Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Fannie Mae (QB)

Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAH)

Closed June 22 4:00PM

Empower your portfolio: Real-time discussions and actionable trading ideas.

Key stats and details

Current Price
3.50 Day's Range 3.80
1.37 52 Week Range 4.20
Previous Close
Last Trade
Last Trade Time
Average Volume (3m)
Financial Volume
$ 19,238

FNMAH Latest News

No news to show yet.
PeriodChangeChange %OpenHighLowAvg. Daily VolVWAP

Market Movers

View all
  • Most Active
  • % Gainers
  • % Losers
AREBAmerican Rebel Holdings Inc
$ 0.76
SHCRSharecare Inc
$ 1.365
NXLNexalin Technologies Inc
$ 1.7499
$ 6.1209
SPECSpectaire Holdings Inc
$ 0.50
FLFVFeutune Light Acquisition Corporation
$ 2.5502
FLFVUFeutune Light Acquisition Corporation
$ 2.75
RWODRedwoods Acquisition Corporation
$ 2.34
KAVLKaival Brands Innovations Group Inc
$ 1.23
RWODURedwoods Acquisition Corporation
$ 3.24
NVDANVIDIA Corporation
$ 126.57
AREBAmerican Rebel Holdings Inc
$ 0.76
SIRISirius XM Holdings Inc
$ 2.94
AAPLApple Inc
$ 207.49
NKLANikola Corporation
$ 0.3466

FNMAH Discussion

View Posts
Kimbrown Kimbrown 3 minutes ago
Golden time for this stock is coming
👍️ 1
Kimbrown Kimbrown 4 minutes ago
Someone is trying to buy your shares cheaply.
Kimbrown Kimbrown 26 minutes ago
NWS is arbitrary or unreasonable, which has been decided by jury. In the cram down of SPS and Warrant, the payment of SPS will be deemed paid off.
👍️ 1
Rodney5 Rodney5 2 hours ago
In exchange for their Public Mission Congress should have updated the obsolete $2.25B limit in the amount of backup. But that’s not what happened Paulson wanted to kill the companies. And this attempt to kill off the companies was through the illegal contract the SPSPA by creating the SPS.

The SPSPA itself states that the SPS are authorized by section 304…

dated as of September 7, 2008

Page 1

B. Purchaser is authorized to purchase obligations and other securities issued by Seller pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (the “Charter Act”). The Secretary of the Treasury has determined, after
taking into consideration the matters set forth in Section 304(g)(1)(C) of the Charter Act, that the purchases contemplated herein are
necessary to (i) provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and
(iii) protect the taxpayer.

👍️ 1 👎️ 1 🩲 1
Stern is Bald Stern is Bald 2 hours ago
Thank you for saying this as it needs to be known…

Wise Man Wise Man 4 hours ago
Addressed to low-income families, ST conceals the 9.5% rate.
Wise Man Wise Man 4 hours ago
Subsection (c) any obligations of subsection (b) REDEEMABLE OBLIGATIONS.
More evidence that this hybrid financial instrument could have been purchased through subsection (c), either as a Preferred Stock and as its underlying security, an obligation (fixed-income security), because all the Preferred Stocks are permanent securities, but redeemable at the option of the issuer at determined dates.

The taxpayer's assistance at rates similar to Treasuries, subsection (c), is part of the Charter dynamics, in exchange for their Public Mission.
So, anyone could have come to the same conclusion, unless they were more interested in being portrayed as "leadership" and the extortion of resources out of FnF.
Wise Man Wise Man 8 hours ago
Calabria had to slam the publication "IMFpubs" that only Rum posts on this board regularly.
Calabria now is bald for stating the obvious: there is no government guarantee on their MBS, which are guaranteed by FnF themselves as always, but he forgets to add that it's established in the Charter Act.
Not "implied" either, as the hedge funds would reply.

There is a UST backup of FnF "to finance their operations as a last resort" in exchange for their Public Mission that makes them take on more credit risk and not appropriately compensated, as stated in the section Purposes (of the Charter Act).
Commitment Fees, barred, in case you were wondering.

