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.
ALL Congressional Laws can be challenged in the Federal Judiciary. Hardly ANY Federal Agency Rules and Regulations can be challenged in the Federal Judiciary.
That's the problem here.
Let's see if the USSCT does something next Summer as the Lopez Bright Fishery case is on deck in the Fall.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/
As I recall, under the Clinton Administration, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was repealed or neutered extensively after a lengthy lobbying push by Citi and Travelers and the Banking Industry.
Did it contribute to the 2008 Financial Crisis? It's a question of debate:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis
https://kaptur.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/kaptur-reintroduces-return-prudent-banking-act-reinstate-key-provisions
1. Right now the financial regulator's approach to Capital seems to be 'more is better' and are requiring (with significant opposition from the ABA and MBA and the TBTF banks) higher capital requirements GENERALLY.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-is-basel-iii-endgame-why-are-banks-worked-up-about-it-2023-07-24/
What about the monoline GSES and the FHFA as far as the required capital? Their still figuring it out and probably have plenty of time to figure it out while ideally earnings build Capital quarterly.
2. What will the Courts do? Still a lot of litigation on the horizon but there was an injustice inflicted on the Equity holders and in the end that could help build capital.
3. Releasing the GSES? I think one side of the aisle would do it while the other continues the CONservatorships into perpetuity (assuming ZERO recourse from the Courts) so they can continue handing out subsidies to their targeted voting base.
At least now they are building capital but what would stop them from ever relinquishing their control?
Courts seem powerless, the public is indifferent, and the Status Quo is working for everyone except the equity holders.
So how do 2 federal agencies, here the FHFA and UST, get to determine the "Future of the US Housing Finance Market" by Nationalizing the GSES on August 17, 2012?
Wouldn't that be a Major Economic Question for our ELECTED Representatives in Congress?
Personally as an American I find it disheartening that our government is spinning the false 'Death Spiral' narrative and using the guise of Conservatorships to control our Corporations for political purposes and then hiding behind Executive Privilege and National Security Exemptions to not be honest with the American People.
Isn't that an abusive and coercive use of federal governmental power?
Just seems like an injustice to me.
But who really cares about those 'evil mortgage banksters' anyway, since they were solely responsible for the Great Financial Crisis, right? !
You know, you could have retired to Margaritaville!
https://www.latitudemargaritaville.com/
It'd be nice if the Emperor could just admit he has no clothes instead of continuing with the false 'Death Spiral' narrative.
In the meantime, in theory Capital is built organically.
HeeeeHeeee! Well, that's the thing, it's a lot of hurdles to jump over from here to get to where we want to go!
Here's what the timeline would look like (remember Multi Billion Dollar Litigation just takes time!):
1. June/July 2024: SCOTUS rules for/against the Appropriations Clause challenge to CFPB.
IF the CFPB funding mechanism is Unconstitutional is it limited to ONLY the CFPB (seems likely)? Is it ANOTHER PYRRHIC VICTORY?
2. If YES it is limited to only the CFPB and no pyrrhic victory, does it apply to FHFA?
3. That matter would then be further litigated in the federal circuit courts as it relates to FHFA.
So why the 20 Year Expiration of the Warrants in 2008?
Check this out, from todays NYT, put it in context of the 2 federal agencies that Nationalized our Corporations with the August 17, 2012, Net Worth Sweep:
"Portraying federal employees as unaccountable bureaucrats, the Trump team has argued that removing job protections for those who have any influence over policymaking is justified because it is too difficult to fire them."
"He has boasted that he will purge a federal bureaucracy that he has disparaged as a "deep state" filled by "villains" like globalists, Marxists and a "sick political class that hates our country."
The current administrations reaction is to preempt this with a new federal rule enacted prior to the next administration:
"The proposed new rule was unveiled by the White House's Office of Personnel Management in a lengthy filing for the Federal Register on Friday. It would allow workers to keep their existing job protections, such as a right to appeal any firing or reassignment, even if their positions were reclassified. It would also tighten the definition of what types of positions can be exempted from civil service job protections, limiting it to non-career political appointees who are expected to turn over when a presidency ends."
