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.
This would be a good one to watch if you believe that the POTUS can spend money on Affordable Housing ($100B?) by exiting the Conservatorships and cashing out the government's share.
It could be an Article I Violation of the US Constitution (Congress has the Power of the Purse not POTUS) but Standing may be an issue for potential challengers to the Executive Branch Action.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/20/biden-launches-american-climate-corps-to-train-the-green-workforce.html
"This move is an executive action, and won’t require congressional approval. The White House didn’t announce how much it was spending on the program."
No I was trying to point out that in Collins, the USSCT said that, as I recall, basically HERA can't ban Constitutional Challenges to the FHFA and UST and hence the Unconstitutional removal provision may provide the Plaintiff Shareholders with damages.
Ohh Skepi, Where's your RESPECT for our 'dear leaders' in the federal government? Everyone understands that these highly educated nonpartisan 'experts' are only looking out for the 'best interests' of the helpless American Citizenry,. Besides, maybe one day the US Congress will decide what the future of the US Housing Finance Market will look like.
The only duty of Loyalty the Board of Directors has during the perpetual CONservatorships is to the FHFA, and they decide who the Board of Directors will be. Sandra has all the Board Members address her as, "Her Majesty Sandra!".
Let's hope they give it a shot! The downside? They ain't doing this for free!
I wonder if the FHFA Arnold & Porter attorneys (let's keep those billable hours rolling!) will convince the FHFA to appeal any of the pre-trial litigation rulings?
Or will Sandra say: "Let the little Citizens pretend they won some crumbs from the $308B Cake Uncle Suggy ate!"
Hey, what rhymes with CAKE? VIVEK!
Under HERA, during the perpetual 15 year CONservatorships the duty of the Board of Directors is to the FHFA NOT the 'evil Shareholders ' and the Corporations.
That's why Sandra and Janet want to keep this Gravy Train for the Gubmint going forward as long as possible!
Leverage the FHFA Breach of Contract and emphasize the Bad faith and unfair dealing actions of the government in current and upcoming litigation?
The beauty of the US Constitution is that EACH of the 3 Branches typically grab as much Power as possible. The Legislative Branch (for better or worse) created the Administrative State setting up these independent mini governments with a Legislative Branch (they make Rules and Regulations), Executive Branch (enforcement) and Judicial Branch (internal tribunals).
Why shouldn't they be subject to review, checks, and balances by the Judicial Branch?
Aren't you being too myopic about what the ramifications are for your beloved party and not looking at the implications of the long term governance of the American People?
Probably a compromise to 1 or more holdout Jurors, it is a company town after all.
Plus it will be something after 15 years of CONservatorships and malfeasance by our 'dear leaders' in the Gubmint.
But can the Corporations/Conservatees sue the FHFA to recover the Damages inflicted on them by a malfeasant and renegade Conservator?
Could Shareholders sue the Board of Directors for failing to act on this?
Didn't the Jurors rule on prejudgment interest on Freddie and they said, "NO" (Juror Question #3)?
What's the significance of that?
I wonder what would happen if Plaintiffs challenge J. Lamberth's pre-trial Scope of Damages determination and it is expanded and granted on Appeal. Would a new set of Jurors determine those Damages after hearing Evidence from both sides?
We'll see what happens.
They really bought the False 'DEATH SPIRAL' Narrative didn't they? How bout Lamberth when he said sarcastically, "Yeah, like 2 quarters is a turn around!".
Where's the love? !
It took 8 random DC Jurors only 8 to 10 hours of deliberations to see right through the Government's false narratives, obsufcation, and deceptions. We've known it all along.
Let's see what if anything happens on Appeal.
Isn't the 'Right to Exclude Others', as articulated in the Cedar Nursery case, a necessary element in an illegal exaction case?
His work ID Badge at Fulcrum Security, Inc! Remember their Corporate Slogan? Dilution Solution, Instant Recap, and Capital Stack!
If the Unconstitutional allegations in the Complaint are true then the Plaintiff Shareholders will suffer an irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued.
Just happened in the $400B Unconstitutional Student Loan Forgiveness case, Biden v Nebraska, less than 90 days ago.
JB still bought some Votes last November, but the $400B in federal agency spending did not happen, so that's a good example of how a Preliminary Injunction can stop a party damaging you economically.
Thought you'd like it. The point is that it appears the pendulum from power residing in the Administrative State back to the Judiciary and indirectly to the Citizens and Businesses appears to be taking place slowly but surely.
It seems some of the "Liberal Coastal Elites" aren't pleased !
When exactly will all the Appeals be exhausted and a FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT be entered?
Could it possibly be overturned on appeal?
Will Sandra and Janet correct the dastardly deeds of their wayward predecessors?