It seems that Calabria attempts to make up for his prior gaffes:
-The UST backup of FnF is the subsection (c) at rates similar to Treasuries. Yet, instead of updating the outdated $2.25B limit, Calabria, with HERA, inserted in the Charter Act a second homonymous UST backup subsection (g) at an up to an infinite rate, and up to an infinite amount, just below the original one. Huh? What kind of terms and conditions are those?
The Preferred Stocks are permanent redeemable securities and their underlying security is an obligation (fixed income security). This is why the Preferred Stocks are "obligations in respect of Capital Stock" (SPSPA):

The renowned 90-year-old plaintiff has difficulties in understanding this hybrid financial instrument with animated conversations with himself in this board, using more than 50 different aliases: "A product. No, it's not a product. I said, yes. Obligation. No, product. Hold that thought, I have a phone call from the DOJ."

-He has participated in the unlawful CRT operations, unauthorized in the Charter Act clause Credit Enhancement, other than the PMI (#1) and the commingled securities (#3). Now, $20B in CRT expenses/recoveries, net, is due.
Let alone that FHFA doesn't have authority to start a Housing Finance System revamp on its own, violating the Charter Act.

-He waived the typical provision 18-month IMPLEMENTATION, when the law requires an Agency something, like the very FHEFSSA of 1992 when the director was ordered to come up with the Risk-Based Capital requirement. Now, HERA struck that provision with the mandate of a new one, but without timeline. This way, it's been achieved a "back-end capital rule", after the typical Transition Period to build capital that any Federal Agency grants when it proposes changes in a Capital Rule, so that the hedge funds peddle the lie: We've been robbed!, and the idea that FnF will start to build capital from scratch 15 years into conservatorship.

-This lie of "the money is gone!", was peddled by Calabria as well, with bad jokes.

-The statutory Critical Capital Level was declared "irrelevant" because it triggers a Conservatorship during a Conservatorship. It doesn't mean that you don't have to publish it in the ERCF.

-Although Mel Watt and Mnuchin started the 3rd phase of the Separate Account plan, with another capital distribution restricted (SPS LP increased for free as compensation to Treasury in the absence of dividends) on December 2017, he continued it adding a massive plan of deception with the "Capital Reserve End Date": when the capital reserve meets the capital requirements, at the same time he enacted the ERCF that tells you that Capital Reserve isn't a valid capital metric. And, in the same January 2021 PA amendment: release from conservatorship when CET1 >3% of TA, when it was Tier 1 >2.5% of TA (Capital Classification Undercapitalized. Weight for the Core Capital/Tier 1 Capital, updated) a MANDATORY release that he struck down with HERA.

-Nowadays, he and the FHFA peddle the lie of "Net Worth absorbs losses" for the "Rehabilitate FnF", once the "Capital Reserve" was debunked. NW is a sum of items. Only the Retained Earnings account absorbs losses (adjusted $-216B). No rehab.

It's pretty obvious to think that Calabria didn't like the Charter Act, but you can't just ignore it, because it doesn't disappear and you will be hit with multiple felonies for statutory breaches. Likewise, attempting to deliberately inflict the insolvency during a conservatorship.

It was the very Calabria who put forward one solution: a Taking of our stocks at their Book Value (Net Worth: difference between Assets and Liabilities), in order to revoke the Charter Act. Today, it's calculated with the adjusted numbers. In 2007, it would have been cheaper.

The "Book Value" of the JPS is their par value. Their fair value matches the par value, so the Administration avoids a backlash. As obligations, FnF have a compromise of repayment with the JPS (They are redeemed by FnF, not acquired by the Treasury).

