Sunrider Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Thank you. You have done an incredible job here we have all benefitted from your effort whether the stock moves higher or not. Hands down Christian deserves the MVP award for Most Valuable Poster. His work on MBIA was incredible as well. I have a law degree and still learn a ton reading his posts. Thank you!! Once this saga ends, I hope you find another potential investment to keep the intelligent posts coming! Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undervalued Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Does anyone know if Eddie Lampert ESL owns any FNMA or related securities? If not, why not? He worked with Moelis and friend with Mnuchin. Seems like easy money if everything is going the way it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I have some preferred and commons left. I am keeping the preferreds. Shall I sell commons? If I sell both now, would pay for another semester. If I hold preferreds till $25 and commons like $17.00 as per Moelis, at least 3 more semesters and would be so happy. I can’t make up my mind. In one way, it wouldn’t matter if they tank again as I have already cried so many times over paying the tuition. I cannot believe I have spent so much time over this investment, wish had more money. Someday I will make it like many of you. Use COB&F to gather information, develop and/or test your thesis, compare alternatives, etc. Then make the decision on your own. You should know this, but I want to offer a gentle reminder to avoid asking strangers on a message board what to do ("should I buy X, should I buy Y"). Personally, whenever I'm studying a company and have the urge to ask somebody "what would you do" I know I'm in over my head and I don't invest in it. It takes a certain degree of wisdom to know when you don't know. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 5th Cir investor suit development. Democratic legislators filed an #amicus arguing @FHFA is constitutional but neither plaintiffs or government defendants take that view. Amicus appears to want to avoid precedent impact on @CFPB. Settlement may be only way to avoid precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 5th Cir investor suit development. Democratic legislators filed an #amicus arguing @FHFA is constitutional but neither plaintiffs or government defendants take that view. Amicus appears to want to avoid precedent impact on @CFPB. Settlement may be only way to avoid precedent. I believe it would be a violation of the judicial oath for collins en banc to find fhfa constitutionally structured. the judicial power under article III extends to "cases and controversies", and collins is a controversy in which no party is seeking a decision that fhfa is constitutionally structured...only amici are asking for that...and amici are not parties to the case and controversy before collins en banc. Ps still have to win on standing and redressability, and get awarded retrospective relief (void NWS). but Ps cannot lose on whether fhfa is unconstitutionally structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcmeg35 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I think it is important to be continuously mindful of opposing viewpoints that disprove the R&R thesis. I would be curious to hear others thoughts' on these positions. I view the majority of them as the prevailing narrative/view that the sell side community has maintained over the last several years (in addition to the MSM & Bloomberg's Anti-GSE leaning). The one that I find perhaps most compelling is how an announcement of a plan to end NWS, pre-Calabria confirmation, could impact/scuttle his nomination - which might have the impact to push out any major announcements/changes until after he is confirmed. Also, while I personally think "this time is different", we are still in the early phase where it is still talk, nothing has been firmly announced or implemented, and we could have a repeat of Mnuchin early 17'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/fannie-freddie-share-rallies-go-unchecked-amid-analysts-doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 5th Cir investor suit development. Democratic legislators filed an #amicus arguing @FHFA is constitutional but neither plaintiffs or government defendants take that view. Amicus appears to want to avoid precedent impact on @CFPB. Settlement may be only way to avoid precedent. I believe it would be a violation of the judicial oath for collins en banc to find fhfa constitutionally structured. the judicial power under article III extends to "cases and controversies", and collins is a controversy in which no party is seeking a decision that fhfa is constitutionally structured...only amici are asking for that...and amici are not parties to the case and controversy before collins en banc. Ps still have to win on standing and redressability, and get awarded retrospective relief (void NWS). but Ps cannot lose on whether fhfa is unconstitutionally structured. I hope you are right and that the amicus carries little weight. Honestly, that filing made me nervous. I never thought its intention to be preventing setting precedent. Instead, it looked to me more of an attempt to validate the nws by validating FHFA's structure while preserving the status quo. Wouldn't democrats, who just described the old GSEs as lobbying monsters with unparalleled political clout, be terrified of seeing them free again, in spite of the now strong regulator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I think it is important to be continuously mindful of opposing viewpoints that disprove the R&R thesis. I would be curious to hear others thoughts' on these positions. I view the majority of them as the prevailing narrative/view that the sell side community has maintained over the last several years (in addition to the MSM & Bloomberg's Anti-GSE leaning). The one that I find perhaps most compelling is how an announcement of a plan to end NWS, pre-Calabria confirmation, could impact/scuttle his nomination - which might have the impact to push out any major announcements/changes until after he is confirmed. Also, while I personally think "this time is different", we are still in the early phase where it is still talk, nothing has been firmly announced or implemented, and we could have a repeat of Mnuchin early 17'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/fannie-freddie-share-rallies-go-unchecked-amid-analysts-doubt Following this line of thought my fear is whether Trump may use this widely advertised push to free the companies (with shares skyrocketing) to negotiate something with Democrats who may prefer the status quo to continue. Watt was all for status quo. And Trump has been radio silent for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undervalued Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Anyone have a good reason why Otting come out now before Calabria's confirmation? It will create a difficult session later on for him during Q&A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Anyone have a good reason why