Replies to post #680808 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

PPS?

How many shares ?

The number of shares is 4.6B for Fannie and 2.6B for Freddie, for a total of 7.2B. That's full exercise of the warrants.

The price per share was around $1.80, which is around where the commons traded in February and March.




(from another post)

if the value of JPS is via conversion to common

why not buy common

Two reasons:

1) There might not be a conversion, and if there isn't I think it will be due to the commons not being worth converting to. I believe the commons have much more downside risk than the juniors.
2) If there is a conversion it will have to be at a premium to the market (and also a premium to par because I expect the juniors I own to mostly trade above par if divs are restored). In my estimation I will own far more common shares later by owning the juniors now, compared to selling my juniors now and buying commons with the proceeds.




(from another post)

What did the EN BANC decide

That 4617f or whatever was not there every time if ....?

and - or

When actions by the Conservator (FHFA) were not actions any sane logical or rational person would describe as CONSERVING then - at that point - a court is not castrated ?

The actions by the GOV with the NWS did not follow APA ?

The Fifth Circuit en banc majority, by a 9-7 vote, decided that the NWS is ultra vires and thus 4617(f) does not bar them from reviewing it. They reversed Judge Atlas's dismissal of the case on 4617(f) grounds and remanded it back to her. This is the APA claim side of the case.

The Ninth and Eleventh circuit merits panels decided the opposite, that the NWS was not ultra vires and thus 4617(f) prevented them from reviewing it. Circuit splits are a common reason for the Supreme Court to take a case, and I believe that was the impetus this time. This case is actually Yellen v Collins, because the defendants (government) are the ones who appealed this part of the en banc panel's ruling.

Collins v Yellen involves the Collins plaintiffs appealing the other en banc majority's 9-7 decision (involving a different subset of judges) to not grant any backward relief when curing the constitutional defect of FHFA's structure as an independent agency with a single director not removable at will by the President.