His only achievement, was to rectify Mel Watt and re-propose the Capital Rule, Basel framework this time, with CET1, TIER 1 and a Total Capital = 8% of RWA, whereas Mel Watt fetched 8% but with the inclusion of shenanigans, like an "ongoing concern buffer".
Thus, complying with the 2011 UST's 3-option Privatized Housing Finance System chosen for the release from conservatorship, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law, recommending guarantee fee increases, so FnF are subject to the same capital standards as the fully private banks (Adoption of Basel framework for capital requirements).
imbellish imbellish 8 hours ago
Shut up you queer
bradford86 bradford86 8 hours ago
shrug, the litigation has kind of impacted this security, where there is now no dilution protection basically and a spspa that is pretty big

💤 1 💩 1
Bostonsesco Bostonsesco 8 hours ago
A shame to be this close to $1 after a 15 year time out! The ridiculousness
👍️ 2
imbellish imbellish 9 hours ago
imbellish imbellish 11 hours ago
Per your signature reality was changed overnight
Barron4664 Barron4664 11 hours ago
Do yourself a favor and stop with the fancy word salad. Post hoc, ad-hominem, static statutory analysis. Sounds impressive but again I stand by my analysis. The SPS are not preferred equity shares issued by the corporations under section 303. They are defined as a variable liquidation preference senior preferred shares in an agreement between Treasury and FHFA. They obligate the corporations to surrender their entire net worth to Treasury. They are obligations in my book. No capital stock or preferred equity with these features,have ever existed before from the Corporations. It is not “perhaps” as you say but rather a “fact”. Sorry I was not clear. The SPS product are not a stock issued by the Corporation, it is an ever evolving agreement called the SPSPA. The SPSPA is the new “product”. Not the preferred shares themselves. They just enable the rest of the agreement. All you need to do to realize this is read the share certificates. The following is the SPSPA:

Just read the background to see the entire agreement is prefaced on section 304 to purchase the SPS. Read section 4.4 to see that the SPS “when issued in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Senior Preferred Stock, and Warrant will be duly authorized, validly issued….” So the black letter words of this contract between FHFA and Treasury don’t mention section 303 but that the SPS are valid only if issued under the terms of their agreement. It is a new product for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market under section 304. Again the agreement is all that has mattered since 2008. The agreement is the product.

But it is all academic, because the variable liquidation preference and warrants are an illegal charge or fee assessed on the issuance of 1,000,000 senior preferred equity shares that Treasury bought for $1 billion.
👍️ 2 👎️ 1 💯 2
real777mellon real777mellon 12 hours ago
Also lol at the zzz you guys who are in your broccoli cut years really have little clue what it was like to grow up with WW2 grandparents and still date all your aged 25 year old women bc the incel rate for 30 and under is like extremely high (almost 30%). University of Chicago did the report. It's the Memestock investor's 30 under 30.
👍️ 1 💤 1
real777mellon real777mellon 12 hours ago
Bro thats a guy that went politician I don't like Kinzinger myself. Why you gotta be so hostile when someone is being nice to you. These boards back before I had my infamous orange juice and vodka spilled by my dumbass gf and lost my mac email for good was a pretty chill place. Why is ADVFN Reddit now?
👍️ 2 🤡 1
NeoSunTzu NeoSunTzu 12 hours ago
As discussed in the Delaware Way article, Delaware law is most concerned with protecting stockholders from self-interested controllers. Yet proposed Section 122(18) permits corporations to confer control to "current or prospective stockholders" who would not have control by virtue of their voting power, and to confer absolute control over directors who are intended to provide "the most important check Delaware imposes on managerial abuse." Rather than protect stockholders from controllers who pose the most obvious threat of expropriation of corporate value, proposed Section 122(18) permits allocation of unlimited and unchecked power to controllers.

All of the proposed statutory language, including the quoted above, it seems applies to all corporations. I cannot believe there wouldn't have been the same market wide sell-off of stocks of such an egregious attack on shareholder rights...
👍️ 2
clarencebeaks21 clarencebeaks21 13 hours ago
“The problem is that the creation of the SPS was not done by the GSEs under section 303 but rather … section 304.”

Where does Section 304 authorize FNMA to sell preferred stock? Consider carefully the plain language in 303, and the context of 304 which authorizes Treasury to purchase securities but does not FHFA is authorized to sell anything. I see nothing in the black letters of the statute that support such a quantum leap.

“The novel terms of the SPS were created externally from the GSEs (GSEs had no say) in an agreement between 2 agencies of the federal government…”


“…premised in the agreement on Section 304 of the FNMA charter act.”