Otting come out now before Calabria's confirmation? It will create a difficult session later on for him during Q&A. fair point. however, I think castigating Calabria for something otting does is somewhat irrational...not that the senate wouldn't do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcmeg35 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Anyone have a good reason why Otting come out now before Calabria's confirmation? It will create a difficult session later on for him during Q&A. fair point. however, I think castigating Calabria for something otting does is somewhat irrational...not that the senate wouldn't do that @cherzeca, I would agree, however, I think it is more about giving the Senate an opportunity to ask questions about Calabria's position on these moves and how he plans to proceed if confirmed. Probably would create a lot more headache for him if 4th amendment & recap plan are announced by Otting which Senate comes out against because they feel like they are not part of the convo. If a majority is against it and Calabria is for, would it jeopardize his nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueMaven Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 how 2 listen to en banc hearing tmrw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 how 2 listen to en banc hearing tmrw? I don't think you can realtime. mp3 posted on 5th circuit website after Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Later today: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/oral-argument-recordings Case Nbr 17-20364 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Later today: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/oral-argument-recordings Case Nbr 17-20364 Oral arguments up: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-20364_1-23-2019.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Later today: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/oral-argument-recordings Case Nbr 17-20364 Oral arguments up: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-20364_1-23-2019.mp3 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcmeg35 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Later today: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/oral-argument-recordings Case Nbr 17-20364 Oral arguments up: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-20364_1-23-2019.mp3 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? Me too. Got to the 33min mark and it got cut off. Now not reloading...Did anyone download it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? I got to the 16 minute mark and then it crashed. Can't get it to start up again. Probably a lot of people listening to it at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? I got to the 16 minute mark and then it crashed. Can't get it to start up again. Probably a lot of people listening to it at the same time. I got to 38 minute. that is ms. Edith Jones who is dominating the questioning. one tough judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? I got to the 16 minute mark and then it crashed. Can't get it to start up again. Probably a lot of people listening to it at the same time. I got to 38 minute. that is ms. Edith Jones who is dominating the questioning. one tough judge. got through it all. hard to conclude how 16 judges will rule on the two separate claims. it is clear that judge jones is sympathetic to Ps arguments in general on both claims (she was the judge with the unmistakable Texas accent), but she dominated most of the questioning, and it is by no means reasonable to assume that the mostly silent judges will follow her lead. there was some push back of redressability from judge Haynes I believe, who wanted to know in effect why when Obama finally could appoint his man, mr. watt, why mr. watt didn't revoke the NWS. P counsel didn't respond, but probably should have, that judge watt wasn't going to do anything as director but keep the seat warm until congress acted. judge jones repeatedly suggested that the reason why the other circuits found the way they did is that they let fhfa/treasury control the factual narrative. not so with the collins complaint, which had the benefit of the fairholme discovery. and judge jones also stopped fhfa/treasury counsel when they were speaking as to historical acts which were not in the complaint as support for the NWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeOption Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Thanks for the summary. Any idea when some sort of decision will be published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 having trouble streaming the mp3. anyone else? I got to the 16 minute mark and then it crashed. Can't get it to start up again. Probably a lot of people listening to it at the same time. I got to 38 minute. that is ms. Edith Jones who is dominating the questioning. one tough judge. got through it all. hard to conclude how 16 judges will rule on the two separate claims. it is clear that judge jones is sympathetic to Ps arguments in general on both claims (she was the judge with the unmistakable Texas accent), but she dominated most of the questioning, and it is by no means reasonable to assume that the mostly silent judges will follow her lead. there was some push back of redressability from judge Haynes I believe, who wanted to know in effect why when Obama finally could appoint his man, mr. watt, why mr. watt didn't revoke the NWS. P counsel didn't respond, but probably should have, that judge watt wasn't going to do anything as director but keep the seat warm until congress acted. judge jones repeatedly suggested that the reason why the other circuits found the way they did is that they let fhfa/treasury control the factual narrative. not so with the collins complaint, which had the benefit of the fairholme discovery. and judge jones also stopped fhfa/treasury counsel when they were speaking as to historical acts which were not in the complaint as support for the NWS. Chris, what is your opinion on her argument that 2 different administrations, 3 different FHFA directors (2 acting) and 2 different Presidents have not sought to undo the nws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 @rros she being judge Haynes. there is case law to say that this is precisely the sort of counterfactual second-guessing that judges should not require Ps to go through, so it really depends on whether 8 other judges were thinking to themselves, "good point", or were instead thinking "who cares"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 @FO who knows when decided. I would think 3 months is somewhere the mean, but this is just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 @rros she being judge Haynes. there is case law to say that this is precisely the sort of counterfactual second-guessing that judges should not require Ps to go through, so it really depends on whether 8 other judges were thinking to themselves, "good point", or were instead thinking "who cares"? Thank you. I will have to listen to it once again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now