Seperation of Powers and why its so important: "In essence, the separation of powers is a crucial concept in democratic governance because it helps maintain a system of government that is accountable, balanced, and protective of individual rights, while also promoting stability and efficient decision-making. It acts as a safeguard against authoritarianism and abuse of power, fostering a more just and responsive government."
DJT's new OMB Director? Vivek's plan to reduce the 4th Branch of Government, todays WP:
Ramaswamy explains why he thinks he can abolish agencies without Congress
"Look at the operative language from the 1977 Reorganization Act. It gave the president a mandate: "the president shall from time to time [examine the organization of all] agencies." It used the word 'abolish.' That's not my word, it's the word in the statute." [Ed.: The Reorganization Act of 1977 gives the president the power to abolish "all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan."
Ramaswamy: Look, I think there's going to be competing views, but I think [there are] a lot of legal academics who agree with me. The ultimate question is what does the current Supreme Court believe? Many of those legal academics probably agree with the dissenting views in West Virginia v. EPA. The justices who dissented had a view, and I think there's [some] legal academics who will say that the Supreme Court erred in that holding as well. But I think the current Supreme Court is with me, 6 to 3, and I think many legal academics are, too.
The WP: Former president Donald Trump proposed shutting down the
Environmental Protection Agency during his 2016 campaign. He called for "closing up the Department of Education" again on Wednesday. Why do you think he was unable to do it during his term?
Ramaswamy: I think the adviser class duped him. On one hand, it does take an outsider with total and complete disregard for the norms of Washington, D.C., to get this job done. Trump and I share that in common. However, it also requires a president who has independent understanding and conviction of the laws of this country. That's a more unique and rare combination that I'm bringing to the table."
From the Roosevelt Institute (Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a big fan!) in the Thursday WP:
"Banks provide a public service. Let’s make them public utilities.
It has been 15 years since Lehman Brothers collapsed and financial panic turned a mild recession into a great one, yet the American financial system still depends on government rescues to avoid catastrophic meltdowns.
There's a better way. It's time to separate depository banks from other financial businesses and treat them as public utilities.
Depository banks — which include commercial banks, thrifts and credit unions — are distinct from financial services such as asset management and investment banking. They provide a basic public service: issuing and circulating deposit money, which includes checking and savings account balances. These outstanding balances amount to more than $17 trillion. And people rely on them every day to go about their lives: to pay their rent and credit card bills and receive their salaries. Businesses also depend on deposits for nearly all their major transactions, from covering their costs to receiving payment from their customers.
In most transactions, actual cash never changes hands. Indeed, there is only $2 trillion of government-issued cash in existence, and much of it circulates overseas. Our economy runs on deposit money.
Deposit banking is therefore like the infrastructure provided by electricity, water and telecommunications companies. When a bank fails, it's like part of the electrical grid going down: The consequences extend well beyond the bank's immediate customers.
Congress originally set up our banking laws along public utility principles. Banks were chartered to meet the deposit needs of the community, subject to strict limits on the sorts of activities they could engage in. Critically, they were the only entities permitted to provide households and businesses with cash equivalents such as checking and savings accounts. But with the deregulatory craze of the past 40 years, many provisions that ensured a stable and accessible money supply — provisions that prevented "too big to fail" bailouts and excessive risk-taking — were watered down or repealed. Firms such as Lehman got into the business of banking, but they did not comply with bank regulations.
After Lehman failed, Congress took steps to reduce the likelihood of future crises. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 enhanced financial stability in many ways. But it did nothing to restrict to banks the activity of creating cash equivalents — nor to subject banks to the sort of strict public utility oversight that had existed throughout much of the 20th century.
More fundamental structural reform is needed. Already twice this decade, the federal government has taken extraordinary measures to avert financial collapses. In March 2020, the Federal Reserve committed trillions of dollars to prevent the failure of dozens of highly leveraged hedge funds, broker-dealers and foreign financial institutions that had gotten into the business of creating cash equivalents outside of the regulated banking system. Then, this year, it stepped in to rescue banks — most notably the Silicon Valley Bank — that had loaded up on interest-rate risk and uninsured deposits.
Although there have been no catastrophic financial meltdowns since Lehman, the resulting stability is illusory: It rests on the government's willingness to do whatever it takes to prop up both banks and non-bank financial firms.