Section 304 is part of the FNMA charter statute. It contains no agreement.

“Section 303 has no bearing on this.”

Again, explain what words in the charter statute defeat the plain language of 303.

“These are new products conceived by fellow traveling conspirators using section 304 of the Charter act.”

Again there is no authority is section 304 for FNMA to sell preferred stock. You have conflated section 303’s power for FNMA to offer stock, with section 304’s authority for Treasury to buy it. No amount of post-hoc factual conjecture can rewrite the statute. But the post-hoc conduct of actors, factual or not, simply has no bearing on statutory analysis. Such a conclusion also bears the mark of a fallacy of confirmation bias.

“If lawyers are duped into thinking like you propose, then it is no wonder that they have failed in every attempt.”

The deployment of an ad hominem fallacy belies the fact that you’ve entirely avoided any engagement of the merits of a basic static statutory analysis.
👍️ 1 👎️ 1
NeoSunTzu NeoSunTzu 13 hours ago
I didn't see this and it does coincide - datewise June 10th - with the start of the downslide in both Fannie and Freddie (Fannie's last high of $1.60 was on 6/10 I believe) the thing that seems problematic is that they are now changing laws AFTER THE FACT to fit a situation that otherwise could be construed as illegal before the fact. Someone in the legal community has to see through this as it seems tailor made for the GSEs.
👍️ 1
mrfence mrfence 13 hours ago
👍️ 1
imbellish imbellish 13 hours ago
You need to read this to grasp what happened today

The Effect of the Statutory Language: Unlimited Power

One notable aspect of the proposed statutory language is that it authorizes corporations to enter contracts with a "current or prospective" stockholder, with the term "prospective stockholder" left undefined and impliedly authorizing the corporation to enter a Section 122(18) contract with a non-stockholder, if that non-stockholder is an expected, likely, or perhaps merely potential stockholder -- and no requirement that the prospective stockholder actually become a stockholder.

Another notable aspect is the breadth -- "without limit[ation]" -- of control that a Section 122(18) contract may grant a "current or prospective" stockholder:

a. to prohibit specified future corporate actions
b. to require approval before the corporation may take specified actions
c. to require that the corporation (or one or more persons or bodies) take or refrain from taking specified future actions

No temporal limitations are imposed; and as to point "c," the "persons or bodies" that can be required to take action expressly include "the board of directors or one or more current or future directors, stockholders or beneficial owners of stock of the corporation."

Accordingly, by the express terms of proposed Section 122(18), a "prospective stockholder" (that is, a non-stockholder) may enter into a contract with the corporation under which it can require the corporation, current or future directors, and even current or future stockholders, to take any action or refrain from any action, without limitation, forever.

Whereas the Moelis Agreement provided the company's founder veto power over fundamental board decisions, required that the board recommend his board nominees, and required that the board appoint board committee members he designated, the Moelis Amendments would permit agreements that confer absolute power to require the board to take all action that the "current or prospective" stockholder requires -- including action that enriches the "current or prospective" stockholder at the expense of other stockholders -- and to take no other action, without limitation. Under the Moelis Amendments, a "current or prospective" stockholder can, by contract, be given effective totalitarian control over all director and all corporate action, binding as to future directors, without stockholder consent, which cannot be eliminated by stockholder vote.

Section 122(18) imposes no disclosure obligations; thus, absent disclosure obligations imposed by federal securities regulations, exchange rules, or other applicable requirements, such "totalitarian" agreements could seemingly operate in secrecy, with stockholders believing that directors act independently in stockholders' best interests, when in fact directors act only as dictated by the Section 122(18) contractual controller.

Although the amendments do not alter 8 Del. C. § 122(13), the indication in the synopsis that corporations can enter into contracts under Section 122(13) that contain the types of provisions authorized by proposed Section 122(18) seemingly extends the ability of the corporation to confer the same "totalitarian" level of control over corporate and board action to other non-stockholder counterparties, including lenders.

