Replies to post #685483 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

yes

bad decision

a decision that I could better live with if they argued it and somehow we lost 5-4 ----ouch

but 9-0 HERA says do as you wish - 9 judges keep their mouths shut - seems just so wrong

[ajcntex1]

Well its been fun and not profitable, but after yesterday I am done with this debacle now. I bought in almost 10 years ago and now in my early 60s I cant afford these funds to be sidelined anymore. I am selling 90% of shares, will hold a few as a hobby to keep interested in what happens.

The supremes hosed shareholders and I have no faith that what was remanded will yield anything positive. SCOTUS gave a 9-0 heads up that FHFA cant do anything illegal. I expect FHFA to start sending all earnings to treasury this quarter.

This is my take, I wont bash anyone here who still has hope that some court will right the wrongs like some posters have done for a while. I may pick up a few more shares if lower courts seem positive, but I got head faked with all that nationalization talk so what they say and what they do are not consistent.

The Roberts court will go down in history the opposite of what he thinks. They are indecisive and subservient to congress.

Good luck everyone, hope yesterday was the worst you see. Got any tips for a quick 100% gain?

[Guido2]

Let's start at the beginning. Collins petitioned for two items:

"1. Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and
2. Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/116983/20190925131502103_Collins%20Petition--PDFA.pdf

Collins won on item 1. Lost on item 2 on the "statutory provisions". But SCOTUS made a HUGE concession to Collins in allowing them to proceed in the lower court on the constitutional claim. There has been a lot of negative feedback on SCOTUS ruling, but they were limited by the case in front of them. As plaintiff Liotta said, it wasn't the ideal case, but it was the approach they moved them to SCOTUS.

I keep reading posts that FHFA can appropriate all of Fannie and Freddie equity for the benefit of the taxpayer. That's not what SCOTUS ruled. In fact, only time it mentions taxpayer is in the sentence, "First, the Recovery Act authorized Treasury to purchase Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s stock if it determined that infusing the companies with capital would protect taxpayers and be beneficial to the financial and mortgage markets."

I think the misunderstanding comes from these two sentences, "From there, the Agency has the authority to take control of the companies’ assets and operations, conduct business on their behalf, and transfer or sell any of their assets or liabilities. §§4617(b)(2)(B)–(C), (G). In performing these functions, the Agency may exercise whatever incidental powers it deems necessary, and it may take any authorized action that is in the best interests of the companies or the Agency itself. §4617(b)(2)(J)." Sending money to Treasury for Obamacare or possibly building the Wall are not in the best interests of the companies or the Agency. During the remand, Treasury should be asked where the $301 billion was spent. If it wasn't on housing, to capitalize Fannie & Freddie (Carlos' Secret Plan) or the running of FHFA, it wasn't authorized and should be returned.

[Double Black Diamond]

Robert, I heard Logic has been deleted from most law school’s curriculums.