Replies to post #744486 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Thanks for your response! How this most bizarre drama in US Corporate History ends seems to be anyone's guess at this point. It's also difficult to watch the courts continually bypassing the shareholders any meaningful remedy in these constitutional violations.

We'll see how it goes.

[Achilles deFlandres]

Thanks for a great analysis. It seems that #4 has an issue within statements made in court.

I think it was David Thompson who said in closing arguments that which should be obvious: Liquidation Preference has value. The current "cash" retention scheme is simply a purchase of liquidation preference by UST.

Secondly: I truly enjoy all of the legal and Constitutional discussions here. Over the years, I have been forced to read that which I never would have read otherwise. This has been a tremendous educational experience for me, but it has become increasingly apparent that the reasonable interpretation of the Constitution along with the law do not matter here. I will stick to my conviction, sadly so, that the Courts will not thwart the Bureaucracy in any material way. They are happy to "clarify" that Watt actually serving at the pleasure of POTUS. They have been happy to unclearly explain that the GSEs effectively belong to Uncle Sam. I have been of this opinion for many years since the Perry appeal failed. I had always believed a takings compensation would be the King Solomon decision to allow the unfettered growth and authority of the Bureaucracy while giving the shareholders a fair shake. Apparently, a fair shake isn't in the cards.

[Mnemonic]

1) I was wrong about how strong the Collins APA claims and the takings claims cases were. With that track record, one should be skeptical of my opinions on the prospects of Collins and Rop.

Ditto. IMO, APA would have been a bonus, but the Takings loss was a complete shocker.

4) Even unwinding the NWS only involves a cash payment from Treasury to UST of around $64B if it happened today, and that number goes down by $4.67B every quarter. The seniors would remain intact and could be converted to commons anyway.

Can you elaborate? I'm not quite following you here.