As a result, too-big-to-fail banks keep expanding. Financial firms profit from public sector bailouts. And asset prices outpace economic growth, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis.
A 21st-century public utility approach to banking would help break this cycle.
First, it would reinstate limits on bank powers that the Supreme Court has gutted, making banks less likely to engage in high-risk speculation and easier for regulators to oversee.
Second, it would separate depository banking from dealing or speculating in securities and financial derivatives. Wall Street investment firms would have to stand on their own feet. If they took too many risks, they could go through bankruptcy without jeopardizing the rest of the financial system — or the economy.
Third, non-bank financial institutions such as Lehman would be prohibited from financing their operations with cash equivalents. Non-banks shouldn't be allowed to issue deposits by another name.
Finally, everyone who wants a bank account would be able to get one without worrying about being hit by predatory fees and without having to pay to transfer their money quickly. As the government stands behind deposit accounts, it should set the terms on which banks offer them, just as it establishes standards for electrical service.
Often, the most salutary legislation is passed in the wake of a crisis. But we need not wait until conditions deteriorate further to start building a more stable, more reliable banking system.
Lev Menand is a professor at Columbia Law School, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the author of "The Fed Unbound: Central Banking in a Time of Crisis."Morgan Ricks is a professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the author of "The Money Problem: Rethinking Financial Regulation."
The US Court of Appeals is in the same building, I'll run down there again when that's eventually heard and give you all an update.
That's right, StoxJock, millions of men and women have sacrificed life and limb for this document and governmental tyranny is its #1 enemy:
Worth a read if you've never read it yet!
https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/many-dont-know-key-facts-about-u-s-constitution-annenberg-civics-study-finds
"The civics knowledge survey, released annually to celebrate Constitution Day (Sept. 17), also finds that although two-thirds of Americans (66%) can name all three branches of government, 10% can name two, 7% can name only one, and 17% cannot name any."
“Any sort of innovative thinking in the agencies about their statutory authority is going to be met with a lawsuit saying, ‘Oh, major questions doctrine,’” Odinet said.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/banks-gear-up-for-larger-assault-on-regulators-after-cfpb-win
October 03, 2023 @ 10 am. SCOTUS hears CFPB case.
What did the Founders say about the Appropriations Clause and the Importance of having the Legislative Branch in charge of Federal Spending?
Does HERA satisfy this?
In Federalist Paper No. 58, James Madison explains how the power of the purse, which is the authority of the Legislative Branch (specifically, the House of Representatives) to control government spending, serves as a check on the Executive Branch and helps protect against potential abuses of power. Here's how it works:
1. Financial Oversight: The House of Representatives controls government spending by originating all revenue bills. This means that all tax and spending measures must start in the House. By doing so, the House has a direct say in how public funds are raised and allocated.
2. Fiscal Accountability: Madison argues that because House members are elected every two years, they are more directly accountable to the people than the members of the Senate (elected for longer terms) or the President (elected for four years). This frequent turnover in the House means that representatives are more responsive to the changing will of the electorate.
3. Preventing Executive Overreach: Madison believed that if the Executive Branch were given unchecked control over finances, it could potentially use public funds to strengthen its own power or engage in actions that the people did not support. By vesting the power of the purse in the House, the Executive Branch is limited in its ability to carry out policies without the consent of the people's representatives.
4. Balancing Power: The power of the purse provides a balance of power between the branches. If the Executive Branch oversteps its authority, the House can refuse to fund its initiatives or can use its control over spending to influence executive actions.
In essence, the control over appropriation allows the Legislative Branch, and specifically the House of Representatives, to exercise a significant degree of oversight and influence over the actions and policies of the Executive Branch, thus preventing potential abuses of power and ensuring that government actions are in line with the will of the people.
So isn't the Lamberth trial a Breach of Implied Contract case?
How come 4617(f) doesn't bar it?
Well, the bogus 'DEATH SPIRAL' narrative being spewed by our 'dear leaders' for years was ALL many DC decision makers needed to hear to justify "Salting the Earth with those Evil Mortgage Banksters Hedge fund guys Carcasses".
In relation to Common the share price of the JPS drop was much larger.
For common it amounts to pennies, but JPS is more!
Excluding interest.
HeeeeHeeee! You'll never change, AND THAT'S OKAY!
