have an opportunity to kill the entire shareholder effort …
Prefs r still touting par? Well, I’ll tell u this much, prefs are almost on “par” to commons!
Why are Junior Preferred Shares tanking?
The conversion is now close to 1 to 1. haha ... What a waste of time over the past several years touting JR Preferred cht!
I own a paltry sum now of FNMA, but will be following closely.
DoNot - I don’t think that’s the case. How many trial dates have been set? Not many … Renewed motions can be made given SCOTUS
Mnemonic, if plaintiffs can get by the barrage of summary judgements that, IMO, are about to be filed across all venues by the gov, then plaintiffs have a chance. Every judge across the USA has been given an option to clear a case off their docket.
It will take a brave judge to rule in favor of plaintiffs.
Thanks for the response. Given the full float with the latest approved share issuance of ~3$ (even though they’re priced at ~.001 if I remember correctly) making the float at ~200 M (175 M & 25 M @ 3$).
Is the FDA approval priced into the SP? Or will this drug post an FDA approval start to tap into the 3 billion $ market of bladder cancer where ~83% of that market is the non-muscle form?
Anyone have any theories on valuation post a successful FDA approval in a yr and 2 yrs?
With a biotech industry PE being between 25 and 40, do folks here believe this company could generate 50, 100, 250, 500 million a yr from the 3 billion $ market?
Thanks in advance.
Newbie here - What is the market for bladder cancer? How much could Vicinium make over the coming years with this medicine?
Bryndon - Can you share any thoughts on how the remaining cases before the CFC, etc., can overcome a Scotus approved HERA? How do you get to a trial where all the shenanigans of the past administrations can be exposed to a jury of laymen?
If you can get to a jury of peers I feel there is a solid chance. My fear is the gov will now motion for summary judgement in all venues.
Rob, thanks for posting. I will be paying close attention to the political winds. The only thing I’ll say about TH’s option 3, I’d like to understand his view on the utility model. I don’t think that fits into option 3 and has its own pros and cons.
I'm really not one to throw shade at the Republic. I consider myself a 100% patriot of the American way. I'm not naive and the Republic certainly ain't perfect, but my bedrock belief in our country's justice system has been cracked.
Note to self - say nothing and hire a lawyer immediately ...
GV - good luck - there are other opportunities ...
Fast - Yellen and the newly nominated FHFA director need to come out in the next three months along with Brown, et al, and propose a utility model and specifically point to legacy shareholders getting a spot at the table.
Timster, I like your thought process and it is certainly a possibility.
pulled some off the table - down about 20% from original buy almost 3 yrs ago now. Watch it go up now on commentary from Yellen and whoever the FHFA Director replacement is.
Who knows?
Need to rely on the gov and given the status quo, GSE investors have been long forgotten.
It's all about political charity now ... I gave it a good couple years. Onto the next with what was 35% of net wealth down to 25% ... There are other opportunities with shorter time horizons and more clarity ...
Would love to sit down with Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barret and talk about the prospects of a once private company that had shareholders ever returning to private hands.
At minimum I suspected there would be something about the PSPA and how that needed to be deemed paid, but maybe no other monetary compensation. Sort of let bygones be bygones, but start the clock on the Gov to begin in earnest the plan to exit conservatorship over the next many years.
This ruling is quite astounding ... why did they even take it up ... Seems like Thomas surrendered to the majority for what? What horse trading took place behind the scenes?
Per Justice Gorsuch in his dissent on specific parts:
It’s hard not to wonder whether that’s because it intends for this speculative enterprise to go nowhere. Rather than intrude on often-privileged executive deliberations, the Court may calculate that the lower courts on remand in this suit will simply refuse retroactive relief. But if this is what the Court intends, why not just admit it and put these parties out of their misery?
As strange as the Court’s remand instructions are, the more important question lower courts face isn’t how to resolve this suit but what to do with the next one. Today, the Court sounds the call to arms and declares a constitutional violation only to head for the hills as soon as it’s faced with a request for meaningful relief. But as we have seen, the Court has in the past consistently vindicated Article II both in reasoning and in remedy.
Timster - that is exactly the window left open ...
JPS - can we expect more infighting soon? Or are we finally past that now ?
What a colossal waste of time! I'm not sure I've ever seen such a waste of years on something so ridiculous ... incredible!
Let’s see if the next nominated director is a utility advocate.
Pre-Collins, I’d say the gov would need to have congressionally approved legislation to change the GSEs business model to a utility model.
Post-Collins, I’m not sure FHFA needs anyone’s approval to transform them into utilities. All an FHFA director needs to say is, “It is in the best interests of the companies per my sole discretion as ward of the GSEs, and given the sound business judgement of my proposal, I have decided to transform the GSEs into utilities.”