6. Self-Interested Controllers

As discussed in the Delaware Way article, Delaware law is most concerned with protecting stockholders from self-interested controllers. Yet proposed Section 122(18) permits corporations to confer control to "current or prospective stockholders" who would not have control by virtue of their voting power, and to confer absolute control over directors who are intended to provide "the most important check Delaware imposes on managerial abuse." Rather than protect stockholders from controllers who pose the most obvious threat of expropriation of corporate value, proposed Section 122(18) permits allocation of unlimited and unchecked power to controllers.
Govforprofit Govforprofit 13 hours ago
I’ve noticed this mismatch the last couple of days. No idea why.
NeoSunTzu NeoSunTzu 14 hours ago
Rumor of an FHFA announcement and then its confirmation by way of the actual announcement of approval of the Freddie Mac business product was the very reason for the drop today. Speculative stocks - especially this one - will sell off quickly on rumors of official pending news and, as we all know, in a black box, selling begets more selling.

Given the limited scope of the program that FHFA is approving - loan size, duration, underserved markets, and the limited period before an assessment is made for further business - this should mitiagate the worst of abuses of programs of this type. As an ongoing concern, if there were no TSY / liquidation preference and government (manmade) equtiy whole, Freddie and Fannie are both in good business and cash positions to launch programs of this type.

A responsible regulatory agency would NEVER approve a program of this type if it wasn't disregarding the TSY/liquidation preference for the purposes of viability for a program like this - that is, unless there is some deeper more evil intent, but for now one has to discount this "conspiracy." In fact, it may even be a veiled message to Congress and TSY that FHFA views Freddie's business as strong enough to support its mission. Obviously it does not appear this way to us because of all of the selling we witnessed today, but sellers weren't sure of any of the program details today or even of the nature of FHFAs announcement - shoot first, ask questions later.

My guess is that once the weekend passes and investors have had time to take in the details the stock prices will stabilize and eventually go back up - maybe even as soon as Monday. How the program works over the ensuing months will tell us more - about FnF's market/business, the product's viability, and in the end how FHFA and investors will view the likelihood of FnF standing on their own sooner rather than later.
🇧🇷 1 👍️ 3 💩 1
MannSinger MannSinger 15 hours ago
FNMA Vol=14.8M(Brokerage)/6.5M(yahoo)- why
FMCC Vol=6.8M(Brokerage)/3.1M(yahoo)
🤣 1
navycmdr navycmdr 15 hours ago
By 2014, it repaid all the money it received and has since poured billions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury.

The company has remained profitable over the past decade. It reported $4.3 billion of net income in the first quarter of 2024. That was a $377 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2023 and up from $3.8 billion in the year-ago period. Fannie Mae's growing income increased its net worth to $82 billion, a significant rise from $25.3 billion in 2020.

The company's strong profitability enabled it to continue supporting the mortgage market. It provided $72 billion of liquidity to the mortgage market in the first quarter of 2024 by purchasing and refinancing loans backed by single-family homes and multifamily rental properties.
👍️ 8 🚀 5 ♥️ 1
altruism altruism 15 hours ago
Oh motley opinions as always

real777mellon real777mellon 16 hours ago
Impossible. I have live institutional holdings. It's the same :)
👍️ 2
real777mellon real777mellon 16 hours ago
You could be a little more respectful toward veterans.
Just a little.
And yes I love navycmdr's digging.
👍️ 2 🖕 1
real777mellon real777mellon 16 hours ago
I don't care if you do or don't? Lol...

The OTC Markets Group is a quotations system at best where brokers directly match buyer and seller. There is no actual stock market (aka exchange settlement. Your JCPenny stock was not bought by Amazon and delisted but not from an exchange).
navycmdr navycmdr 16 hours ago
Statement of Director Sandra L. Thompson on the Conditional Approval of the Freddie Mac Second Mortgage Proposal


In April, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published a notice of a proposed new productExternal link icon from Freddie Mac to purchase certain single-family closed-end second mortgages. This notice represented the first time a proposed new product from Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae (the Enterprises) was published for public comment under the process required by Congress and implemented through FHFA’s “Prior Approval for Enterprise Products” regulationExternal link icon, which became effective in April 2023.

