Rodney5
6 hours ago
DCBill, you ask why would the (MAGA) courts (as in SCOTUS) suddenly start deciding in favor of shareholders??
The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit.
Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Strangely enough, Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; The Plaintiffs brought APA Charges against the Conservator NOT the Regulator.
The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that’s the problem with the lawsuits. The lawyers did not challenge the actions of the FHFA Director under the APA. The lawyers brought the APA argument against the FHFA as conservator. No mention of the FHFA Director violating federal law. The courts are barred from judicial review of the conservator.
Rodney5
06/25/24 12:08 PM
Post #796524 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. The stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Our friend Barron brought this to our attention. You have to prove FHFA / Treasury broke the law.
Notice: the argument doesn’t include the conservator at all. The argument is the FHFA / Treasury violation of the law.
Barron said, “ I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point.”
PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT
HERA is public law not a contract, the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract not the law.
FHEFSSA
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was amended to establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency. HERA amended certain parts of both FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. AMENDED not to do away with. Safety and Soundness still exists just as the Charter Act still exists.
Page 9 Title I
Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
FHFA is now the Regulator by reason of HERA.
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
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Rodney5
7 hours ago
Donotunderstand said Quote: “Personally - my memory is the GSEs were burned supremely and hugely by junk MBS paper issued as AAA that the GSEs owned in their reserve part of the BS.” End of Quote
Your memory is not working properly. The GSE’s were not burned supremely. Read the June 30, 10Q
Fannie was no where near bankruptcy.
Congressman Alan Grayson Discusses Fannie Mae's use of Derivatives with James Lockhart of the FHFA. Hearing on June 3, 2009.
Time 5:00: Mr. Alan Grayson, Quote: “If those losses are only 192 million dollars how could 192-million-dollar loss result in a 100 billion dollar plus loss to the Taxpayer how is that possible?” End of Quote.
Mr. Lockhart of the FHFA answers, “Had to put up reserves, ooh ooh aha aha ooh aha, reserves, ooh ooh aha ooh, put up reserves for loans, aha aha aha ooh, if you think you cannot recover and loans aha aha ooh and that's what happened.” Reserves... (not an exact word for word quote of Mr. Lockhart).
Note: “If you think you cannot recover.” (Mr. Lockhart).
Time 5:55: Follow up question; Mr. Alan Grayson, Quote: “I still don't have a clear understanding from you about how a relative tiny amount like a 192 million dollar of unpaid mortgage interest on what is a trillion-dollar portfolio how that could possibly lead to Taxpayer shell out a 100 billion dollars plus.” End of Quote.
Mr. Lockhart attempts to explain the need to build up reserves... reserves... reserves...
Reserves Fannie Mae never needed.
Congressman Grayson referred to page 78 of June 30, 2008, 10Q. A relative tiny amount like a 192 million dollar of unpaid mortgage interest on what is a trillion-dollar portfolio how that could lead to a Taxpayer shell out a 100 billion dollars plus.
Facts: Page 7 “Our core capital as of June 30, 2008, was $47.0 billion, $14.3 billion above our statutory minimum capital requirement and $9.4 billion above our regulator-directed 15% surplus requirement.”
Link may not continue to work the discussion took place. You can google it on you tube. I just saw it. The link seems to not work. But it’s there.
navycmdr
11 hours ago
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t people — here’s how
they keep mortgages affordable for homebuyers
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-aren-130000607.html
Maurie Backman - Sun, 8 December 2024
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t people — here’s how they keep mortgages affordable for homebuyers
If you’ve ever heard the names Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pictured them as a sweet old couple running a quaint bed-and-breakfast, you’re not alone. Sadly, they’re not humans — no cookies baking in the oven or cozy rocking chairs here. Rather, they’re government-sponsored entities with a far less charming but much more important job: keeping the mortgage market running smoothly.
Here’s how they work: Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages from lenders and then package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, which are sold to investors. While this might sound like a big money-making scheme at the borrowers’ expense, these entities actually help make mortgages more affordable. By guaranteeing loans and assuming some of the risk, they help keep interest rates lower.
The current average 30-year mortgage rate — it’s currently 6.81%. Without Fannie and Freddie, that rate would probably be a lot higher, making homeownership a lot more expensive.
