Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Mnemonic]

In regards to #1 it seems like its all about the ability to "exclude" the government. Since HERA permits the government to take, it doesn't matter if its 5% or 100%. It is legal... so the takings case is completely killed off.

Let's see what this court said:

Without this right to exclude, the Enterprises lack any cognizable property interest on which Barrett may base a derivative Fifth Amendment takings claim.

Basically, they said we don't have property interests because the gov't cannot be excluded from our property. IMO this interpretation is ridiculous because eminent domain also prevents people from excluding the government from their property, but that doesn't mean that the government can take anything they want without just compensation. That would run completely counter to 5A.

In regards to #2... that question is not being answered by the court of federal claims. That is what LAMBERTH is addressing. That will be answered there.

The appeals court said the following:

The Supreme Court has explained that whether a government action constitutes a taking involves an ad hoc inquiry where several factors are relevant: (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.

So interfering with investment-backed expectations is absolutely a concern of this court's Takings case. It's just that this court doesn't think that the investors should have had any expectation once HERA was put into law.

Everyone rooting for a win in Lamberth's court should be concerned, because the gov't can essentially point to this ruling as evidence that the shareholders had no reasonable expectations that the companies wouldn't get looted by FHFA/Treasury.

Again, I expect SCOTUS to review this, because you're essentially allowing the gov't to legislate away property rights in violation of the 5th Amendment. Either HERA is unconstitutional, or this ruling is bogus.

This does set a precedent for any other company to think THRICE before signing on for conservatorship.

You and I can agree on this one. But additionally, the language in the ruling is more concerning:

Because the Enterprises lacked the right to exclude the government from their net worth after the passage of HERA, and especially after the imposition of the conservatorship, they had no investment-backed expectation that the FHFA would protect their interests and not dilute their equity.

HERA allows FHFA to appoint itself as conservator, so it really made no difference if the companies consented or not. This sets a precedent for legislation that allows the government to loot any company regardless of their consent.