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.
Convert your FNMAS now at the generous Exchange Rate of 2.77 Common! HeeeeHeeee !
GET SOME LIQUIDITY MAN!
https://finance.yahoo.com/quotes/fmcc,fnma,fmckj,fmcki,fmccm,fmcck,fmcct,fmcci,fmckk,fmccg,fmcch,fmccl,fmccn,fmcco,fmccp,fmccj,fregp,fmckp,fmccs,fmcko,fmckm,fmckn,fmckl,fnmap,fnmao,fnmfo,fnmam,fnmag,fnman,fnmal,fnmak,fnmah,fnmai,fnmaj,fnmas,fnmat,fnmfm,fnmfn/view/v1
"Note: Bruce Berkowitz gave a bullish take on EPD in a WealthTrack interview on November 2nd 2023."
I watched this the other day, and he talks about the problems of investing with a partner like the Gubmint, especially with regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's a pretty job interview and Consuelo Mack is a very good interviewer:
During the CONservatorships, it's a Government FOR the Government by the Government, at the EXPENSE of the American People (both Shareholders and home buyers/owners because the Guaranty Fees are about TRIPLE what they were PRE-CONservatorship).
Is this what the Founders had in mind?
That's right, can you imagine the legal bills and costs after a decade plus of Litigation?
Because the federal government has treated the Equity Investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so poorly and acted to Nationalize the Corporations on August 17, 2012, in bad faith and unfair dealing, and hidden behind Executive Privilege and National Security, it seems to me that it would be hard for the Federal Government to entice Private Capital in a 1st Loss Position if they truly are going to let them be real private corporations again.
This could take awhile.
Seems very likely to me. What is it, usually a three judge appellate panel, request for EnBanc, then Writ to Supremes.
In theory, if the upper court ruling is significant enough they could order a new trial, I believe, but Plaintiffs could appeal as well.
Wonder if it would be 8 Jurors again.
Arnold & Porter (da Gubmints lawyers) are just doing their job advocating for the FHFA, but despite the Government trying to hide the ball from the American People and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Shareholders these 8 Jurors to their credit could see through them.
Why do you think it's a 5% chance that Lamberth is appealed to the appeals court? Wouldn't an appeal be consistent with the Government's modus operandi to date?
The corpus of the settlement is coming out of the Corporations Balance Sheets (so too Arnold & Porters legal fees and costs?) so why wouldn't they appeal?
Thoughts?
The end result of burying CHEVRON, will be a US Congress that writes laws that more specifically limits OR expands the scope of powers of administrative Federal agencies.
It's a tripartite government, so SCOTUS can't hog all the power, like FHFA has done with us over the last 15 years.
Well, not only did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac piss off quite a few people in Washington on a certain side of the aisle with one of the MOST POWERFUL Lobbying Machines in DC history (go ask Bill if you don't believe me) they allegedly were 'overly beneficial' to your favorite side of the aisle.
It's NO COINCIDENCE that the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time in 2008 (pulling down MILLIONS/YR) had the initials FDR nor that his predecessor tried to get Walter Mondale elected POTUS.
Administrative Federal Agency Law is not a lightning rod issue like the decision passed down the Summer before last.
A majority of the Justices have realized for some time that these federal agencies have more and increasing control over Americans lives and are slowly reigning in the Administrative State.
But they can only do so when they are presented with a live case and controversy. This term they have 3 cases.
We'll know for sure by the end of next Summer.
These federal agencies need to be reigned in to protect the American People and their Businesses. Allowing federal agencies to determine the scope of their own power has violated the tripartite American system of Government with the natural result of abusive and coercive federal agency overreach unleashed on the American People.
Let's hope they put Chevron to rest.
Don't forget, IDEALLY Congress would set fairly easily understood lines to the limits of the federal agencies, instead of the sky's the limits powers, like the FHFA being able to do "whatever is in the bests interests of the FHFA and/or the public it serves."
That could happen if federal agencies lose in Loper on January 17th.
"Billionaire super-investor Warren Buffett has shared plenty of financial wisdom over his almost 70-year career. On the subject of retirement, he famously said, “If you don’t find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-says-money-while-150008565.html
You're getting warmer. Under the US Treasury Commitment, the US Treasury has agreed to provide any additional funding needed UP TO like $200B, which is an arbitrary number that the US Treasury believes is enough to quell any Capital Market concerns over getting paid back their Principal and Interest from Capital invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac MBS.
In return for this basically 'line of credit', the US Treasury and Ed Demarco decided to give away ALL THE PROFITS OF THE CORPORATIONS INTO PERPETUITY!
