My point was that the court will take into account the decades long legal precedent established under FDIC conservatorships pertaining to return on investment in determining damages should a taking without just compensation occur, and I believe the second the warrants are exercised, that argument will be ripe. HERA conservatorship and receivership provisions were designed to virtually replicate the pre-existing model of the FDIA conservatorship and receivership provisions. This was done for the purpose of incorporating the existing body of FDIC legal precedent into any conservatorship or receivership for the Companies in order to provide predictability and fairness to stakeholders. Where in the history of conservatorships has the conservator been allowed to expropriate hundreds of billions of dollars from the shareholders and companies under conservatorship long after the loan has been repaid? It’s completely unprecedented, and it seems like you deflect away from acknowledging this simple concept and revert back to some lopsided agreement made between two government agencies. The conservatorship started with a contract that was signed under duress followed by years of outright negligence in their fiduciary duty from the conservator coupled with accounting fraud that led to the 187 billion in debt owed, and then an outright theft in 2012 which resulted in Treasury reaping a windfall of profits.
Your comment regarding the Conservatorship of the GSEs being unprecedented is not entirely true. What FHFA has done while acting as conservator is completely unprecedented, however the legal framework surrounding the very principle of a conservatorship is not. HERA was well-grounded in the long history of FDIC bank conservatorships, and what FHFA has done here has gone completely off the rails.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
