Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAI) News

YUP
YUP
Or simpler - it is a naked (or maybe better said a DISGUISED) TAKING of our equity property without offsetting compensation

GOV --- let go of our property or pay us for it as fair market value of a properly operating FNMA (25++)

got it

but when and why did the GOV put in - I think it was 189 B ?

link
I have never heard of that divide or seen it i writing
would love to see such link

GOV has done the accounting each year for dividends !!! not interest

That suggests you simply are wrong

It's going to be so much fun next week when the bubble bursts for those wanting the fascist to run their lives cuz apparently they cannot and need Govt help. I will gladly buy up a boatload of Fannie and Freddie when the inevitable happens. You all have been duped and live in a bubble. LOL...can't wait.🤣

The CON-ship and NWS was made with a stroke of the pen. No regard for the laws.
So, it can be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Investors are thinking about the outcome and trying to position their portfolios for either a quick gain after the results or creating a longer-term strategy based on which candidate will win and which party will control Congress. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman and his fund Pershing Square Holdings are among these investors and hold positions that could swing one way or the other based on whether Harris or Trump wins. Here's Bill Ackman's $277 million bet on the election.

A bet on the government-sponsored entities

In 2013, Pershing Square purchased a roughly 10% stake in two government-sponsored entities (GSEs): the Federal National Mortgage Association (OTC: FNMA), known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (OTC: FMCC), known as Freddie Mac. Both Fannie and Freddie securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, providing the mortgage market with a vital source of liquidity. They enable banks and other lenders to get mortgages off their balance sheets and make more mortgages so they can always meet demand.

The maga bubble is so deluded it's not even funny anymore. Just sad. The big pop of that bubble next week will be fun to witness.

actually i blocked you a long time ago.... I don't engage w/ smooth brains if I can help it..

It doesn't sound unreasonable for it to be done but to me it feels like its only done in extremely adverse scenarios such as when there isn't enough value left in the companies or they're having trouble finding outside capital to come in.

In this situation, the commons always harping about how they are profitable and never bankrupt would be a very valid point...

Funny he says it’s commonly done, but I am not having any luck researching what the terms of this type of a deal of this nature looks like.

I certainly took into consideration what kaoboy was saying but the one thing that gets to me is from page 13 of the CBO report:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-08/56496-GSE.pdf

"CBO’s model incorporates the judgment that in scenarios in which the GSEs’ common-stock sale did not raise
enough funds to redeem the full face value of both the
senior preferred and junior preferred shares, the Treasury
would take a reduction (known as a haircut) in the value
of its senior preferred stake before requiring junior preferred shareholders to do so... . But it recognizes that changing the GSEs’ commitments to junior preferred shareholders would be difficult outside a receivership scenario,
in which the Treasury, as owner of the senior preferred
shares, also owned the GSEs’ common stock (through its
warrants). "

They would've wiped the JPS off the face of the planet if they could've done it already IMO.

That's not unreasonable... but then why would it only apply to JPS and not to the SPS?

If a coercive capital raise were to occur, would the govt also pony up money to keep their position in the capital stack?

The real problem is a possible "Coercive Capital Raise"

Kaoboy:

Coercive Capital Raises

COERCIVE CAPITAL RAISES in Restructurings are frequent and are like Rights Offerings in which INVESTORS MUST PONY UP NEW MONEY OR FACE EXTREME DILUTION...

...ALMOST ALL JPS HOLDERS I KNOW ARE LOADED TO THE GILLS FOR A HAIL MARY GIFT WITH NO CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A COERCIVE CAPITAL RAISE, AND ONLY THOSE THAT PARTICIPATE COME ALONG FOR THE RIDE WITH THE SPS.

This is a no brainer. THE COMMITMENT FEE.
This is one of the reasons the contract is illegal.

In addition to the issuance of the senior preferred stock and warrant, beginning on March 31, 2010, we are required to pay a quarterly commitment fee to Treasury. This quarterly commitment fee will accrue from January 1, 2010. The fee, in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by us and Treasury and to be determined with reference to the market value of Treasury’s funding commitment as then in effect, will be determined on or before December 31, 2009, and will be reset every five years.

The Treasury and FHFA illegal exaction due to violating Federal statutes all monies with interest should be returned to the companies.

Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION

Fee Limitation

Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16

Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)

Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29


Links:

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019

link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf

MRJ25, can the entire conservatorship be overturned on a technicality the Treasury Department did not consummate the contract agreement because the Treasury never paid for the Senior Preferred Stock?

Contract: In the context of a contract, consummation occurs when all the terms and conditions of the contract have been fulfilled or completed.

Quote: “We did not receive any cash proceeds from Treasury at the time the senior preferred stock or the warrant was issued.” End of Quote
page 25 Form 10K December 31, 2008

link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304;;;

The CON-ship stinks.