Nice guy that Uncle Suggy, ain't he the best!!!! !
Who was the POTUS again ?
During the trial, the Arnold & Porter lawyers representing the FHFA (who do you think is bankrolling that) really tried to sell the idea that the Commitment Fee would have been 'yuge' and that would further boost the Gubmints case that the Net Worth Swipe was necessary.
Here's the full 3 hour SBC Meeting, basically it shows the Grand Canyon gap between the way Sherrod Brown and Michael Rounds views Capital Standards.
We'll know shortly. If my memory serves me correctly, the Lamberth case started about a Decade ago (as I recall J. Lamberth originally ruled that Shareholders were not entitled to anything) went up on appeal and eventually we got a trial on the Breach of Contract issue which resulted in a unanimous Jury Verdict.
Shortly after the entry of final judgment in Lamberth BOTH parties in the case will be able to Note an Appeal and we will probably see those Pleadings sometime in the 1st quarter or half of 2024.
According to the coffee mug I read the other day, "Old lawyers never die, they just lose their appeal."
https://www.sugarhousegreetings.com/product/old-lawyers
Latest from TH: "VM–I have not read or heard anything that would indicate that the state and fate of Fannie and Freddie are being discussed among the senior economic policymakers in the Biden administration, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that discussions on this issue might be taking place behind the scenes. As I’ve said often, returning the companies to their former states of shareholder-owned companies, with capital requirements that allow them to set their guaranty fees on an economic basis to the benefit of lower-income borrowers (whose share of loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie has plunged since the conservatorships), should be a “wheelhouse” initiative for a Democratic administration that claims to support affordable housing. And as I detailed in my current post–which was written with the administration’s senior policymakers, and those who know or might influence them, in mind (and that I know has been circulated widely)–there IS in fact “An Easy Way Out” of the Fannie and Freddie conservatorships that would be a win for all stakeholders, and for which the Biden administration could take credit.
Will they embrace that way out? I wish I knew. But “kicking the can down the road” won’t result in a better resolution than the one I’ve proposed, and it WILL result in some other administration getting the credit (and the value of Treasury’s warrants for 79.9 percent of the companies’ common stock) for whatever that resolution ultimately turns out to be.
I will continue to be on the alert for clues that suggest something might be stirring within the Biden administration’s policy circles. Absent such clues, however, I have no basis for speculating what may or may not happen with Fannie and Freddie, either before or after the election, irrespective of which way it goes."
Like Fannie Mae Shareholders, American Businesses are challenging the 4th Branch from controlling their Destinies, todays NYT:
A String of Lawsuits Takes Aim at Regulators: DealBOok Newsletter
The attacks, once unthinkable, could upend how a suite of agencies including the F.T.C. and the S.E.C. enforce rules.
When Meta sued the Federal Trade Commission last week — the social networking giant’s latest effort to block new restrictions on its monetization of user data — it used an increasingly common argument against government regulators: The complaint alleged that the structure of the F.T.C. was unconstitutional and that its in-house trials were invalid.
The lawsuit is the latest in a growing campaign to weaken regulators that could upend enforcement at a suite of agencies — including the F.T.C., the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.
Such arguments would have been unthinkable not long ago. As Justice Elena Kagan put it while hearing a case making similar claims, “Nobody has had the, you know, chutzpah.”
Companies are testing new dynamics and limits. “Today this is a very serious complaint about issues the Supreme Court is wrestling with, but 10 years ago it would have been seen as gobbledygook jurisprudence,” Jon Leibowitz, a former F.T.C. chair, said of the Meta filing. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court since 2020 has restricted administrative power and considered challenges to agency proceedings long taken for granted as valid. The justices have also made it easier to mount challenges to the agencies’ structure and authority. Meta relied on those changes to bring its case against the F.T.C.
In a letter to Meta on Friday, nine House Democrats called the case “frivolous” and said the company wanted to “destroy America’s bedrock consumer protection agency.”
Meta is one of several businesses making challenges. On the same day that Meta filed its suit, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that asks whether in-house trials at the S.E.C. are legal. Industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and executives like Elon Musk and Mark Cuban weighed in, filing amicus briefs urging the court to find against the S.E.C. The biotech company Illumina, which is tussling with the F.T.C. over its merger with the multi-cancer test maker Grail, has challenged the agency’s constitutionality in a federal appeals court.
