Replies to post #686355 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Louie_Louie]

Wow! Great find and something I never would have gussed. It's piece of mind knowing there are better analytical minds pondering this other than the posters here. Not knocking anyone on ihub that analyzes this, it is just very beneficial to have outside thought process from different sources.
We may get a new SCOTUS hearing yet! If more media and legal eagles keep slamming this decision....who knows?

[stockanalyze]

lost a lot of money here. really bad. still have few shares left. is it worth keeping them? it appears it is over with courts giving marching orders to run them dry, nationalize or receivership. anyone think this admin will act such to not impair investors anymore than they already have? i read that they would run it dry but some real feedback will be appreciated. what is the silver lining besides a lottery ticket ?

[RickNagra]

Great post. Who is David Fiderer ?

[Mnemonic]

This isn't quite right. SCOTUS managed to make up their own interpretation that FHFA's best interests are those of the general public.

beneficial to the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves.

When they say that FHFA has the right to give the money to Treasury they're actually conflating Treasury with the general public.

Neither of these interpretations are correct. The statute doesn't say FHFA's interests are those of the general public. FHFA's interests may be the greediest, self-enriching shit ever and acting on them would still be totally OK according to SCOTUS. But somehow their ridiculous interpretation is that FHFA can act in the best interest of Treasury, the general public, or itself, and all of those interests supersede the GSE's.

But the biggest problem of them all is that because of this interpretation, FHFA is never legally required to act in the best interest of the companies. IMO this leaves no framework from which to govern, and basically reduces HERA to suggestions instead of rules.

[Donotunderstand]

Good point

and I still am amazed that the law not only said courts stay away but in writing (supposedly) allowed SELF DEALING

in the post I respond to - there is an assumption by Alito that what is good for FHFA is good for the country and citizens (or why allow such self dealing) what utter nonsense

yes - got FHFA and Treasury confused and abused

and the law as written allows self dealing which is confused and abused

[mrfence]

Let Alitos reasonings stand and 5th amendment takings for higher public purpose are ripe. Let Gooberment take da credit and we'll take da cash ;-) :-D

[Dax1]

The Supreme Court should not have taken this case if they didn’t understand it. They are either corrupt, compromised or ignorant of financial transactions. What a disgrace!

[chessmaster315]

Well, yes, but Alito's statements are largely dicta. Remember, this was remanded to the lower courts, not a denial.

All of this "assumes" the lower court will not grant the plaintiffs any compensation, and, we just dont know that yet.

We wont know until the lower court complies with the Scotus remand order.

"Dicta" explantion:

What is a dicta in law?
A remark, statement, or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case. Although dictum may be cited in a legal argument, it is not binding as legal precedent, meaning that other courts are not required to accept it.

[955]

No different than Venezuela's PdVSA. Want a peek into Amerika's future? Just look at Venezuela. Stock up on toilet paper now.