FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[rros]

"if reheard en banc, the merits panel decision is voided"

 

en banc is active judges, 7D, 4R, good luck.

wayne, maybe it IS good luck. So far, 2 rep judges bailed on us!

[hyten1]

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

[Luke 532]

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

 

Cooper: "We are continuing to evaluate the implications of yesterday’s decision, but at a minimum, it certainly strengthens our conviction that the Net Worth Sweep amounted to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

[beaufort]

Question for US corporate lawyers.

 

Takings claim

 

The corporate individual (ie Fannie) held the property in the money that was taken over the years.  Therefore, the remedy would be to make the corporate person (Fannie) whole, and damages would be granted to Fannie, and not individual shareholders. 

 

Please confirm or correct my understanding.

[beaufort]

"Corporate individual"  I meant corporate person.

[Mephistopheles]

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

 

Cooper: "We are continuing to evaluate the implications of yesterday’s decision, but at a minimum, it certainly strengthens our conviction that the Net Worth Sweep amounted to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

 

Sounds great but they could also be talking their book. Do you really expect them to come out and say the opposite? haha

[Luke 532]

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

 

Cooper: "We are continuing to evaluate the implications of yesterday’s decision, but at a minimum, it certainly strengthens our conviction that the Net Worth Sweep amounted to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

 

Sounds great but they could also be talking their book. Do you really expect them to come out and say the opposite? haha

 

True

[muscleman]

Could it be that Lamberth later rules that there is contractual claims and it is worth $0.01 a share.

Then in the taking court the defense lawyer argues that the contractual claims have already been awarded so there is no taking.

 

I am not a lawyer. Just trying to understand how the government can have it both ways.

[doughishere]

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

 

Cooper: "We are continuing to evaluate the implications of yesterday’s decision, but at a minimum, it certainly strengthens our conviction that the Net Worth Sweep amounted to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

 

Sounds like Custer's Last Stand.

Sounds great but they could also be talking their book. Do you really expect them to come out and say the opposite? haha

 

True

 

Sounds like Custer's Last Stand.

[BeerBBQ]

My laymans understanding of part of the ruling is that these two judges are saying the plaintiffs misinterpreted the law as it relates to the term conservator. It seems like they are saying that when the plaintiffs read the law and argued the case, they had a traditional view of conservatorship in mind where the conservator can't act in the  conservators own interest. They are saying that the error the plaintiffs made is not recognizing that this conservatorship is different in that it allows for acting in the agency's best interest.

 

based on the way the legislation is written, is this a valid argument or are they just trying to fit the ruling to the outcome desired (like many have suggested)?

 

They also seem to hint (like lamberth suggested) that the plaintiffs real issue is the constitutionality of HERA itself. If this ruling is appealed to Supreme Court (and they take the case), will they just look at the issues that were decided or will they also look at the constitutionality of the entire law?

 

Also, I thought lamberth stepped down literally the day after his decision - if that is accurate, who will review the parts of the case on remand?

 

In addition to Washington federal and the case in Texas, what suits challenge the entire conservatorship and/or the constitutionality of HERA?  I've heard that WF is a placeholder with little financial backing behind it, does anyone know if the Texas case (or others) are more than just placeholders? If any of those move forward, is there any reason to think the speed at which they move will be materially faster than perry or the one in claims court?

 

 

 

 

[Ismael]

Weird how the common traded today relative to the preferred.  It makes me wonder if the market knows something...

[Desert_Rat]

My laymans understanding of part of the ruling is that these two judges are saying the plaintiffs misinterpreted the law as it relates to the term conservator. It seems like they are saying that when the plaintiffs read the law and argued the case, they had a traditional view of conservatorship in mind where the conservator can't act in the  conservators own interest. They are saying that the error the plaintiffs made is not recognizing that this conservatorship is different in that it allows for acting in the agency's best interest.

 

based on the way the legislation is written, is this a valid argument or are they just trying to fit the ruling to the outcome desired (like many have suggested)?

 

They also seem to hint (like lamberth suggested) that the plaintiffs real issue is the constitutionality of HERA itself. If this ruling is appealed to Supreme Court (and they take the case), will they just look at the issues that were decided or will they also look at the constitutionality of the entire law?