One way they influence affordability is by setting yearly limits for conforming loans — the types of mortgages they’re willing to purchase. And in 2025, these conforming loan limits are increasing, bringing potential benefits to homebuyers.
Conforming loan limits are increasing
Each year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set a baseline conforming loan limit, adjusting it for high-cost areas. For 2025, the baseline limit is rising from $766,550 to $806,500.
Limits for high-cost areas, including Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are also increasing — from $1,149,825 to $1,209,750 in 2025.
How higher conforming loan limits can benefit you in 2025
Conforming loans are typically cheaper and easier to qualify for than non-conforming loans. For instance, jumbo mortgages — loans that exceed Fannie and Freddie's conforming limits — often come with higher interest rates, stricter credit score requirements and larger down payments.
With a conforming loan, you might qualify with a credit score as low as 620 and a down payment as low as 5% (though anything less than 20% will require private mortgage insurance, so that’s something to consider). In contrast, a non-conforming lender might require a minimum credit score of 700 and a down payment of 10%, 20%, or even 30%.
The increase in conforming loan limits gives buyer more options, which is especially important given the way home prices have risen substantially in recent years.
During the third quarter of 2020, the median U.S. home sold for $327,900. By the third quarter of 2024, that number jumped to $420,400 — a 28% increase in just four years. Without higher conforming loan limits, more buyers would be forced to turn to pricier non-conforming mortgages.
Read more: I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 3 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Helping younger buyers access homeownership
Rising home prices and mortgage rates have made it harder for younger buyers to break into the housing market. In 2024, the National Association of REALTORS reported that the median age of homebuyers increased to 56, up from 49 the previous year. Similarly, the median age for first-time buyers increased from 35 to 38.
Higher conforming loan limits could ease these challenges, especially for younger buyers with smaller savings or less home equity. Being able to buy a home sooner can set them on a path toward greater financial stability and wealthy.
In fact, a report by the National Association of Home Builders confirmed that homeownership plays a key role in household wealth. It also found that households' primary residences were their single largest asset as of 2022, underscoring the role of homeownership in building wealth. By adjusting conforming loan limits are adjusting to today’s housing market conditions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may help open the door to more people, including younger buyers, in 2025.
JSmith5
13 hours ago
Maybe, but why would the (MAGA) courts (as in SCOTUS) suddenly start deciding in favor of shareholders, when they have In over a dozen years?
DCBill - For sure. I was expecting our case in the SC to be decided in our favor by 6-3. Silly me - I was looking at, like, the merits of our case.
Not being political, no joke intended, I always thought that Libertarian meant extreme liberal (like Abby Hoffman or someone like that). When I went a few years ago to the George Mason Law forum where Calabria spoke, I was surrounded by like-minded Libertarians (not like minded to me - just each other). The light bulb went off as Calabria was speaking - I'm like - hey, this doesn't sound like something Abby would say!
After the decision I read that all 6 conservative judges were Libertarians. And that the Libertarians would rather eat dirt, or a dirt-like substance, than see the GSEs released.
So I guess any route that would take us to the SC may not be helpful.
Nats
trunkmonk
15 hours ago
during up list you do IPO of new shares through Broker, they find out demand, and at what price, then they go with it, 20s 30s, 100s all kinds of wild estimates. EPS means nothing at that point, its not a walmart, its demand and buy into housing again, its will be huge....price will start at same as BAC, then bid from there.
mrfence
17 hours ago
As of current information, "Cool Ranch Corn Nuts" were never a widely available, officially produced flavor by the primary corn nut manufacturer, so they likely never existed in the first place; any mention of them could be a misremembered or anecdotal experience, or a potential case of mistaken identity with another snack product.
Key points to consider:
No official confirmation:
There is no public statement from the company confirming the existence or discontinuation of a "Cool Ranch Corn Nuts" flavor.
Variety of flavors:
While corn nuts do come in a variety of flavors, "Cool Ranch" is not typically listed among them.
Consumer perception:
If a "Cool Ranch Corn Nuts" flavor did exist, it might have been a limited-edition or regional product that didn't gain widespread popularity, leading to the perception that it was discontinued.
$FMCC~ $FNMA~