The cases raise various complaints about how agencies are set up and operate. Challengers say, among other arguments, that there’s no consistent criteria for deciding which cases agencies try in house or in federal court, that the in-house tribunals violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial and that agencies act as prosecutors and judges. “There is a constitutional limit to what Congress can ‘admini-strize,’” Jay Clayton, S.E.C. chair during the Trump administration, told DealBook. He believes administrative courts are not always an appropriate venue. “For me, trying insider-trading cases — the same or very close to classic wire fraud — in S.E.C. courts with S.E.C.-appointed judges and no right to a jury is a step too far.” (The S.E.C. declined to comment.)
Where the justices draw the line will be apparent by the term’s end in June, the deadline for deciding the S.E.C. case. But even if they find for the S.E.C., companies like Meta are lining up with more cases to undermine agencies. If the companies convince courts that in-house tribunals are invalid, enforcers across the government will have far less power and control over proceedings and will be forced to prosecute many more matters in federal courts, adding a significant burden on the justice system. Such a ruling may also lead to changes in how agencies are set up, perhaps eliminating the need for a slate of bipartisan commissioners — a potential outcome that prompted at least one former enforcer to predict that companies may yet regret their campaign to dismantle agencies.
https://www.boston.com/real-estate/real-estate-news/2023/12/07/fannie-mae-to-make-its-secret-condo-blacklist-public/
Is this part of the SECRET PLAN!? Hmmm...
"Together, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support 70 percent of the mortgage market, according to the National Association of Realtors. If people want to buy properties that Fannie Mae won’t touch, they have to search elsewhere for a loan, which could ratchet up costs for some of the most vulnerable people in the housing market.
According to data obtained by the Globe, there were 1,770 developments in the United States on the list in May. By August, there were 2,001. As of October, there were 2,306. Thirty-seven of them were in Massachusetts, 1.6 percent of that list. Florida had the most (34.5 percent), followed by California (10.3 percent) and South Carolina (4.6 percent)."
It ain't over till the fat lady sings....
As far as the Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Lamberth case, BOTH JPS and Common Shareholders suffered Damages, which according to J. Lamberth, is equal to the one day drop in Total Market Value of JPS and Common on the day of the Net Worth Swipe Announcement.
Remember what Jimmy said to his 'fellow travelers'? "Oh, they'll figure this out real fast!"
But BOTH JPS and Common held IDENTICAL Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Rights with their Corporations.
As far as the Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Lamberth case, BOTH JPS and Common Shareholders suffered Damages, which according to J. Lamberth, is equal to the one day drop in Total Market Value of JPS and Common on the day of the Net Worth Swipe Announcement.
Remember what Jimmy said to his 'fellow travelers'? "Oh, they'll figure this out real fast!"
But BOTH JPS and Common held IDENTICAL Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Rights with their Corporations.
Opposing views on Capital Ratios at the SBC:
2 opposing views on Capital Ratios at the Senate Banking Committee hearing the other day:
I think that's right, that's why the Legal Settlement is coming out of the Corporations Assets, as the Conservator "stepped into the shoes" of the Corporations and gave away all their profits into Perpetuity, which broke the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing that ALL Corporations have with their Shareholders.
Just like here, federal government overreach is not as uncommon as people think. And with more and more people employed by government, exercising Governmental power, more overreach seems imminent.
According to the latest employment figures, the government sector added the 2nd most net new jobs in America, last month, at 49,000.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/08/heres-where-the-jobs-are-for-november-2023-in-one-chart.html
"It's been just a long journey to get accountability for this from the government," said Travis May, who also used a box at U.S. Private Vaults to store gold and cash. "Obviously, the journey is not over. But today felt very good to have to see that those concerns are being taken seriously."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbi-took-86-million-safe-deposit-boxes-appeals-court-decide-constitutional.amp
"We alone are responsible for making payments under our guaranty. The certificates and payments of principal and interest on the certificates are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae."
https://capitalmarkets.fanniemae.com/mortgage-backed-securities/mbs-prospectuses
So, the federal government has the BEST of both worlds with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their $7.6 Trillion in MBS is NOT EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, rather the Capital Markets understand that the US Government will almost certainly come in and rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, since they are the backbone of the US Secondary Mortgage Finance Market.
THEREFORE THERE IS AN IMPLICIT GUARANTEE NOT AN EXPLICIT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE.
Do you still not understand, or is your gut reaction telling you not to trust me because I'm you know, from the other side of the aisle and you have always been told not to trust us. !
Why do you think Uncle Suggy wants so much Capital in a 1st Loss Position !
What could possibly go wrong with 1% down Mortgages?
https://www.azfamily.com/2023/12/07/1-down-payment-programs-gain-momentum-arizona-home-buyers/?outputType=amp
Great find, Navy! They say alot of good stuff, but their quest for an EXPLICIT Government Guarantee is NOT in the Government's best interests because the IMPLICIT Guarantee that has been in place for the last 45 years works and doesn't cost the Federal Government a dime.