I say this semi-facetiously, but wouldn’t be surprised at such unilateral actions …
So remember the letter from Biden's DOJ? It's going to take a long time and the liquidation pref will continue to increase. At some point though, they will exit conservatorship but will need to pay 10% of the liquidation pref or the delta they made from the prior quarter.
I suspect at some point in the future after the companies have met the capital requirement that the dividend payment will become more reasonable but here we are ...
March 18, 2021
Honorable Scott S. Harris
Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
Re: Collins v. Yellen, No. 19-422, and Yellen v. Collins, No. 19-563
Dear Mr. Harris:
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, announced amendments to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements between Treasury and FHFA on behalf of Fannie and Freddie. The text of the amendments is enclosed with this letter.
The most recent amendments, among other things, modify the Third Amendment’s variable dividend formula and waiver of periodic commitment fees. The amendments instead establish a new compensation formula that allows the enterprises to build up substantial capital reserves. They provide that, until an enterprise builds up enough capital to meet certain thresholds - a process that is expected to take multiple years - the enterprise will compensate Treasury through increases in the liquidation preference rather than through variable cash dividends.
They further provide that, after the enterprise builds up the specified amount of capital, the enterprise will make quarterly dividend payments equal to the lesser of 10 percent of Treasury’s liquidation preference or the incremental increase in the enterprise’s net worth in the previous quarter and will pay periodic commitment fees.
The amendments do not moot these cases. The shareholders have sought both (1) prospective relief prohibiting the continued implementation of the Third Amendment’s dividend formula and (2) retrospective relief ordering the return of dividends already paid under that formula. See J.A. 117-118. The new amendments modify the Third Amendment’s dividend formula going forward, but they do not refund dividend payments that were made in the past or otherwise provide retrospective relief.
I would appreciate your distributing this letter to the Members of the Court.
If they want to turn the NWS back on they will be shooting themselves in the foot. They need capital built up between them (the gov) and the next economic catastrophe.
So I don't think the NWS will come back on.
We will get a lot more information when Biden nominates the next director.
Rob, isn't that for a confirmed director, though? Not an active director ... thoughts?
Well, whoever is going to be the new director will be going to the Senate soon and will need to speak to the future of FnF.
I think the remand on retrospective remedy will be a tough sell at the 5th circuit. Scotus didn’t shut the door on it, But they probably should’ve.
Bring on the new Director and the Utility model.
Good news is FnF are retaining capital.
Bad news for many, it’s going to take a lot of time. I’ve said this all along I’m in this for the long hall.
We hold that the shareholders’ statutory claim is barred by the Recovery Act, which prohibits courts from taking “any action to restrain or affect the exercise of [the] powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator.” §4617(f ). But we conclude that the FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers, and we remand for further proceedings to determine what remedy, if any, the shareholders are entitled to receive on their constitutional claim.
Looks like an APA win ...
I dont see the R
Lange v California - no R so another to be released - Justice Kagan
This leaves potential opinions remaining for the day from:
Clarence Thomas, since October 23, 1991.
Stephen Breyer, since August 3, 1994.
Samuel Alito, since January 31, 2006.
Sonia Sotomayor, since August 8, 2009.
Man No Name - it takes Treasury and FHFA to amend the PSPA. Good luck!
Man No Name, you're wrong - see last bolded section per Mr. Mooppan.
JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, so who decides when the Third Amendment -- when this arrangement should come to an end, if ever?Because, you know, Treasury viewed it as winding down the GSEs, winding down their assets, although, you know, it's been characterized not as a receivership but as a conservatorship.
Could the confirmed director have said, okay, listen, now this is no longer serving to make the GSEs solvent, and so it's time to shift arrangements? Did the confirmed director have that authority under the Third Amendment?
MR. MOOPPAN: So, yes, just like the Second Amendment and the First Amendment and everything else that the agency does. That's why we think that they're entitled to relief prospectively that the FHFA director should be removable at will. And then, if the FHFA director wants to change any of these agreements AND CAN GET TREASURY TO AGREE, they can.
Rob, how can the NWS be ratified when it also requires Treasury?
I assume you mean vacate and remand to lower courts to determine remedy.
Per Seila,
12 JUSTICE THOMAS believes that any ratification is irrelevant. In his view, even if the issuance of the demand and initiation of this suit have been validly ratified, Director Kraninger’s activities in litigating the case—after inheriting it from an Acting Director, but before becoming removable at will herself in light of our decision—present a distinct con- stitutional injury requiring immediate dismissal. See post, at 17–19 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). But whether and when the temporary involvement of an unconstitutionally insulated of- ficer in an otherwise valid prosecution requires dismissal falls outside the questions presented, has not been fully briefed, and is best resolved by the lower courts in the first instance.
Man - the differences are large between Anthrex and Collins. We have to wait and see what kind of remedy we get. We may get a vacate and remand on retrospective relief, where we lost by one vote for backwards looking relief.
There are constitutional and APA claims …
First post for FnF?