Replies to post #821538 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. The resolution will be coming so we will see who is more "wrong" - time will dissolve opinions into cold hard facts.

The only way you can actually prove that the LP ratchets were a violation of the implied covenant is by actually filing a lawsuit. Resolving the conservatorships by whatever vehicle FHFA and Treasury choose has nothing to do with that.

So the Jury verdict once entered as final judgement, holds less weight than a singular comment the Judge made?

Less weight on other judges and circuits, yes.

Not that I'm disagreeing with "reasonable investor expectations" are set based on changes that occur over time. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that every "change" that occurs is valid in the eyes of a reasonable shareholder.

Reasonable shareholder expectations are set based on the actual language of contract or amendment, not on their opinion as to the validity or legality of said contract or amendment. If such judgment calls were allowed to set reasonable expectations then just about anyone could bring an implied covenant lawsuit over something or another.

This is so simple, I just don't understand why you don't get it.

Because you're wrong. The NWS already completely thwarted the implied covenant by denying shareholders any economic value going forward. Starting from that point (the most recent amendment to the SPSPAs), there is nothing left to take away.