InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 2983
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/25/2020

Re: None

Sunday, 10/08/2023 3:44:48 AM

Sunday, October 08, 2023 3:44:48 AM

Post# of 795767
Our negotiator rules out a Takings. Everybody calm down.
I already mentioned here, that the absence of the typical time frame to write regulation in order to uphold the requirement in an Act, melts everything down. Meaning a game changer.

The Separate Account is legal thanks to the conservator's Incidental Power.
A Takings of our stocks at their adjusted Book Value, legal as well.
But the fact that this plan of deception was enabled by an arbitrary act of the FHFA, by enacting the Capital Rule 13 years after HERA struck the Risk-Based Capital requirement and mandated the FHFA director to come up with a new one ("the Director shall..."), it would make it an opportunistic Takings (the UST would have taken advantage of this arbitrary decision of FHFA) and thus, it won't be feasible.

The FHFA adopted the Basel framework for capital requirements in its Capital Rule. Had it been within the 18-month period after HERA was enacted, as usual (1992 FHEFSSA), it would have been very close to the mandate on UST in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 to outline recommendations on ending the conservatorships ("no later than January 31, 2011"), and then, very close to the proposed 3-option Privatized Housing Finance System revamp, which also means Basel framework for capital requirements. So, the investors would have spotted the Separate Account plan from the onset, compelling the FHFA and the UST to make it public and thwarting the plan of acquiring the entire FnF on the cheap at the adjusted BV.
A No Takings is, therefore, a scenario of normalcy, taking into account also the PROHIBITION of UST to make profits with FnF, other than a rate with a small spread over Treasuries (UST backup of FnF)