Today, FHFA issued a conditional approval for Freddie Mac to engage in a pilot to purchase closed-end second mortgages. Before discussing the details of the proposal and the review process below, I would like to express my appreciation for the many organizations and individuals that provided comments, as well as the FHFA staff that analyzed these comments. By statute, only 30 days are permitted for the public comment period, as well as 30 days following the public comment period for FHFA to approve or deny the offering of the new product. While these are shorter periods than those associated with some other public comment periods, I believe the process worked well and provided lessons for future new product proposals by the Enterprises.

The conditional approval was informed by the numerous comment letters received as well as considerations required by law:

The product is authorized under specified sections of Freddie Mac’s Charter Act: The Freddie Mac Charter Act permits the Enterprise to purchase “residential mortgages that are secured by a subordinate lien against a one- to four-family residence,” subject to certain conditions (See 12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(4)). The proposed new product meets the requirements for authorization under the Charter Act.

The product is in the public interest: As of December 2023, over 95 percent of Enterprise-backed single-family mortgages had mortgage rates below current market rates, with the majority at least 3 percentage points lower. Meanwhile, national home prices have doubled in less than a decade, leading to significant amounts of equity for many homeowners. Freddie Mac’s purchase of closed-end second mortgages is intended to allow borrowers to maintain their low interest rate first mortgage while accessing a portion of the equity in their homes. Several public interest factors were considered in the review process:
Provide lower-cost alternatives to existing cash-out refinance products: Many borrowers – particularly low-income borrowers and those in rural and underserved communities – have struggled to access equity in their homes through the private home equity market. In an environment of elevated mortgage rates, they are either forced to give up their below-market rate and obtain a cash-out refinance with a higher mortgage rate across the entire loan balance or are forced to sell their home when a financial need arises, which can create instability for families and run counter to the Enterprises’ missions.

Avoid crowding out private capital or producing unintended macroeconomic or mortgage market effects: FHFA anticipates that a pilot with a volume limitation of $2.5 billion, a duration not to exceed 18 months, a maximum loan amount of $78,277 (as adjusted annually in Regulation Z), a 24-month minimum seasoning requirement for the first mortgage, and eligibility only for principal/primary residences will allow analysis of consumer demand, lender offerings, servicer operations, and investor appetite in a controlled manner. The $2.5 billion volume cap, in particular, is responsive to concerns from several commenters regarding the potential macroeconomic and mortgage market impacts of a broader offering. Some commenters cited estimates of $500 billion or more in second mortgage volume if the Freddie Mac proposal were approved, but the volume cap of the approved pilot instead represents less than one half of one percent of these estimates. This is intended to mitigate any concerns about potential inflationary impacts, extending the mortgage “lock-in” effect, or the “crowding out” of private capital.

Benefit underserved borrowers: FHFA anticipates that a pilot with a per-loan limitation of $78,277 (as adjusted annually in Regulation Z) will appropriately target rural and underserved borrowers. The average loan size of closed-end second mortgages is nearly half of the average loan size of home equity lines of credit (HELOCs). Since borrowers in underserved communities (such as lower-income borrowers or those in rural areas) carry smaller balances, on average, HELOC providers may overlook these borrowers in favor of higher-income borrowers and others currently well-served by the home equity market. Thus, a per-loan cap on closed-end second mortgages could potentially expand access to home equity products for underserved borrowers who otherwise would need to obtain a less economical cash-out refinance or utilize other higher-rate consumer credit options.

Broaden participation in the home equity market to smaller financial institutions that can effectively serve their local communities: FHFA believes there are segments of lenders that have struggled to access a secondary market for home equity products – HELOCs and closed-end second mortgages – outside of cash-out refinances eligible for sale to the Enterprises. Current home equity lending is primarily supported by larger depository institutions that tend to hold whole loans on their balance sheets, while securitizations of home equity loans remain limited. FHFA is interested in learning whether this offering will be utilized by small community financial institutions that have more limited access to securitization markets. If so, this offering could support broader lending in underserved communities, while promoting greater competition among lenders and greater choice for consumers. This will be one of the many factors FHFA will examine upon the conclusion of the Freddie Mac pilot.

