Guest cherzeca Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 arguably the best result, as I think about it, is to have cfpb single director for cause removal declared unconstitutional, provide backward relief to P (invalidating CID issued to Seila)(this is where the 5th C en banc screwed up, not granting backward relief to collins), and then severing the removal provision going forward so that there is no ambiguity whether the cfpb can continue in existence with enforceable orders (this would, by read through, enable calabria to continue doing his work). if this is the result (I say this because the report indicated kavanaugh is warm to severance, which he was as well in PHH) then a VGR for collins "should" be in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf imo low odds of a) FHFA is constitutionally structured b) punt c) invalidate the whole law what they should do (objectively speaking): Rule of Law's analysis: unconstitutional and backward relief for those who timely requested it. what they will likely do: the Kavanaugh and 5th circuit's solution of unconstitutional + change to removable by president at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 We'll have more on the ruling today in #CFPB v. All American Check Cashing but count us among the shocked who didn't expect an appellate court to rule on the constitutionality of the bureau the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue. In Collins, the majority noted that the FSOC had some measure of oversight of the #CFPB in a way the FHFA did not have. Judge Smith didn't buy it: "Undeterred, the majority stubbornly asserts that the FSOC’s presence somehow makes the CFPB accountable. Not so." Dodd Frank Update @DoddFrankUpdate Judge Smith: "The #CFPB and FHFA are sister institutions. Only a judge who plays 'semantic games of reformulation and hair splitting in order to escape the force of a fairly resolved issue' can conclude ... that the agencies are sufficiently different." Final note: Fifth Circuit becomes third appellate court to affirm #CFPB constitutionality (9th, D.C.) Federal courts in Mississippi, Montana, California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana have ruled similarly. Only the NY and D.C. districts (vacated) ruled it unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 https://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/articles/217288-new-details-emerge-in-fhlb-attempt-to-buy-freddie?v=preview FHLB ‘Plan’ to Buy Freddie Could Work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf imo low odds of a) FHFA is constitutionally structured b) punt c) invalidate the whole law what they should do (objectively speaking): Rule of Law's analysis: unconstitutional and backward relief for those who timely requested it. what they will likely do: the Kavanaugh and 5th circuit's solution of unconstitutional + change to removable by president at will. I agree with what they will do but I also think that after Lucia SCOTUS will grant backward relief as well in Seila...not inconsistent with severance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 We'll have more on the ruling today in #CFPB v. All American Check Cashing but count us among the shocked who didn't expect an appellate court to rule on the constitutionality of the bureau the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue. In Collins, the majority noted that the FSOC had some measure of oversight of the #CFPB in a way the FHFA did not have. Judge Smith didn't buy it: "Undeterred, the majority stubbornly asserts that the FSOC’s presence somehow makes the CFPB accountable. Not so." Dodd Frank Update @DoddFrankUpdate Judge Smith: "The #CFPB and FHFA are sister institutions. Only a judge who plays 'semantic games of reformulation and hair splitting in order to escape the force of a fairly resolved issue' can conclude ... that the agencies are sufficiently different." Final note: Fifth Circuit becomes third appellate court to affirm #CFPB constitutionality (9th, D.C.) Federal courts in Mississippi, Montana, California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana have ruled similarly. Only the NY and D.C. districts (vacated) ruled it unconstitutional. you may have noticed that there was no discussion of FSOC in the oral argument (or briefs) in Seila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 you may have noticed that there was no discussion of FSOC in the oral argument (or briefs) in Seila. If at all, how do you think this impacts FHFA and/or the GSE's? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 you may have noticed that there was no discussion of FSOC in the oral argument (or briefs) in Seila. If at all, how do you think this impacts FHFA and/or the GSE's? Thanks. not at all. as I recall this was argued before a merits panel that included one senior judge, who would not be included in any en banc hearing. I would expect that Ps would petition for rehearing en banc and get it, though likely not before Seila scotus comes out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 you may have noticed that there was no discussion of FSOC in the oral argument (or briefs) in Seila. If at all, how do you think this impacts FHFA and/or the GSE's? Thanks. not at all. as I recall this was argued before a merits panel that included one senior judge, who would not be included in any en banc hearing. I would expect that Ps would petition for rehearing en banc and get it, though likely not before Seila scotus comes out Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf imo low odds of a) FHFA is constitutionally structured b) punt c) invalidate the whole law what they should do (objectively speaking): Rule of Law's analysis: unconstitutional and backward relief for those who timely requested it. what they will likely do: the Kavanaugh and 5th circuit's solution of unconstitutional + change to removable by president at will. I agree with what they will do but I also think that after Lucia SCOTUS will grant backward relief as well in Seila...not inconsistent with severance after thinking some more, the kavanaugh / 5th circuit solution seems lethargic at best. similar to the 'may/shall' debates in our case. if the SC wanted to do the right thing, they'd go for unconstitutional, backward relief to timely requests, and call upon congress to fix the unconstitutional aspects (perhaps funding angle also). