Replies to post #691993 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Guido2]

Robert - if I may add to your great post something you didn't address:

A thief steals your Lamborghini and enters it in a demolition derby. He then argues that all he owes you is the market value of the junk. Who could possibly come up with such a ridiculous argument?

[kthomp19]

I think that would be true in Eminent Domain cases (i.e., Real Property versus Personal Property) where the government comes in and takes your land for a public purpose.

Of course, as I am sure you are aware the local government will low-ball the offer price and the individual(s) whose property is taken contests value with his own appraisal.

FnF shares trade in a public market. There is no need for appraisals: the share price IS the market value.

So, legally does the fact that (1) this is personal property and not real property (2) the government was privy to information unavailable to others and (3) the government had regulatory control and subsequently total control over the manner in which the gses booked future loan reserve losses, DTAS, and legal settlements with lenders matter?

1) The quotes you mentioned don't make a distinction between real and personal property. They do directly apply to publicly traded shares of stock, which is why I quoted them. If you find something else in that paper that contradicts this idea I'd love to hear it.
2) If this is relevant at all, it will only be relevant to the Washington Federal case (which can only result in money damages to pre-conservatorship shareholders). My post was about threatened future takings cases over Treasury's exercise of their warrants, and there is no inside info about the warrnats at this point. Everyone knows they exist and what their exercise would entail.
3) Those things would only establish that there is a valid takings claim, not affect the amount the government is liable for.