You are going to steal the election again?

The Entire Conservatorship, its imposition and administration, REEKS of Corruption

United States Presidential Election Odds and Predictions: Trump Maintains Big Lead
Author Profile
Andrew Lynch
Updated:
Oct 27, 2024, 09:27 PM EDT
2024 Presidential Election Odds for Harris vs. Trump
Presidential Candidate Election Odds Chance to Win
Donald Trump + 182 61.74%
Kamala Harris + 150 38.26%

9 more days!!! Now’s the time to top off or load up if you believe that Mr. T is going to win!!

Amazing isn’t it?

So, it is all voodoo accounting and management.
A conservator does not pay dividends until the loans are paid off.
The conservator acted as destroyer.

The Record with Greta Van Susteren 10/27/24 FULL | BREAKING NEWS TRUMP October 27, 2024

MRJ25 said Quote ”190 billion was a loan at 10%.” End of Quote

It appears the 10% was never officially agreed upon.

Barron4664
07/23/24 8:50 PM
#797993 RE: Rodney5 #797973
Thanks Rodney. My analysis stands. The 10% coupon was offered to Treasury, not agreed to in the SPSPA. Every one of the conditions in that fact sheet was agreed to and was signed by the Director of FHFA and the Secretary of Treasury with the exception of the coupon rate of 10% and or 12% in kind. Nowhere in the signed agreements were these rates set in the actual documents. Only appear in the stock certificates. The stock certificates are not an agreement. At least I havent found it yet.

Barron4664
Re: Rodney5 post# 797947
Tuesday, 07/23/2024 11:50:56 AM
Interesting. It seems that the Charter Act gave the secretary of Treasury the ability to set the terms and conditions of its purchase to protect the taxpayer. Those terms and conditions are enumerated in the SPSPA. However if the 10% dividend was not part of the terms and conditions of the agreement but only appear in the stock certificates offered after executing the agreement, then Treasury never asked for the 10% dividend on the Seniors in the first place. That means FHFA as Conservator offered the 10% as seller to Treasury. So why did FHFA choose 10%? FHFA wasn’t charged with setting terms to protect the taxpayer. It appears that Treasury did not set the dividend rate on the Seniors in writing until the NWS in 2013. Well after their authority to do so expired. Please correct if this is wrong.

The company gave away the Senior Preferred Stock for free along with the 79.9 % warrants to be purchased at a nominal price. The Treasury did not pay to the company a billon dollars.

Quote: “We did not receive any cash proceeds from Treasury at the time the senior preferred stock or the warrant was issued.” End of Quote
page 25 Form 10K December 31, 2008

link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304;;

Senior preferred 1,000
Page 143

Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#127;;

On September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA, in its capacity as conservator, and Treasury entered into a senior preferred stock purchase agreement, which was subsequently amended and restated on September 26, 2008. We refer to this agreement as the “senior preferred stock purchase agreement.” Pursuant to the agreement, we agreed to issue to Treasury (1) one million shares of Variable Liquidation Preference Senior Preferred Stock, Series 2008-2, which we refer to as the “senior preferred stock,” with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share (for an aggregate liquidation preference of $1.0 billion), and (2) a warrant to purchase, for a nominal price, shares of common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis at the time the warrant is exercised, which we refer to as the “warrant.” The terms of the senior preferred stock and warrant are summarized in separate sections below. We did not receive any cash proceeds from Treasury at the time the senior preferred stock or the warrant was issued.

Kaoboy does not understand the details of the "bailout".
SPS were acquired for 1 billion dollars, which is the investment.
190 billion was a loan at 10%.

Kaoboy makes some valid points but I did not see him explain how the USG can ignore the JPS' anti-dilution provision.  The cases Kaoboy references do not eliminate contract rights. For example he refers to Fairholme in the CAFC, and he's right that due to that case shareholders lack property rights for takings purposes.  But it is not true that this necessarily cancels out contract law: in fact in Lamberth's case, he flatly rejected the FHFA's assertions to that effect in his opinion. 

Start by shutting down @FHFA the most useless and the most corrupt government agency in history! https://t.co/Kwqk5SNOuB— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) October 28, 2024

Did I or didn’t I….serve fries..
Fnma

How so? Harris is not asking for his input?

FNMA/FMCC
The Question is: Are you, and you and, yes, YOU,
gonna Load Up tomorrow or What? or Not?

as always - THE question is SP/LP as you note

I do hope the GOV can USE the warrants as part of giving up the SP/LP 200B+

A 4B share dilution at this juncture of success for FNMA income ----- is a 25 dollar stock that day

For me, the Michael Kao post is really tough stuff...

https://www.urbankaoboy.com/p/re-fanniefreddie-trump-trade-or-chump

and the final argument to never buy Fannie or Freddie stock again. Neither commons nor preferred.

