Replies to post #748635 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

Agree 100%

[Ace Trader]

Robert ! I think you may have given us the SCOTUS answer!
................................................................................................
It looks like since the 5th Circuit Appeals Court decided the CFPB case and "The Federal Circuit also cannot hear appeals from decisions of other U.S. Courts of Appeals", the US Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over the case and therefore cannot hear it.
.................................................................................................
If this is correct then SCOTUS has to take the case as it's a constitutional issue and since the Constitution covers all courts, laws, of the country then you cannot have a constitutional ruling in one Circuit and not all others !!

SCOTUS has to take the case or it will cause legal issues and conflicting laws throughout the country

[NeoSunTzu]

Just drop this thread your reply tells me you obvioulsy misread or misunderstood my last post. The differences in jurisdiction and where the decisions hold for district courts, U.S. court of Appeals, and SCOTUS are completely clear to me. If you feel you are educating the rest of the board then fine.

The problem you run up against pulling up bits and pieces from the various court cases and law sites and going down these rabbit holes is that you are on a stock board where the vast majority have no legal background, including the both of us, and the speculation just runs rampant. It can be interesting but it borders on mental masturbation - massive amounts of it here lately. Even if SCOTUS takes and upholds the decision it's a long and unclear path to any GSE applicability - best left to someone in the field of law or shareholder lawyers to comment on - at least there would then be some professional credibility to back up the prognostications.

[NeoSunTzu]

The Supreme Court is not under any obligation to hear the CFPB’s appeal. However, given the national importance of the lower court’s decision, we believe it is likely the Court will grant the writ and agree to hear the case and decide it this term. The timing of any such decision is ultimately up to the Supreme Court, as they are under no obligation to grant or deny the petition, or reach a decision within any set timeframe.

If the Supreme Court denies the petition, then the Fifth Circuit’s decision would stand, the mandate would be issued, and the decision vacating the Payday Lending Rule within the Fifth Circuit would become effective. As a practical matter, other parties subject to CFPB authority would file suit and press claims both within the Fifth Circuit and other courts seeking to vacate other CFPB actions under the logic of the CFSA decision.

If the Supreme Court grants the petition and affirms the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it would likely find it difficult to craft a solution that does not throw consumer financial regulation into chaos. The Court likely lacks the authority under the Appropriations Clause to reform the CFPB’s funding structure itself, but ONE OPTION PREVIOUSLY USED by the Court is to provide de facto validity to past Bureau actions, and offer Congress a chance to pass legislation to cure the funding issue before its ruling becomes effective.

If the Supreme Court grants the petition and holds that the CFPB’s funding mechanism is constitutional, thereby reversing the lower court’s ruling, challenges to other CFPB actions based on allegations of unconstitutional funding mechanism would be dismissed, including those under the Payday Lending Rule.

See the link below, I agree SCOTUS would want to take this case, but at least now this gives the opinion of credible attorneys: Polunsky Beitel Green, LLP
mortgagelaw.com

[Wise Man]

FHFA and the CFPB aren't similar Agencies. They are different.
The only similarities is that both are Federal Agencies and non-appropriated agencies, yet they are still different and no one can claim that they are similar.

it is true that the CFPB is not the FHFA nor is the Dodd Frank Act the HERA.
However, they BOTH are very similar

Yes, both operate in the United States too!
You and the frivolous plaintiffs, shamefully omit what truly makes them different, which is that the FHFA regulates two congressionally chartered private corporations, which means that FnF are not ordinary businesses.
A congressional charter (different to a bank charter) establishes the activities, restrictions and privileges, like exemption from certain taxes and a special borrowing right from UST. FnF were created with a purpose: Section "purposes", related to activities in the Secondary Mortgage Market.
The regulator FHFA has to comply with the Charter. For instance, all the PLMBSs were not authorized in the Credit Enhancement clause of the Charter. Then, the FHFA has limited powers.
Limited powers makes the FHFA Director's "for cause" removal restriction, constitutional, and also it allows to be a non-appropriated agency because it is more an overseer than a regulator, regardless that Congress later added made-up roles in HERA, like the Affordable Housing Goals. Phony goals because they always lag the market and not the other way around. The Charter is the one that directs FnF to carry out activites for low- and moderate- income families, not the FHFA. And the goals are driven by the market.
All the FHFA does is overseeing the capital levels, and it fails miserably with a $400 billion capital shortfall together. The FHFA's predecessor was set up in the 1992 FHEFSSA that established the Capital ratios for the first time. FHFA is more about (Duties of the director):
-"Oversee the prudential operations,
-To ensure that FnF operate in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls". But Sandra Thompson, as well as Calabria, only repeat the first part of this sentence, despite that the conservator has the same mandate of recapitalization (put FnF in a sound condition), which means that both follow the same orders from powerful institutions.