 

Also, I thought lamberth stepped down literally the day after his decision - if that is accurate, who will review the parts of the case on remand?

 

In addition to Washington federal and the case in Texas, what suits challenge the entire conservatorship and/or the constitutionality of HERA?  I've heard that WF is a placeholder with little financial backing behind it, does anyone know if the Texas case (or others) are more than just placeholders? If any of those move forward, is there any reason to think the speed at which they move will be materially faster than perry or the one in claims court?

 

I didn't know that but it seems to be true. I laughed when I read "outspoken on government incompetence". How ironic.

[orthopa]

Interesting tidbit from the beginning of the Mnuchin confirmation hearing. Whole text here. http://www.aba.com/Tools/Ebulletins/Documents/Mnuchin-Senate-questionnaire.pdf

 

 

Senator Orrin G. Hatch

3. GSEs

As former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has stated, the conservatorship of mortgage giants Fannie

and Freddie, also known as Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs, were to be a “time out,” while

the government decides how to restructure the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship in

2008 which means that the “time out” has lasted for more than eight full years.

Numerous commentators, including analysts at the Federal Reserve, have commented on a need to finally

get to restructuring Fannie and Freddie. For example, in a March 2015 Staff Report from the Federal

Reserve Bank of New York, analysts wrote that “…there appears to be broad consensus that Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac should be replaced by a private system—perhaps augmented by public reinsurance

against extreme tail outcomes…”

You also recently echoed the need to get to finality on restructuring Fannie and Freddie, and I’d expect

you, as nominee for Treasury Secretary, to be thinking about such issues. The Obama administration has,

for the past eight years, shared the view that Congress should pass legislation to reform our housingfinance

system. Do you agree with the views of many that the “time out” on the GSE’s ought to end, and

Fannie and Freddie need to somehow be restructured or ended?

 

 

Mnuchin

 

I agree that the United States needs a comprehensive approach to its housing finance policy. With

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both in conservatorship it is difficult to articulate their long-term

role within our housing finance policy. Eight years passed since they entered conservatorship and

there has been a significant recovery of housing prices across the country. So that lends itself to be a

good time, in my view, to address the desired future state we seek for housing finance in our

country.

I look forward to exploring with Congress and stakeholders across the public and private sector

solutions to this important problem.

 

 

1. So if its difficult to articulate their long term role in conservatorship then the way you articulate it is by....?

 

2. I think we can figure out who congress is...but if he wants to explore solutions with stakeholders Who are the current stake holders in Fannie and Freddie in public and private sectors?

[HalfMeasure]

1. So if its difficult to articulate their long term role in conservatorship then the way you articulate it is by....?

 

2. I think we can figure out who congress is...but if he wants to explore solutions with stakeholders Who are the current stake holders in Fannie and Freddie in public and private sectors?

 

1. He already explicitly stated he wanted to take them out of conservatorship (get them out of government control, which implies no more conservatorship).

 

2. Stakeholder is a very vague term. It includes but isn't limited to stockholders, bondholders, employees, and customers.

[Luke 532]

-Mnuchin confirmed as Sec Treasury (Monday 13th)

-Mnuchin meets with Mel Watt*

-Language change regarding NWS payment Freddie and Fannie Thursday and Friday (16th and 17th)

-Mnuchin meets with Trump today (22nd)

-Mnuchin speaking on CNBC and Fox Business News tomorrow morning (23rd)

 

*In his first week on the job, Mr. Mnuchin has spoken with around 10 foreign counterparts and other leaders, including International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde. He also has met with Mel Watt, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the independent regulator of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are under the effective control of that agency and the U.S. Treasury as a result of their 2008 bailouts.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/2017022216346/treasury-secretary-steven-mnuchin-sees-tax-overhaul-by-august-4th-update.aspx

 

Also, don't forget Watt said that the law got trumped and that the GSE's are stable companies and that the conservatorship can't last forever.