Good luck to all anyway.

We have now established that the warrants will not be exercised. If anything they might be sold back to Treasury for a nominal fee. There will be no dilution from the warrants.

The remaining big question is what happens to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (PSPA) ? Any thoughts ?

Give me an F
Give me an N
Give me an M
Give me an A



Keep shaking those Pom Poms ! Lol

Yikes that is an ugly view of this whole thing. Imo it’s misguided because there is 0 need for restructure and I don’t think the tacked on LP will be valid when recap $$$ is achieved and government gets paid via whatever mechanism they choose. Reorganization is for insolvent companies that cannot meet liabilities and GSEs do not fit that bill. They have plenty of money and the government should align themselves with public investors to create a reasonable expectation of fair treatment going forward for all investors now and future. There is no reason in my mind to expect a reorg when the company makes billions every freakin quarter.

The Lamberth decision gives me confidence that the GSEs WILL eventually be returned to shareholders no matter who wins the election. The courts have NEVER sanctified into perpetuity ANY decision that has occurred in the name of the conservatorship. The capital retained thus far only grows bigger and proves that a receivership can NEVER be justifified. The warrants are set to expire before the end of the upcoming administration and there is plenty of documentation and congressional testimony (transcripts) what the purpose of the warrants were and they were NOT intended for the government to actually take 80% of the companies. THIS WILL BE FIXED and there will be takings cases if any administration attempts to go further with the theft. It does NOT matter who wins the election the GSEs are essential to the housing market and will NOT be replaced.

Fannie Price Recap
Oct 10 to Oct 25
Oct 10 price was $1.13
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FNMA/history/?period1=1728518400&period2=1730046287

With approx. 8000 affected
Shareholders, it'll be unanimous
with 7922 more yes votes.

Keep shaking those Pom Poms ! Lol

Great job everyone! We now have 78 votes to free Fannie and Freddie and 44 comments.

https://forum.policiesforpeople.com/t/release-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/1726

How can they take 90% ? (Your point about > 79.9% requires debt to go to GOV books)

yet - GOV can reduce our ownership to near zero % and theirs to near 99% in steps

they dilute once - i.e. an INITIAL dilution - and then sell their common ownership (dilution v conversion of the ownership form they have SR equity paper)

They can do this is 5 or 10 steps over say 5 or 10 months

Converting only SOME of their SR PAPER to common each time - never owning more then 79.9% via the SR and common ----- and then SELLING to the public. At that point those shares are owned by the public not the GOV

several posts KT

much that is technically - thus in reality correct

but what matters ?

serious question of a serious person

rather than show mistakes and comment ----- how about noting what you think matters

and if you wish - what you see happening to SP obligation and warrants and ? and how

tell a story - your opinion - versus commenting on others so that we do not get to hear you

to redeem preferred shares at any fraction they want... Say $25 par for $1.25?

NO

a company can not == ?? redeem == ?? preferred shares at any fraction they want

now if the GOV had physical - real - ownership of JPS (they have zero ownership of JPS) - they could sell them - to FHFA at any price FHFA would pay. If Gov owned JPS or common stock (they do not) they could sell them - off market - to FHFA or Treasury for a penny if they wanted

Unlike the wording in the post presidency DJT letter - GOV owns zero common or JPS equity
The GOV owns Senior Preferred Equity - they invented but is real

Yes

At same time

The positive of positive earnings is a public loud large demonstration of the economic viability of F and F as private companies

You misunderstand me. I'm not telling you to sell.

You should buy more and wear your conviction on your sleeve.

All the misleading GSE swindlers aren’t getting any of my shares. I’ll start skateboarding without a helmet before selling even 1.
U can all go fulscrum yourself.
Fnma

Next week, you will see all the chaos creators back on this board as it is their last seven business days to confuse the heck out of you and cause you to believe that their recommendation of how this is going to end is how this will end. My best advice to everyone is to use the ignore button wisely and frequently next 10 days and you can unignore later. Please do not rush into any judgment based on the confidence and authority with which they try to confuse you. You have waited this long. Waiting another 7 days is worth it. Worst case you are either going to sink with the ship, for which you were already ready or fly high

Hey genius, if the prefs get cancelled, the commons will get sent a bill before getting cancelled.

Wrong- if you bothered to read that long winded article that you bothered posting, kao spent 90% talking about GSE pref shares.
He mentions Paulson as a large holder of pref shares and comically forgot to mention Ackman’s large investment in commons.
Any dumbazz skater-boy would understand that kao thinks the prefs will get cancelled.
Before posting, I suggest critical thinking.
DF
Fnma
I just love where it was posted from, kind of like wizeazz piss poor site