The product is consistent with the safety and soundness of Freddie Mac or the mortgage finance system: While the volume cap ensures that any second mortgages acquired through the pilot would represent a small fraction of Freddie Mac’s aggregate loan acquisitions, FHFA also approved the limited pilot subject to additional safety and soundness considerations:
Pricing and capital treatment: FHFA expects that the pricing of eligible second mortgages, as well as the capital requirements associated with them, will appropriately reflect the risks that they pose. This should also mitigate the risk that Freddie Mac will displace activity already occurring in the home equity market, which is primarily concentrated in offerings to higher-income borrowers, as the objective is to reach borrowers who otherwise would be subject to more expensive alternatives, such as a cash-out refinance.

Eligibility parameters: Further, as is required of cash-out refinances purchased by the Enterprises, the maximum combined loan-to-value ratio of the first and second mortgages cannot exceed 80 percent, ensuring a robust equity position for the borrower to protect against a decline in home prices. And unlike a cash-out refinance, which for most borrowers in the current environment would entail resetting the entire mortgage balance at a higher interest rate, a second mortgage allows borrowers to maintain an existing low interest rate first mortgage. In many cases, this would lead to a lower overall monthly mortgage payment relative to a cash-out refinance, thereby improving mortgage sustainability.

Finally, FHFA will use this inaugural new product proposal to find ways to improve the public review process for future Enterprise submissions. While the length of the public comment period and the FHFA review period are subject to statutory limitations, FHFA remains open to additional ideas and feedback from stakeholders on ways to improve this process over time.
👍️ 1
The Man With No Name The Man With No Name 16 hours ago
Do fools believe this is a good idea? If anything, it takes away equity from the books of the GSEs. Loading Freddie with mortgages that have no equity is exactly what landed them in conservatorship.

It's f'n dumb.
💩 1 🤡 3
navycmdr navycmdr 16 hours ago
$Boooom !
FHFA Announces Conditional Approval of Freddie Mac Pilot to Purchase Second Mortgages


Washington, D.C. – The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) today announced its conditional approval for Freddie Mac to engage in a limited pilot to purchase certain single-family closed-end second mortgages. This conditional approval follows FHFA’s first publication of a proposed new product by either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae (the Enterprises) for public comment under the new process mandated by the Prior Approval for Enterprise Products regulation, which became effective in April 2023. In an accompanying statement, Director Sandra L. Thompson further discussed FHFA’s analysis of the statutorily required criteria of Charter Act compliance, public interest, and safety and soundness.

“The thoughtful engagement from public stakeholders confirmed the value of a transparent process for evaluating potential new Enterprise products and informed the parameters of the conditional approval,” said Director Thompson. “The limited pilot will allow FHFA to explore whether this closed-end second mortgage product effectively advances Freddie Mac’s statutory purposes and benefits borrowers, particularly in rural and underserved communities.”

In recognition of the significant impact that the activities of the Enterprises have on the U.S. housing finance system, market participants, and the broader economy, FHFA is required by law to review new Enterprise activities and to approve new Enterprise products before these activities and products are offered to the market. FHFA implements this requirement through its regulation on Prior Approval for Enterprise Products.

The conditional approval of a pilot for Freddie Mac purchases of second mortgages includes several limitations on the product, including:

--- A maximum volume of $2.5 billion in purchases;

--- A maximum duration of 18 months;

--- A maximum loan amount of $78,277, corresponding to certain subordinate-lien loan thresholds in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s definition of Qualified Mortgage;

--- A minimum seasoning period of 24 months for the first mortgage; and
Eligibility only for principal/primary residences.

Upon the pilot’s conclusion, FHFA will analyze the data on Freddie Mac’s purchases of second mortgages to determine whether the objectives of the pilot were met. FHFA has determined that any increase to the volume or extension of the duration of the pilot, or a conversion of the pilot to a programmatic activity, would be treated as a new product that is subject to public notice and comment and FHFA approval. Any subsequent approval would be informed by the preliminary results of the pilot.

