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.
I agree, when I read the DOJ letter, I am left with the impression that the current administrations position is that the Collins issues are still alive and well and that the 4th Amendment DOES NOT provide the relief that the Collins Plaintiffs seek.
Perhaps the new administration wants to utilize the gses somehow to assist them in their goals of helping the market provide more low and moderate income housing and can't do that with an undercapitalized gses and a ruling gives the gses more capital!
Nice find Navy, you have consistently stated over the years that the SCOTUS will be the ones to provide us relief and today I think the courts have finally realized exactly what the nws is, a Nationalization of two private corporations!
Take a look at the people who where cc'ed on the DOJ memo on March 18th, this just hit David Thompson's inbox and I suspect he may be thinking about his own memo to file with the court! So I don't think next Thursday is the day they will release Collins!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-422.html
I've been studying the governments argument that because Edward DeMarco was an acting director and not explicitly protected from at will removal by HERA, the POTUS can remove him at will, but that seems like a red herring because:
(1) The FHFA would toggle back and forth from an Independent Agency to a Dependent Agency
(2) Under HERA the POTUS would have to choose from one of three deputy directors who were selected by the FHFA Director
(3) Here, Obama couldn't remove the acting director because more than 210 days had passed and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act restrictions prohibit it.
(4) Obama said that he didn't have the power to remove the Republican appointed current acting director.
But sure, in some type of remedial dodge the SCOTUS could deny us relief, but they seem to understand the blatant abuse of governmental power going on here and are likely to spank the government for their overreach in this Nationalization of two private corporations.
Even if they rule that the potus can remove an acting director at will, couldn't they provide the Collins Plaintiffs with relief by ruling that under the APA the nws was an ultra vires and unlawful act of a conservator and therefore shall be set aside?
I mean normally they make rulings and have the lower courts do the implenting in accordance with their rulings (e.g., we find the nws an unlawful act of a CONSERVATOR and it must be set aside, we remand to the lower court for findings consistent with this ruling.). It seems that the 5th Circuit would likely grant a Summary Judgment for the Collins Plaintiffs.
HaHa! I know and yet you never know with 100% certainty exactly how they will rule! The facts seem clear though and the government is in a precarious position if this gets remanded back to the 5th! That's why I bought some more today! Good luck to you and everyone else!
That's right I think one could imply that the SCOTUS asked the DOJ for exactly what happened with the 4th Amendment!
I know, BUT ENDING THE NWS HAS NEVER BEEN A POLITICALLY POPULAR THING TO DO SO THE SCOTUS MAYBE THE ONLY BRANCH OF GUBMINT TO DO IT GIVEN THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS!
Do you think the SCOTUS asked for the letter or it was sent to them under direction of either the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch?
Did DOJ just tell the court, "We're still taking their profits, but now it's called a Liquidation Preference!"
I think the last time we saw her was in the 5th Circuit EnBanc Panel ruling in September 2019, so it's been awhile! Importantly they recognized in their majority opinion that the nws WAS an Ultra vires act of a conservator. By the slimmest of majorities they also ruled that PROSPECTIVE RELIEF was the ONLY relief to be granted on the unconstitionally insulated FHFA Director Issue, which was appealed to the SCOTUS, and Seila Law says we are entitled to restrospective relief! The SCOTUS decision will likely clarify the Succession and anti-injunction issues as well, so da gubmint won't have those options available here! Given the governments refusal to let go of their sweeping profits into perpetuity, even after the 4th Amendment, I think the SCOTUS sees what is going on here and can stop this unfortunate Executive branch of government overreach and power grab by nullifying the nws via the APA Claim.
Whose that lady sitting in the chair? Is that Lady Justice, maybe she will pay us a visit before July 1st, possibly as soon as next Thursday!
There has never been any reason to put them in Conservatorship to begin with ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY IS A LINE OF CREDIT AT UST! We know from documents already obtained from Discovery that it was the Government's intent to Nationalize them.
The 5th Circuit En Banc decision says the nws was an ultra vires act of a conservator, this is from their decision:
"Now to apply this understanding of conservator powers to the Third Amendment. We hold the Shareholders stated a plausible claim that the Third Amendment exceeded statutory authority. Transferring substantially all capital to Treasury, without limitation, exceeds FHFA's powers to put the GSEs in a "sound and solvent condition," "carry on the[ir] business," and "preserve and conserve
[938 F.3d 583]
[their] assets and property."188 We ground this holding in statutory interpretation, not business judgment.