The answers to these questions AND more in upcoming episodes of THE DAYS OF OUR 15 year CONservatorships LIVES:
Here, read this, you will find it interesting (Steve Jobs widow is bankrolling these guys): "The progressive advances of mid-20th-century America weren’t, after all, only about civil rights and social justice. Equally important was the political-economic arrangement established during and after the World War II era. It featured a powerful regulatory state, aggressive antitrust enforcement, and strong labor unions. These policies kept corporate power in check and helped drive the fastest, most widely shared advance in living standards in American history."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/federal-judiciary-biden-court-appointments/675336/
"Conclusion
In conclusion, an exit from government control for the two GSEs is probably in the rough range of 2030, and potentially even later. As described in Part 1, the timeframe of the GSEs exiting government control was repeatedly extended by key policy decisions made by the four presidential administrations since it began in 2008, with the notable exception of permitting the retention of earnings to build capital. Looking forward, as discussed in this post, I have described how actually implementing the end of that government control, once the FHFA and Treasury decide to firmly head for the off-ramp, is going to take many years, mainly due to (1) the time it takes for enough additional earnings to be retained to meet a minimum capital requirement, plus (2) how long it will then take for Treasury to dispose of its control-level ownership stake in the two GSEs.
But behind this is the key assumption that the government actually wants to end its control of the two GSEs. That is, in fact, a questionable assumption as many political and interest groups seem to like today’s status quo. First, they like having the two GSEs, which are stockholder companies chartered by Congress to play a pivotal role in housing finance, firmly under policy and political control through the FHFA. Second, the mortgage industry in particular likes that the GSEs, being structured as stockholder-owned companies, pursue innovation and competitiveness far more aggressively than a typical government agency22. Thus, to many it seems a “best of both worlds”. On top of this, there is considerable fear that the GSEs, given their pre-conservatorship history, might revert, upon exiting government control, to being the highly politicized lobbying powers they were previously.
So, in fact, the GSEs being under government control via FHFA conservatorship might go on as a permanent feature of our housing finance system, even well past 2030, with no return to private ownership being desired or implemented. It is a possibility that cannot be dismissed."
Isn't that what the federal courts are suppose to do, interpret what the law means? With Chevron Deference it seems it has ended up being interpreted by POTUS installed Federal Agency Heads (aka the 4th Branch of Government).
Sandra L Thompson's testimony at her last House Financial Services Meeting on May 23, 2023. When asked by R's when the Conservatorships will end, she says, "We're waiting on Congress to decide the future of the US Housing Finance Market and meanwhile we're preparing for the exit from the Conservatorships."
"Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Testifies on Mortgage Fees
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra Thompson testified before the House Financial Services Committee on rule changes within the agency and the mortgage fees it charges. She discussed the reason for the rule changes and covered a variety of topics including the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, home appraisals, federal home loan banks liquidity, and eliminating fees for first-time home buyers."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?528262-1/federal-housing-finance-agency-director-testifies-mortgage-fees
After 15 years of conservatorships in 2012 the Feds wanted to "Wind Down" the GSES and today they allege that they want to "prepare to exit the Conservatorships."
It's like a Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde Conservator.
They are tinkering with the idea of making up for the Income Tax Cuts with a 10% tarriff.
So the big Motivator for scoring political points (and exiting the Conservatorships) is to deposit $100B into the General US Treasury Fund?
Not sure that would be motivation enough considering you're rolling the dice with drastic changes to the comfortable Status Quo by tinkering with the plumbing and backbone of the US Housing Finance Market.
Obama was starring at an unfunded liability with Obamacare that the US Treasury couldn't fill, so transferring $130B into the UST Coffers had some Motivation Necessary.
It'd be great to see some of those Executive Branch discussions wouldn't it? But we never will.
Wouldn't the safe and sound route be to build enough Capital organically and then slowly ease into release?
These federal agencies enabling Statutes give broad and open ended authority to them. Chevron Deference tends to give the federal agencies immunity from their internal interpretations of what the law means.
As the federal agencies are becoming more under the direct control of the POTUS, they are acting more like a political branch of government instead of disinterested subject matter expert life long professional Bureaucrats, as James Landis and the Wilsonian's envisioned in the early 1900's.
If the federal agencies are acting outside their Congressionally mandated limits shouldn't the federal Judiciary be the proper forum, instead of Deference to the agency's interpretation?
What were his views if he expressed any on Exit from the Conservatorships? He seemed to be buddies with MC and had him on his show.
Next US Treasury Secretary, Larry K? Todays WP: "But those more pressing decisions have not stopped Trump's circle of economic advisers from contemplating new directions for U.S. tax policy, even as the former president contends with criminal indictments. Outside advisers have even begun discussing some potential, if highly preliminary, names for possible treasury secretary nominees, including former World Bank president David Malpass, who announced his resignation amid controversy over his climate positions; Larry Kudlow, the cable news commentator who served as director of Trump's White House National Economic Council; and Laffer, a former Reagan adviser whom Trump awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019."
Eventually it could, only 1 way to find out !
So, the Motivation to exit the Conservatorships is to give up perpetual 100% control over the GSES so the Administration in power can spend money in the exact manner in which they see fit?
The US Constitution says that the US Congress has the Power of the Purse (see the Appropriations Clause).
Are you saying that more Federal Spending by Unelected Bureaucrats in DC (the FHFA and UST) a potential violation of the US Constitution, is the Motivation Necessary and Proper to Exit the CONservatorships?
It'd be interesting to see if the DOJ was motivated to settle between the 2Q12 through 2013 with the TBTF banks for Billions knowing the Cash would be Swept into the US Treasury coffers.