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf imo low odds of a) FHFA is constitutionally structured b) punt c) invalidate the whole law what they should do (objectively speaking): Rule of Law's analysis: unconstitutional and backward relief for those who timely requested it. what they will likely do: the Kavanaugh and 5th circuit's solution of unconstitutional + change to removable by president at will. I agree with what they will do but I also think that after Lucia SCOTUS will grant backward relief as well in Seila...not inconsistent with severance after thinking some more, the kavanaugh / 5th circuit solution seems lethargic at best. similar to the 'may/shall' debates in our case. if the SC wanted to do the right thing, they'd go for unconstitutional, backward relief to timely requests, and call upon congress to fix the unconstitutional aspects (perhaps funding angle also). I agree with this but the 4 judges who likely will vote constitutional (losing 5-4) will vote for severance, and we can expect Kavanaugh to vote for severance because that was what he did in PHH. I just dont see why anyone would think that because of this there also wont be backward relief in Seila, it is not a case of either/or, and Lucia says that Ps should be awarded backward relief to incentivize Ps to make constitutional challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 seila transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-7_j4ek.pdf imo low odds of a) FHFA is constitutionally structured b) punt c) invalidate the whole law what they should do (objectively speaking): Rule of Law's analysis: unconstitutional and backward relief for those who timely requested it. what they will likely do: the Kavanaugh and 5th circuit's solution of unconstitutional + change to removable by president at will. I agree with what they will do but I also think that after Lucia SCOTUS will grant backward relief as well in Seila...not inconsistent with severance after thinking some more, the kavanaugh / 5th circuit solution seems lethargic at best. similar to the 'may/shall' debates in our case. if the SC wanted to do the right thing, they'd go for unconstitutional, backward relief to timely requests, and call upon congress to fix the unconstitutional aspects (perhaps funding angle also). I agree with this but the 4 judges who likely will vote constitutional (losing 5-4) will vote for severance, and we can expect Kavanaugh to vote for severance because that was what he did in PHH. I just dont see why anyone would think that because of this there also wont be backward relief in Seila, it is not a case of either/or, and Lucia says that Ps should be awarded backward relief to incentivize Ps to make constitutional challenges. Ok on Kavanaugh but Roberts could step in and say he would side with liberals on consitutional if Kav insists on his way on the other issue. The quotes from warren should carry some serious weight, imo the law should be re-written to have 2 or 3 year terms with president removal powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 We'll have more on the ruling today in #CFPB v. All American Check Cashing but count us among the shocked who didn't expect an appellate court to rule on the constitutionality of the bureau the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue. In Collins, the majority noted that the FSOC had some measure of oversight of the #CFPB in a way the FHFA did not have. Judge Smith didn't buy it: "Undeterred, the majority stubbornly asserts that the FSOC’s presence somehow makes the CFPB accountable. Not so." Dodd Frank Update @DoddFrankUpdate Judge Smith: "The #CFPB and FHFA are sister institutions. Only a judge who plays 'semantic games of reformulation and hair splitting in order to escape the force of a fairly resolved issue' can conclude ... that the agencies are sufficiently different." Final note: Fifth Circuit becomes third appellate court to affirm #CFPB constitutionality (9th, D.C.) Federal courts in Mississippi, Montana, California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana have ruled similarly. Only the NY and D.C. districts (vacated) ruled it unconstitutional. off topic but the court system is quite random in terms of the judges you receive in conjunction with limited opportunities for en banc + SC checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Dear @stevenmnuchin1 @USTreasury @MarkCalabria @FHFA Your risks are rising. The #SolicitorGeneral highlighted to the #SupremeCourt the risk of an adverse decision in #Selia. Unlike #DFA, #HERA, has no #severability. @FannieMae @FreddieMac #FannieMae #FreddieMac #GSE @larry_kudlow attachment...Rosner_3-5-2020.jfif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Apparently Joe Biden and Gary Hindes are friends. Did a Google search and the first few articles tell the story. If Biden wins the Democratic nominee, which it looks like is highly probable at this point, it's possible that election risk for this investment is reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Apparently Joe Biden and Gary Hindes are friends. Did a Google search and the first few articles tell the story. If Biden wins