In adopting the net worth sweep, the Agencies abandoned rehabilitation in favor of "winding down" the GSEs. Treasury announced that the Third Amendment would "expedite the wind down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and ensure that the GSEs "will be wound down and will not be allowed to retain profits, rebuild capital, and return to the market in their prior form."189 The FHFA acting Director also said that the Third Amendment "reinforce[d] the notion that the [GSEs] will not be building capital as a potential step to regaining their former corporate status."190 In a report to Congress, FHFA explained that it was "prioritizing [its] actions to move the housing industry to a new state, one without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."191 For reasons we are about to explain, this "wind down" exceeded the conservator's powers and is the type of transaction reserved for a receiver.
As a textual matter, the net worth sweep actively undermined pursuit of a "sound and solvent condition," and it did not "preserve and conserve" the GSEs' assets.192 Treasury has collected $195 billion under the net worth sweep.193 This alone exceeds the $187 billion it invested.194 After paying back more than the initial investment, the GSEs remain on the hook for Treasury's entire $189 billion liquidation preference.195 And under the net worth sweep, Treasury has a right to the GSEs' net worth in perpetuity.196
FHFA had authority, of course, to pay back Treasury for the GSEs' draws on the funding commitment. The funding commitment provided liquidity and took on risk, so Treasury was also entitled to compensation for the cost of financing. But the net worth sweep continues transferring the GSEs' net worth indefinitely, well after Treasury has been repaid and the GSEs returned to sound condition. That kind of liquidation goes beyond the conservator's powers.
FIRREA precedent confirms that this exceeds statutory conservator powers. In Elmco Properties, the Fourth Circuit held that a creditor was unlawfully deprived of its claim because it never received notice of the receivership.197 The creditor had notice of a conservatorship. But "the RTC as conservator cannot ... liquidate a failed bank. Instead, the conservator's function is to restore the bank's solvency and preserve its assets."198 Dividing up and distributing the institution's property is inconsistent with a conservator's powers, so the creditor in Elmco was not on inquiry notice to pursue its claim.199 To "wind down" the
[938 F.3d 584]
GSEs' affairs here, FHFA needed to follow HERA's carefully crafted receivership procedures. But FHFA was never appointed receiver, so it lacked authority to bleed the GSEs' profits in perpetuity.
Finally, based on the Shareholders' allegations, the net worth sweep is inconsistent with conservatorship's common-law meaning. In United States v. Chemical Foundation, the Supreme Court characterized a wartime enemy-property custodian as "a mere conservator" with "the powers of a common-law trustee."200 And a common-law conservator may not give the ward's assets to a single shareholder, just as a fiduciary or trustee may not do so.201 Admittedly, HERA modified the common-law meaning in some ways, such as by permitting use of enumerated powers in FHFA's best interest.202 But in more relevant areas HERA provided no "contrary direction" against the common-law meaning:203 It did not authorize a conservator to "wind down" the ward's affairs or perpetually drain its earnings. Under traditional principles of insolvency, investors and the market reasonably expect a conservator to "operate, rehabilitate, reorganize, and restore the health of the troubled institution," not summarily take its property.204 The Third Amendment inverts traditional conservatorship.
It is worth noting that the facts at this stage are distinguishable from those in some sister-circuit decisions. The Shareholders appeal from a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The complaint alleges facts showing ultra vires action that were not present in some other cases. For example, emails suggest that the Agencies designed the Third Agreement to prevent Fannie and Freddie from recapitalizing. National Economic Council advisor Jim Parrott, who worked with Treasury in developing the net worth sweep, allegedly wrote: "[W]e've closed off [the] possibility that [Fannie and Freddie] ever[] go (pretend) private again."205 Similarly, when Bloomberg published a comment that "[w]hat the Treasury Department seems to be doing here, and I think it's a really good idea, is to deprive [Fannie and Freddie] of all their capital so that [they can not go private again]," Parrott emailed the source: "Good comment in Bloomberg—you are exactly right on substance and intent."206 The emails reinforce that the Third Amendment "deprive[d]" the GSEs of their capital, keeping them in a permanent state of suspension, which is not authorized by statutory conservator powers.207 The pleadings in Jacobs v. Federal Housing Finance Agency208 and Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin209 appear to lack similar
[938 F.3d 585]
allegations. That factual difference distinguishes them.
But Saxton v. Federal Housing Finance Agency210 and Roberts v. Federal Housing Finance Agency211 had facts similar to the Shareholders' allegations here. So we recognize that our decision conflicts with at least some other circuits. The conflict is whether HERA authorized FHFA to adopt the Third Amendment. We think that, in interpreting HERA's conservatorship and receivership scheme, FHFA's general powers should not render specific ones meaningless. This is especially true because, although HERA qualifies traditional conservatorship, it does not eviscerate it. So traditional principles of insolvency and FIRREA decisions remain relevant. And they counsel against a near-limitless view of FHFA's conservator powers.
The complaint states a plausible claim that FHFA exceeded its statutory authority. Judge Haynes's dissent suggests that the Shareholders could waive the legal standard for reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss. But the Supreme Court explained in Iqbal that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"212 The standard is generally applicable, and we see no exception here. When we reverse the grant of a motion to dismiss, the district court may decide if fact issues require trial or if summary judgment should be granted.213 The proper remedy is to reverse the motion-to-dismiss denial and remand Count I for further proceedings."
Lift off next Thursday? https://www.supremecourt.gov/
Court of Federal Claims
I found this page today scroll down to arguments by sittings https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
3 left from October
5 left from November
5 left from December
So 13 cases that were heard prior to Collins.
When Justice Breyer said, "One thing Conservators and Receivers DON'T DO is Nationalize private corporations", I think they see what's going on here and have the power through the APA Claim to provide the relief that the Collins Plaintiffs, et. al. are asking for! Justice Sotomayor even said that a Conservatorship is temporary. We should know for sure by July 1st, possibly next week if they announce some decisions after their conference tomorrow.
Mortgage Rates Continue to Inch Up
March 18, 2021
MCLEAN, Va., March 18, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today
released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing that the 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 3.09 percent.
“As expected, mortgage rates continued to inch up but are still hovering around three percent,
keeping interested buyers in the market,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s Chief Economist.
“However, residential construction has declined for two consecutive months and given the very
low inventory environment, competition among potential homebuyers is a challenging reality,
especially for first-time homebuyers.”
News Facts
30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 3.09 percent with an average 0.7
point for the week ending March 18, 2021, up from last week when it
averaged 3.05 percent. A year ago at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged
3.65 percent.
15-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 2.40 percent with an average 0.7 point, up from last week when it averaged 2.38
percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 3.06 percent.
5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) averaged 2.79 percent with an average 0.3 point, up from
last week when it averaged 2.77 percent. A year ago at this time, the 5-year ARM averaged 3.11 percent.
The PMMS is focused on conventional, conforming, fully amortizing home purchase loans for borrowers who put 20 percent down and have excellent
credit. Average commitment rates should be reported along with average fees and points to reflect the total upfront cost of obtaining the mortgage.
Visit the following link for the Definitions. Borrowers may still pay closing costs which are not included in the survey.
Freddie Mac makes home possible for millions of families and individuals by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Since our creation by Congress in
1970, we’ve made housing more accessible and affordable for homebuyers and renters in communities nationwide. We are building a better housing
finance system for homebuyers, renters, lenders, investors and taxpayers. Learn more at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac’s
That's right Justices Sotomayor and Breyer used the word Nationalization a couple times, Chief Justice Roberts said shareholders were wiped out, but whether they believe that or not (I think they know whats going on here), we will see. Justice Kagan, has written extensively as a Harvard Law Professor saying she is not a big fan of the Unitary Executive Principle, tends to lean to the idea that the US Constitution is a living document that should bend with the times, that the POTUS has unseen powers that allow him to control heads of independent agencies, that Congress has the authority to setup these Agencies with few restrictions since there is no Seperation of Powers explicitly written in the US Constitution, and generally is a big fan of the 4th Branch of government. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg joined her in a dissent last year in Seila Law.
Counted 14 undecided cases prior to Collins oral arguments, you can check my math here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2020/
Tomorrow they get out of conference and may have some opinions ready for next week, we'll see.
Steven Mnuchin switched the net worth sweep to an iou instead of taking the cash and putting it in the UST and letting the new administration spend it! Some court is resolving some issues, check back at the end of Spring and we'll let you know what happened!
You may find this interesting, as shareholders we have experienced first hand the wiping out of our private property interests by an answerable to NO ONE FHFA Director. The founders of our country had the wisdom to understand that power concentration in the hands of one man accountable to no one WILL lead to problems:
"Pacific Legal Foundation Navigation Logo
Filter
Search...
BLOG > OP-ED > NATIONAL REVIEW: ENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE IS AN UPHILL AND NECESSARY BATTLE FOR A FREE NATION
National Review: Ending the Administrative State Is an Uphill and Necessary Battle for a Free Nation
February 20, 2020 I By ETHAN BLEVINS
James Madison defined tyranny as the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.” Yet, according to many prominent progressives, this venerable principle that inspired our constitutional structure is an existential threat to the modern architecture of the federal government. Take, for instance, a New Republic article, which sees Madison’s remedy for tyranny as an evil plot to sink the entire federal bureaucracy.
In “The Plot to Level the Administrative State,” New Republic writer Matt Ford warns that some Supreme Court justices want to revive the nondelegation doctrine — a fancy term for the idea that Congress can’t punt its lawmaking power to a different branch of government. Many on the left fret that this revival poses an existential threat to the modern trend of bureaucratic rule. I hope they’re right.
This wicked plot began in 1787. That year, our Founders built a constitutional structure unique in history — a binding document that separated government functions into three distinct spheres: legislative, executive, and judicial.
Article I vests the legislative power in Congress and sets rules about how lawmaking happens. It splits the lawmaking body into two houses, determines how the lawmakers are selected, and requires that legislation pass both houses and be presented for the president’s approval. Other rules abound, such as requirements that tax bills begin in the House and that no legislator can be appointed to a federal civil office during their tenure.
These rules rein in the power to pass laws that bind the people. If Congress could abdicate such authority to the executive branch, which faces no similar constraints, then those constraints would be meaningless. The power to make laws would face few barriers to abuse. Yet that is precisely what is happening today.
A few statistics demonstrate the degree to which the lawmaking authority vested in Congress has been passed off to eager bureaucrats. In 1950, the Federal Register — the federal government’s daily journal containing rules, proposed rules, and public notices — published 9,562 new pages. In 2016, that number had exploded by 97,069 new pages just that single year, the vast majority of them dedicated to new rules and proposed rules.
These rules aren’t just trivial guidelines. Many of the rules have the power to strangle the economy, trample individual rights, and slap the public with severe criminal penalties. In 2016 alone, federal agencies adopted 127 new “major rules,” meaning rules that result in either an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million, a major increase in costs to consumers and businesses, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, innovation, etc. Hence, the administrative state does a whole lot more than administer; it rules. And that ruling power lacks safeguards that restrain Congress, allowing administrative agencies to act simultaneously as lawmakers, prosecutors, judges, and police officers. In short, the modern administrative state increasingly resembles James Madison’s idea of tyranny.
This “headless fourth branch of government” is exactly what the Founders sought to avoid by dividing power among independent branches. They knew that the lawmaking power would be ripe for abuse if they didn’t rope it off from the power to execute and adjudicate the laws. Madison described the problem this way: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The Framers’ answer to this difficulty is two-fold: Make the government dependent on the people and separate the functions of the government so that ambition will counteract ambition. Delegating the lawmaking power to unelected bureaucrats dissolves both these safeguards.
This development was not an accident. Progressives in the early 20th century picked at the fabric of our constitutional design with the exact intent to unravel the separation of powers. Major political figures of the early 20th century exhibited a cavalier disdain for checks and balances. Teddy Roosevelt, a man perpetually impatient with obstacles to his sweeping vision, said: “The danger to American democracy lies not in the least in the concentration of administrative power in responsible and accountable hands. It lies in having the power insufficiently concentrated, so that no one can be held responsible to the people for its use.”
And Woodrow Wilson claimed that “the radical defect in our federal system [is] that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does.” This is a man who said that, if he could, he would “be willing to go farther and superintend every man’s use of his chance.” Of course, he couldn’t tinker with individuals’ lives as he wished because the Constitution stood in his way, a document he saw as an outdated product of “the old-fashioned days when life was very simple.”
Today’s defenders of a vast bureaucracy trot out the same, tired argument: Life now is much more complicated than the one the Founders lived in — government allegedly needs the unencumbered power to solve modern problems. I would hazard that the men who tackled the challenges of building a nation, quelling rebellions, and tangling with enemies bent on the demise of a fragile republic might disagree that their era was simpler than ours. In fact, one of the grievances against the king listed in the Declaration of Independence echoes the problems of the modern administrative state: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” The common denominator that endures from their era to ours is human nature — something the Framers understood well. In a complex world or a simple one, people are prone to abuse power. The structure built by the Framers is the most elegant and enduring answer to that perennial problem.
The “plot” to end the administrative state is, in fact, an uphill battle to reclaim the principles that founded our free nation. If there’s any plot, it’s the one that has been perpetrated since at least the beginning of the 20th century — to put an end to the separation of powers that stands as the primary barrier to ambitious and power-hungry rulers. In any case, if the revival of the separation of powers is indeed a plot, consider me an eager co-conspirator."
Freddie Mac’s Apartment Investment Market Index Remains Positive in Q4 Despite Contractions in
Major Metro Areas
March 17, 2021
MCLEAN, Va., March 17, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) Multifamily Apartment Investment Market Index® (AIMI®)
rose by 0.5% in Q4 2020 after a rebounding (1.9%) in Q3 2020. The marginal growth reflects a quarter where falling mortgage rates offset negative
change net operating income (NOI) and property price growth, both driven in part by the COVID-19 pandemic. On an annual basis, AIMI rose by 3.4%
as mortgage rates decreased by 57 basis points (bps).
“Over the year, AIMI remained positive nationally and in most markets, but some local markets felt the impact of the pandemic more acutely and
experienced substantial contractions,” said Steve Guggenmos, vice president of Freddie Mac Multifamily Research and Modeling. “AIMI continued to
grow in the fourth quarter, continuing the trend of generally resilient multifamily fundamentals throughout the pandemic.”
Over the quarter, AIMI increased in the nation and in most markets. Sixteen markets experienced quarterly growth while nine metros
experienced quarterly contraction.
Most metros experienced a decline in NOI. The nation and 16 markets experienced quarterly NOI contraction, while nine
metros experienced positive NOI growth. Like last quarter, New York and San Francisco were especially pronounced,
dropping –6.2% and -9.4%, respectively.
Property price growth was also mixed. Prices grew in the nation and in 14 markets while prices dropped in nine markets.
Two markets (Atlanta and Philadelphia) experienced effectively no property price change.
Mortgage rates decreased by 20 bps.
Over the year, AIMI increased in the nation and in 18 markets, while 7 markets experienced an AIMI drop.
NOI dropped in the nation and in 15 markets. New York and San Francisco posted double digits NOI losses for the second
consecutive quarter. Ten markets posted annual NOI gains, including Jacksonville and Phoenix which each exceeded 5%
growth.
The nation and 16 markets experienced property price growth, while nine metros experienced contraction. Property prices
grew by 11.2% in Phoenix – far higher than any other metro.
Mortgage rates decreased by 57 bps – a more severe drop than last quarter, but not as extreme as each of the prior four
quarters.
In addition to national and local values, a sensitivity table is available that captures how the index value adjusts based on changes in certain underlying
variables. Additional information about AIMI is on the Freddie Mac Multifamily website, including FAQs and a video.
AIMI is an analytical tool that combines multifamily rental income growth, property price growth and mortgage rates to provide a single index that
measures multifamily market investment conditions. A rise in AIMI from one quarter to the next implies an increasingly favorable environment for
multifamily investment opportunities, while a decline suggests that attractive investment opportunities are becoming more difficult to find compared
with the prior period.
Freddie Mac Multifamily helps ensure an ample supply of affordable rental housing by purchasing and securitizing mortgages on apartment buildings
nationwide. Roughly 90% of the mortgages purchased support rental units for households earning 120% of area median income or below. Freddie
Mac securitizes about 90% of the multifamily loans it purchases, thus transferring the majority of the expected credit risk from taxpayers to private
investors.
Freddie Mac makes home possible for millions of families and individuals by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Since our creation by Congress in
1970, we’ve made housing more accessible and affordable for homebuyers and renters in communities nationwide. We are building a better housing
finance system for homebuyers, renters, lenders, and taxpayers. Learn more at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac’s
Elon Musk changed his title to Techno King, MC could change his title to KING OF THE GSES! Whose gonna stop him? NO ONE!
"This combination of “expert knowledge and
consolidated power … hark[s] back to the medieval
monarchical vision of a wise ruler, who knows what is
best for his people, and who therefore must have the
full range of unspecialized power to impose justice.”
Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?
344 (2014). While “[o]ne can have a government …
that benefits from expertise without being ruled by
experts[,]” Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U.S. at 499,
continuing to rely on Humphrey’s Executor to bolster
the very existence of independent agencies “creates a
serious, ongoing threat to our Government’s design”
that “subverts political accountability and threatens
individual liberty.” Seila Law, 140 U.S. at 2219
(Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part)."
"The only proper remedy for the constitutional
violations in this case is to vacate the Net Worth
Sweep. The Fifth Circuit’s remedy—effectively blue-
penciling the statute to make the FHFA’s director
removable at will by the President—is inconsistent
with the text of the Administrative Procedure Act and
with the nature of judicial power under the
Constitution. The Fifth Circuit left the shareholders
in the peculiar position of winning their case, but not
securing any relief. By contrast, vacating the net worth sweep would vindicate constitutional
separation of powers principles and incentivize
Congress and agencies to act consistently with the
Constitution."
Post 2008 the banks reduced spec house building lending to zero and the stringent underwriting rules for existing home lending is still in existence. The lending pendulem swung from extremely loose pre 2008 (if you have a pulse you have a loan) to more prudent and conservative! Just like the Chairman of Lennar said today, homebuilding over the last decade has lagged demand yearly. Coupled with the yearly loss in housing from natural disasters, fires, and obsolescence and pandemic shifts in the demand for housing no shocker prices are up and the national housing inventory is at all time loss.
This should bode well for the intrinsic value of guaranteeing home loans!
Had DeMarco not entered the nws and actually rehabilitated the gses as he was required by HERA, the gses would have been able to offer the market some of the tools it needed to stimulate the supply of housing.
This is why the statement, "I'm here from the government and I'm here to help!" is scary indeed!
"The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. In addition, the Federal Reserve will continue to increase its holdings of Treasury securities by at least $80 billion per month and of agency mortgage-backed securities by at least $40 billion per month until substantial further progress has been made toward the Committee's maximum employment and price stability goals. These asset purchases help foster smooth market functioning and accommodative financial conditions, thereby supporting the flow of credit to households and businesses."
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20210317a.htm
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/17/why-lennar-corporation-stock-just-popped-11/
"Lennar executive chairman Stuart Miller noted that after a "housing shortage driven by 10 years of production shortfall ... [and] in spite of a recent uptick in interest rates, the housing market remains very strong across the country."
Management forecasts that over the course of 2021, it will deliver between 62,000 and 64,000 new homes and earn a 25% gross profit margin on their $400,000 average selling price. (That makes for nice math, by the way. For every home Lennar sells, it will earn $100,000 gross profit.)
Additionally, Lennar announced this morning that it will keep sales booming by partnering with Centerbridge, Allianz Real Estate, "and other high quality institutional investors" to create a new "Upward America Venture" that will buy single-family homes and then rent them out. Lennar anticipates that this venture will buy more than $4 billion worth of such homes, creating a sort of captive audience for the detached homes and townhomes it builds -- and a new revenue stream for Lennar. "
"This Court should also vacate the FHFA’s decision
imposing the Net Worth Sweep. Vacatur is mandated
by section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act,
which requires that a “reviewing court shall ... hold
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
conclusions found to be ... not in accordance with law”
or “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege,
or immunity ….”
https://pacificlegal.org/amicus-brief/collins-v-mnuchin/
"Additionally, vacating the Net Worth Sweep is the
only remedy that conforms to the judiciary’s power
under Article III. To have a case or controversy, the
plaintiffs must show that they have an injury that the
court can redress. But the Fifth Circuit left the
shareholders in the peculiar position of winning their
case, but not securing any relief."
They will have a conference this Friday and will likely announce some opinions to be released next week, possibly Monday or Thursday.
I would imagine if there is a favorable Plantiff ruling in Collins, it could be difficult to buy at the current share price.
It's a big Administrative Law case with implications possibly lasting for the next 100 years or so. Pretty sure Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will dissent so we may not see something until May or June.
I think most people including Politicians and Judges see what happened here and the governments position is becoming more and more untenable by the day. Had DeMarco just followed the law in HERA instead of injecting his personal philosophy about the future of the gses we would have ended this governmental fiasco long ago.
MCs response to his soon to be Overlord: https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-introduces-sponsor-initiated-affordability-incentives-multifamily-borrowers
"Subsidize wealth building and NOT debt", that's a great idea...
Also like the 20 yr idea for wealth creation for lower and middle income Americans, quicker amortization and equity build!
Perhaps having the government take a small equity interest for 1st time homebuyers?
I wonder what he will end up saying today, beyond his canned written testimony, "How come YOU GUYS can't fix them, that wasn't my job under HERA!" Or maybe this: "My ideological slant prevented me from doing what HERA told me to do!"
What do you think about the Freddie Mac Board of Directors Officer (handpicked by one of the "conservators"), while testifying, had a book on his shelf entitled, "A Right to Housing"?
Aren't you the author of that book?