Replies to post #350096 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

Why devote so much time to a case that has nothing to do with shareholder litigation over Fanniegate? This matter is solely about an employment/termination issue at Freddie Mac. It is far-fetched to think it has any relevance to a multi-$billion FNMA shareholder action against FHFA and UST.

For years every small tidbit of news, no matter how small or trivial, has been parlayed into some huge bonanza of pixels, proclaiming some budding windfall for FNMA investors and enormous, imminent wealth for them and their hedge fund protagonists. Most all of this is nothing more than a big load of crap that gets everyone lathered up for a day or two, then dissipates as the high fives evaporate and the reality of "no change" sets back in. Like the court decision that was to be announced last Tuesday or Thursday. Again, nothing but a big load of crap. Nothing happened... as always. Nothing ever happens from these rubbish predictions from the blogosphere.

There WILL be real news, someday, and I believe that day is drawing near. Something meaningful may actually be revealed, tomorrow, with the Amended complaint expected to be filed in Delaware. Wish we could limit the spirited Fannie discussion to matters that do or at least could matter.

JMHO.

[rekcusdo]

"So from where do you come to --

All of this points VERY clearly that the court supports Lamberth and says that shareholders have no takings right in a government regulated entity such as Freddie Mac. "

Lamberth tossed the case for the same reason. He never actually addressed a takings or any other claim. He simply ruled that there was no standing because it is a regulated entity in Conservatorship and that was that.