"For the good of the American housing industry, the FHFA and the Treasury must follow HERA and return the GSEs to private ownership."
"Understandably, that means that appointees tend to follow policies that track the political party in power — zig-zagging back and forth with each administration. Moreover, under the conservatorship, FHFA has enormous powers to implement specific policies for Fannie and Freddie."
"In fact, this was never the route intended by Congress when it passed HERA in 2008. Instead, HERA explicitly provided guidelines for FHFA to take the GSEs out of conservatorship."
"But ultimately FHFA has the authority — even a duty — under HERA to take the GSEs out of conservatorship, working with the Treasury which holds its preferred stock."
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are far too important to homebuyers, our economy and the housing and mortgage industries to be left in limbo indefinitely. FHFA and the Treasury should release the GSEs from conservatorship as soon as possible. There is too much at stake to maintain the status quo."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html
"Wall Street is not the problem, a lack of new housing is, according to David Howard, the chief executive of the National Rental Home Council, a trade association. The country needs anywhere from 2 million to 6.5 million units of new housing, according to various estimates.
“Policies really need to be shaped and crafted so that they support the production, investment and development of new housing,” Mr. Howard said. “I think bills that work against that ultimately are just going to perpetuate the challenges we’re already facing.”
Sure, but just like HERA, the law that gets passed could ONLY be changed or repealed with BOTH Congress AND the POTUS consent, or in the absence of POTUS consent enough Votes in Congress to override a Presidential Veto.
In the current administration's proposed budget is a 25% tax on the Unrealized Appreciation of stocks for investors with over $100 million in assets.
Eventually the $100m could legally be whittled down lto capture more and more Revenue for the US Treasury.
Yesterdays tax case dealt with taxing unrealized income. The problem is, as Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, when the Supreme Court opens a door, "Congress tends to walk through it."
Todays WSJ: "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Moores' challenge and said "realization of income is not a constitutional requirement." The Ninth Circuit's opinion opened up a freeway to tax wealth and property. And wouldn't you know, President Biden's budget this year includes a 25% tax on the appreciation of assets of Americans with more than $100 million in wealth."
So, typically once the federal government gets its nose under the tent, it ends up really expanding from there. For example, look at Social Security, originally the government said it would never get above 2% of income.
Imagine the federal tax collections from taxing the unrealized earnings and/or appreciation on Americans stock holdings!
To add insult to injury, the federal government could tax Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Shareholders Unrealized and Undistributed Earnings (currently retained by the Corporations at the rate of $20B-30B/year to build much needed Capital) and/or any unrealized appreciation if the Shareholders stocks happen to increase in the future.
Britt Kavanaugh said that "Congress wouldn't do that because they would be voted out of office."
But if the Supremes gave them the Green Light, you never know.
"Pursuant to our Constitution, Congress must take on the hard task not only of setting policy, but of establishing standards that meaningfully constrain agency implementation of policy objectives. Agencies cannot be left as wardens of their own authority.”
— Zhonette Brown, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA"
Does Maxine include the Net Worth Sweep in "... promoting safe financial innovation for our Nation's Consumers."?
This investment in particular has been great for Tax Loss Harvesting, but to make a finer point, typically there's no cap in paying a Net Capital Gain, but Uncle Suggy limits your Net Capital Losses up to a $3,000 annual deduction.
Also, Uncle Suggy let's you offset any previous losses from your business in future years for a certain amount of years.
So, what do you think of this statement, T or F? :
"But for your beloved party, the August 17, 2012 Net Worth Sweep would not have happened!"
HeeeeHeeee! Tell me why you believe that's True or False....
You can listen to todays USSCT arguments on taxing gains here....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
That's the thing, Americans typically aren't wild about the TBTF Financial Intermediaries running to the US Government looking for federal guarantees/assistance during times of distress in the Capital Markets.
On the other hand, letting the banks collapse would likely aggravate and prolong a Great Recession and or Depression, devastating American Families along the way....
That's probably why Gubmint Financial Regulators figure the more Capital, the Better...
You know, Uncle Suggy is a silent partner with ALL American investors, because HE GETS HIS CUT OF PROFITS ANNUALLY VIA THE FEDERAL TAX CODE, BUT HE NEVER WANTS TO BE A PARTNER WHEN THE INVESTOR INCURS LOSSES
The TBTF Mantra kinda forces Uncle Suggy to help Investors out during times of distress...