👍️ 5
tm3141 tm3141 16 hours ago
deeply doubt that ackman is exiting
👍️ 2
Donotunderstand Donotunderstand 16 hours ago
could be
JOoa0ky JOoa0ky 16 hours ago
Thank you for the correction.
Institutional not exiting.
Bill Ackman is exiting.
Donotunderstand Donotunderstand 16 hours ago
I did not read past LEND


That is part of all Margin accounts and can be added to others

It is the stock Fidelity would use to go short for a client

Buying the stock v allowing your stock to be used in Hypothecation - are different

Hypothecation is a transaction where a person puts up an asset as collateral but still owns that asset1. The ownership of the asset lies with the lender, but the borrower enjoys the possession2. A common example of hypothecation is a mortgage, where a person uses his house as collateral in order to secure the bank’s approval to take out a mortgage1.

That is an AI answer ---- Hypothecation occurs when your stock is lent to say Fidelity to cover the short of Mr Jones --- per your signing a margin agreement that allows that (you still own the stock)
EternalPatience EternalPatience 16 hours ago
Massive leak leak leak

Volume says it all . Wait for the news to hit soon in a few days...
👍️ 1
The Man With No Name The Man With No Name 17 hours ago

^^^^^^ fake market 😂
blownaccount9 blownaccount9 17 hours ago
No one thinks you are smart. Everyone sees right through you. Seek help.
👍️ 1
real777mellon real777mellon 17 hours ago
Market Structure:
OTCQB: The OTCQB (also known as “The Venture Market”) operates in the over-the-counter (OTC) market. It’s a decentralized network where securities not listed on major exchanges are traded directly by broker-dealers. (also no rules in buying and reporting if you do it off your buddy's firm like Old Carl Icahn. OTCQB price quotation is not accounting for the entire market. So enjoy that price watching. I had fun buying today.

Traditional Exchanges: Formal stock exchanges like the NYSE and NASDAQ have centralized locations and use matching technology to process trades immediately.
👍️ 1
real777mellon real777mellon 17 hours ago
Guy don't even know what a block trade is. Happens on the NYSE - DEF happens on the OTC and GSEs - Buffett did in 1988. Ok I'm done talking to broccoli heads for the day. Go watch some Jake Paul tiktok's bud.
👍️ 2
real777mellon real777mellon 17 hours ago
You got me I'm clueless. That's why I do better than that when I'm trying to prove a point. 😁 Thanks for the shake whoever tried that was some insane volume to make 20 cents disappear. I hope it was one of you.
👍️ 2
real777mellon real777mellon 17 hours ago
i'm not even gonna tell you what nvy already knows and Ackman already indicated. New directive... new DIRECTOR (or none).... New orders. Release these now - asset sale for $$$$$ - maybe even gasp/not the first time a Treasury has cut the warrants favorably (even in 50%) for a darling of their admin. Trump's a real estate and pro-markets President. Figure it out.

Stop believing the FHFA - And ffs Yellen just placed "sanctions on a Mexican cartel"...

Do you really believe they know how to pee without getting it all over the toilet seat?
👍️ 2 🤯 1
blownaccount9 blownaccount9 17 hours ago
No you are so confident because you are clueless.
👍️ 1
real777mellon real777mellon 17 hours ago
That makes no sense. BTW you're welcome. And I enjoyed the scoop at 1.09. Why am I so confident? Because I'm better at this than anyone who has to ask that?
blownaccount9 blownaccount9 18 hours ago
Care to share what happened to that support you were so confident couldn’t be broken?
👍️ 1
real777mellon real777mellon 18 hours ago
No one is shorting. Stop talking like r/Superstonk
You can check that. Plus it's OTC - there could be huge block trades
Like the one Icahn was reported by FT on for $50M in 2014 from FCM

navycmdr navycmdr 18 hours ago
Freddie files Form 25 ....

👍️ 2
Lite Lite 18 hours ago
So, how long will this assurance take?

What has FHFA and Trsy been doing all this time?

It’s only been 16 years.
navycmdr navycmdr 18 hours ago
Fannie $1.125 - Freddie $1.09 = .035 DELTA !


Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock