Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

If the GOV takes our property and sells it to private hands - no taking?

Correct, no taking. Because that property is not for public use. Again, go read the language of the Fifth Amendment.



Now this argument could apply to the warrants, but I think any lawsuit challenging those will also fail. The warrants have been known about since 2008, and basically anyone who challenges them now will have bought in after that point. Lamberth's whole point in dismissing most of the claims in his cases is that FHFA has sweeping powers, and investors should have anticipated the possibility of them using those powers. Nobody could have anticipated the NWS, which is why he's allowing one claim to go to trial.

Any effort to sell more than the 79.99% they created a right to by themselves --- will then invoke a simple and clear taking lawsuit - IMO

I will just have to disagree with you then. You act as if the current 20.1% that commons have is some inviolable number that triggers a takings if it becomes less, but again anything that is not for public use cannot be a taking.

You have said that having a final equity breakdown of Treasury 79.9%, current commons 20.1% is fine. Therefore a final breakdown of new buyers 80%, Treasury 16%, current commons 4% has to be okay because Treasury ends up with even less money. If the first one is not a taking, the second isn't either.

You're also conflating a bunch of things here. The 79.9% belongs to Treasury. But it's FnF themselves (not even FHFA!) that will be issuing and selling the new shares to recap. One would have to try and prove that FnF are government actors, and even then those extra shares are not for public use and therefore do not constitute a taking.

So if you want to argue that a bunch of successful lawsuits will be a result of current commons getting less than 20.1% (no matter how it happens!), I will just have to disagree with you. I think all such lawsuits will be dismissed at all levels. You don't have me convinced at all.