the Democratic nominee, which it looks like is highly probable at this point, it's possible that election risk for this investment is reduced. I know who you're getting this from, and that same poster (who posts on Google gropus, Twitter, and SA) thinks that the recap will be handled just like a Ch 11 bankruptcy. If I can come around to agreeing with that (I'm nowhere close to an expert on restructurings, and the FnF recap might or might not be Ch 11-like), I will pour even more money into the prefs. That poster thinks the prefs will be money good very soon, as soon as FnF hit $33.2B in capital, maybe with a discount for time, and also thinks the commons are wildly overvalued right now, at least relative to the prefs. As for the actual content of your post (see, I got there eventually), I will do some research but yes, if Hindes has this level of influence over Biden then election risk is all but off the table. Hindes might even be able to talk Biden into keeping Calabria around until at least the re-IPO is done, assuming both that Biden beats Trump and that Calabria's removal is changed to be at-will by the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Apparently Joe Biden and Gary Hindes are friends. Did a Google search and the first few articles tell the story. If Biden wins the Democratic nominee, which it looks like is highly probable at this point, it's possible that election risk for this investment is reduced. well they are both from Delaware....and it is a small state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Dear @stevenmnuchin1 @USTreasury @MarkCalabria @FHFA Your risks are rising. The #SolicitorGeneral highlighted to the #SupremeCourt the risk of an adverse decision in #Selia. Unlike #DFA, #HERA, has no #severability. @FannieMae @FreddieMac #FannieMae #FreddieMac #GSE @larry_kudlow attachment... severability clause is one of those provisions that is dismissed in importance unless there is no other hook for a justice to get his preferred result. here I am thinking the 4 liberal justices and at least Kavanaugh will "want" to keep rest of statute effective and use severability as a argument point to get there...but if they didn't want that end result, they would simply say it is a weak presumption of congressional intent and dismiss it. a close reading of the congressional history would lead one to believe that congress wanted cfpb to be insulated from both potus and congress, and if removal for cause is severed, then it will only be insulated from congress, a result congress itself surely did not want. as for HERA, with no severability clause, it creates extra risk for calabria and mnuchin if as I suspect at least part of the reason that cfpb removal provision is severed is traced to severability clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtermdave Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 I have a pricing question I hope someone can answer. Any idea why FMCCI would be so much cheaper than the other FMCC* preferreds? It's normally a bit cheaper, but the spread seems unusually large now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 I have a pricing question I hope someone can answer. Any idea why FMCCI would be so much cheaper than the other FMCC* preferreds? It's normally a bit cheaper, but the spread seems unusually large now. perhaps lower potential dividend rate vs the other ones. also libor is declining rapidly and so securities with potential dividends tied to that index should in theory underperform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRValue Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Did anything happen in the sweeney status update yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Did anything happen in the sweeney status update yesterday? nothing posted in docket for case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Posted with permission from Todd Sullivan: http://www.valueplays.net/2020/02/28/subs-fhfa-is-looking-for-lawyers/ FHFA is looking for a law firm. The backstory that I am hearing is that they are not satisfied with the current pace of negotiations with shareholders. As we’ve said many times before, with the litigation outstanding, there is no way the GSE’s can emerge from conservatirship. Here is the solicitation: https://valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/RFP-FHF-20-R-0029.pdf Scope of work: https://valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Statement-of-Work.pdf I am not aware that there have been any negotiations. Todd can be "off" at times Todd explains a bit further starting at 14-minute mark: https://valueplays.podbean.com/e/mar-7-2020/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Posted with permission from Todd Sullivan: http://www.valueplays.net/2020/02/28/subs-fhfa-is-looking-for-lawyers/ FHFA is looking for a law firm. The backstory that I am hearing is that they are not satisfied with the current pace of negotiations with shareholders. As we’ve said many times before, with the litigation outstanding, there is no way the GSE’s can emerge from conservatirship. Here is the solicitation: https://valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/RFP-FHF-20-R-0029.pdf Scope of work: https://valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Statement-of-Work.pdf I am not aware that there have been any negotiations. Todd can be "off" at times Todd explains a bit further starting at 14-minute mark: https://valueplays.podbean.com/e/mar-7-2020/ thanks Luke. just fyi, nothing will be done with fhfa general counsel or treasury general counsel. each will need to hire deal firms that can handle this negotiation. while it is good to see fhfa look for a deal counsel, treasury will need one too 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