Did you hear about the new coffee mug? Get you one soon, WHILE YOU CAN!
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1522652256/joe-biden-2024-ceramic-mug-15-oz
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1545910181/lets-go-dark-brandon-2024-joe-biden
Lamberth determined that the ONLY Damages that the Shareholders were entitled to was the one day drop in Share price right after the Net Worth Swipe was announced.
The Jurors gave under the Plaintiffs ask and Lamberth will determine what interest if any will be tacked on to the Damages award for the malfeasance from our 'dear leaders' Edward J Demarco and his Co-Conspirators at the "Salt the Earth with the Shareholders Carcasses" United States Treasury.
Will Plaintiffs Appeal the scope of Damages awarded?
Will FHFA through their expensive legal team and support staff continue to run up the legal hourly billing by Appeal?
The answer to those questions and more will be available in the future, on the Days of our CONservatorships lives!
Not many good sound bites for the politicians on being outraged and talking about the Jury trial Verdict.
Could be interesting if in November 2024 this guy ends up spearheading Donald's quest to expand the Unitary Executive Theory. Todays NYT:
"Mr. Ramaswamy, 38, also claimed he could make the changes unilaterally if he were to be elected president, putting forward a sweeping theory that the executive wields the power to restructure the federal government on his own and does not need to submit such proposals to Congress for approval.
His pitch was another echo of former President Donald J. Trump, whom he has modeled himself after and who sought to expand political control over the federal work force near the end of his term. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Ramaswamy has also attacked parts of the federal government as a "deep state."
"We will use executive authority to shut down the deep state," Mr. Ramaswamy said on Wednesday at the America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. He flipped through posters displaying government organizational charts as well as what he claimed were common "myths" about the limitations of presidential authority."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/videos/federalist-70-explained-why-does-the-u-s-have-a-unitary-executive
"Operate in a safe and sound manner, including maintaining adequate capital and internal controls;"
-DeMarco testimony at Lamberth's trials, "Giving away ALL the profits into perpetuity of the GSES is consistent with the job of a Conservator."
I think they just prefer the Status Quo as that gives the administration the GREEN LIGHT to hand out subsidies to their targeted voting base.
Also those in power tend not to voluntarily release their power and DC Bureaucrats are excellent stewards of Federal Agency preservation of power and money.
Janet and Sandra's response: YAAAAWNNNN!
How bout this guy, is he spearheading the instant recap?:
MM 26:10
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-white-house-holds-news-briefing-with-nscs-john-kirby-and-advisor-jared-bernstein
"If you're helping to bake the pie, you ought to be getting a fair shake."
"Ackman invested nearly half a billion dollars in the company in 2013 for a 10% stake. Following the investment, the activist investor said he might engage in discussions with management board and other stockholders involved in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:FMCC) .
In 2014, Ackman sued the US government over its company bailout, alleging that the Department of Treasury had seized tens of billions of dollars in profits. The largest shareholder also insisted that it had been told stockholders no longer held fundamental shareholders rights."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/long-term-returns-bill-ackman-135555479.html
Tim Mayopoulos's latest startup advisory role: "There are millions of outstanding mortgages with a 3% interest rate. A new startup says it can help today's home buyers get their hands on them.
Mortgage rates are now above 7%, leaps and bounds above the 3% they grazed two years ago. Buyers and sellers alike are giving up, sucking demand and supply out of the housing market . And things are expected to stay that way, with the Federal Reserve signaling plans to keep rates high for the foreseeable future.
Roam, a real-estate company set to launch Wednesday, is betting that it can popularize an obscure workaround. "Assumable loans" allow sellers to transfer their own mortgage loans to the buyer alongside the house.
In theory, the idea sounds great, at least for discouraged house hunters who can inherit a lower-rate loan. Sellers, in turn, might fetch higher prices for their houses.
But Roam's vision faces an uphill battle. Loan assumptions haven't gained much traction recently, even though rates are up. Many lenders are cool to the idea because for them it would mean more work for less money.
Some 22% of active mortgages are part of the government programs that have assumption features, according to the mortgage-data and technology company Black Knight. That includes loans extended through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Federal Housing Administration programs.
Few consumers know about the option, and fewer still follow through with it. The FHA has processed 3,349 assumptions in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, up from 2,566 in the year prior.