[merkhet]

-Mnuchin confirmed as Sec Treasury (Monday 13th)

-Mnuchin meets with Mel Watt*

-Language change regarding NWS payment Freddie and Fannie Thursday and Friday (16th and 17th)

-Mnuchin meets with Trump today (22nd)

-Mnuchin speaking on CNBC and Fox Business News tomorrow morning (23rd)

 

*In his first week on the job, Mr. Mnuchin has spoken with around 10 foreign counterparts and other leaders, including International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde. He also has met with Mel Watt, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the independent regulator of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are under the effective control of that agency and the U.S. Treasury as a result of their 2008 bailouts.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/2017022216346/treasury-secretary-steven-mnuchin-sees-tax-overhaul-by-august-4th-update.aspx

 

Also, don't forget Watt said that the law got trumped and that the GSE's are stable companies and that the conservatorship can't last forever.

 

Busy guy.

[Mephistopheles]

Mnuchin on CNBC:

 

-Says they've assembled a team at Treasury to work on F&F

-Spoke with Mel Watt and Hensarling about a solution

-Says the companies have been in this state for too long

-Won't happen before tax reform, which they're aiming for before August recess

-Reiterated want for bipartisan solution

 

 

[BeerBBQ]

For those in congress against gse's, what are the "must haves" vs. the areas that they would be willing to give on?

 

 

[Luke 532]

Mnuchin on CNBC:

 

-Says they've assembled a team at Treasury to work on F&F

-Spoke with Mel Watt and Hensarling about a solution

-Says the companies have been in this state for too long

-Won't happen before tax reform, which they're aiming for before August recess

-Reiterated want for bipartisan solution

 

Just to clarify, he didn't say it won't happen before tax reform.  He simply said tax reform is his #1 priority.

[TonyG]

also they kind of need it to happen before tax reform or else the DTAs get written down and they need to bail them out. unless they are comfortable with a bailout.

[Flynnstone5]

Mnuchin on CNBC:

 

-Says they've assembled a team at Treasury to work on F&F

-Spoke with Mel Watt and Hensarling about a solution

-Says the companies have been in this state for too long

-Won't happen before tax reform, which they're aiming for before August recess

-Reiterated want for bipartisan solution

 

Just to clarify, he didn't say it won't happen before tax reform.  He simply said tax reform is his #1 priority.

 

 

Have to hear again. I thought that he did say it wouldn't happen until after tax reform.

 

What a BS interview. Maybe Maria will be able learn a bit more.

[Luke 532]

Mnuchin on CNBC:

 

-Says they've assembled a team at Treasury to work on F&F

-Spoke with Mel Watt and Hensarling about a solution

-Says the companies have been in this state for too long

-Won't happen before tax reform, which they're aiming for before August recess

-Reiterated want for bipartisan solution

 

Just to clarify, he didn't say it won't happen before tax reform.  He simply said tax reform is his #1 priority.

 

 

Have to hear again. I thought that he did say it wouldn't happen until after tax reform.

 

What a BS interview. Maybe Maria will be able learn a bit more.

 

Just depends how one interprets the following. I might be wrong as I could see it being either way.

"...so I don't think you'll see something right away from us, whereas tax reform is a near-term issue.  But this is definitely on the agenda."

 

He did emphasize with his voice the "right away" part.

 

Tax reform discussion at 5:45 of this video: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000595630

Quick: "Fair to say it's a little too early to tell on some of these details, that has to be worked out?"

 

Mnuchin: "I would say it's a little too early to announce"

(Mnuchin emphasized the word "announced").

 

Mnuchin: "See something in near future and committed to get it passed by August."  The Treasury's work on it would be completed prior to it going through the process of getting passed.

(my emphasis added, not Mnuchin's)

 

The way he corrected her made it seem like they are pretty much done with the tax reform piece and it just has to jump through the hoops to get through Congress.  Later on he says we haven't finalized the plan (dot i's and cross t's?  Who knows...)

 

[SnarkyPuppy]

What's his incentive to be shy at this point?  Also in my eyes, bipartisan strongly implies congress which is terrible for us.  Maybe I'm just bad at reading tea leaves... or maybe there just aren't any to read. 

[Luke 532]

Mnuchin on Maria's show (paraphrased): "the legal case belongs in the courts, the decision was favorable to Treasury, DOJ represents Treasury and it's for them to deal with."

[BTShine]

"We are committed to a solution.  Hopefully there's a bipartisan solution"

 

The only change I saw today was him opening the door to a non-bipartisan solution.