Raunaq Singh, Roam's founder and chief executive officer, says his new company will find and advertise home listings attached to attractive assumable mortgages. It is initially launching in Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Florida.
The company aims to help with the paperwork and other bureaucratic hoops. That means working with the seller's mortgage company on behalf of the buyer and seller."
"Roam, with 10 employees, received $1.25 million in a seed funding round led by the venture capital firm Founders Fund and Eric Wu, who co-founded Opendoor. Tim Mayopoulos, the former Fannie Mae CEO who briefly ran Silicon Valley Bank after it failed, is an adviser."
The TBTF banks are p*ssed about higher Regulatory Capital Requirements and are considering an Administrative Procedures Act challenge:
https://www.bankingdive.com/news/bpi-aba-chamber-fed-fdic-occ-capital-requirements-proposal-letter-more-data-analysis-dimon/693576/
"Six banking trade groups Tuesday asked the Federal Reserve and other regulators to re-propose their sweeping updates to capital requirements — this time, showing the math.
“The proposed rule repeatedly relies on data and analyses that the agencies have not made available to the public,” the Bank Policy Institute and others wrote in a letter to the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. “This reliance on non-public information violates clear requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
The 1.6 MILLION Realtors know how to advocate for what they want with Congress, so did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the Nationalizations:
"No one in the real estate industry comes close to NAR’s lobbying budget. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae briefly outspent NAR in the early 2000s, but the association has held the industry’s top spot since 2006, according to OpenSecrets data.
Last year, it spent $81.7 million on lobbying, dwarfing the industry’s second highest amount: $6.8 million by the National Multifamily Housing Council.
Real Estate Lobbying Spending 1998-2022@2x
The association spent more than $23.5 million in the first half of 2023, almost half of the entire industry’s spending."
By Winding Down the GSES Mortgage Portfolios there is less Liquidity in the US Secondary Mortgage Market and coupled with the Federal Reserve's reduction in their MBS portfolio this is putting upward pressure on Mortgage Rates for the US Housing Finance Market.
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help!". HeeeeHeeee! !
Don't worry DeMarco and Geithner paid off their Mortgages years ago! !
"A ruling is expected by the end of June. The court's 6-3 conservative majority has limited the regulatory power of federal agencies in a series of rulings in recent years."
"Pro-business conservatives and their Republican allies believe the court fight has brought them closer than ever to dismantling the CFPB. Such an outcome long has been sought by conservatives who criticize what they call the "administrative state," the federal bureaucracy spanning various agencies that interpret laws, craft rules and implement executive action affecting millions of Americans each day."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/conservatives-hope-supreme-court-defangs-us-consumer-watchdog-2023-09-12/
"The cases involve what has come to be known as the "administrative state," the agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules and implements executive action. The court's conservatives, with a 6-3 majority, in recent years have reined in what they viewed as governmental overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies.
"Next term is going to be a huge one at the court for cases involving the administrative state," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center liberal legal group. "These cases all represent challenges that are part of a long-running, multifaceted conservative attack on the administrative state, and nothing less than the ability of the federal government to function effectively is at stake."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/federal-agency-powers-crosshairs-us-supreme-court-2023-07-04/
3 Weeks from today:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-financial-services-association-of-america-limited/
Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
"The nondelegation doctrine in its purest form
renders § 5497(a) unconstitutional. There is no
“intelligible principle” that would enable Congress to
delegate its express, specifically assigned, and
exclusive duty under the Appropriations Clause to
control the government’s purse strings. Delegation by
Congress of a duty that the Constitution assigns
exclusively to Congress is a contradiction in terms."
Amicus Brief Atlantic Legal Foundation
He's a quick learner and sharp, he's setting himself up for a spot in the next Administration, will he be the NEXT FHFA Director?
I'll bet we get released then!
What if their Regulator, the FHFA MAKES them? What are they going to do?
That's David Stevens (he and MC are going to Vegas later this month). David Stevens use to work at Fannie (or Freddie), HUD, and was past President of the MBA.
Good thing he changed flights out of Dulles on 09/11...
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dhstevens_on-this-anniversary-of-911-i-am-reminded-activity-7106639464810086401-8se0