Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAJ) Quote

Ok

5 day Recap - FNMA
Sep 12 Close 1.10 - on 3,188,500
Sep 13 Close 1.17 - on 5,063,800
Sep 16 Close 1.23 - on 2,958,300
Sep 17 Close 1.24 - on 3,222,900
Sep 18 Close 1.28 - on 3,950,800

FNMA/FMCC
Fight To Right The Wrongs Done To Shareholders/
To Treasury and FHFA, Shareholders are Dirt
To Be Trodden Down
Turn It Around
Fight On - Rage On

More and more will be failing with the amount of illegals in the US. Look at Arizona.

In Massachusetts Stewart healthcare hospitals are closing & failing. I wonder why they haven’t been put in conservatorship? The communities need hospitals and now that they’ve had FNF so long they’ve mastered the art. Why hasn’t the government put any other companies in conservatorship in 18 years why only FNF?

Yes, it may very well be the deep state.
But anything that must end will end.

The wsj article from 2008 continues to be as useless as all the other gse skateboarding guru like evaluations.

I wouldn’t clean my dog’s butt with their lack of in depth gse journalism.
Bla bla china has nothing to do with today’s gse reality.

When has the wsj written anything relevant about the GSEs….wait for it….big fart noise…
Fnma

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DLB-3968

lot of crazy stuff in this election. 0.5% reduction saying inflation is under control.excuse me? fries is still over $4.50 . a subway sandwich that used to be $4.00 is close to $9.00. yeah, do it as you need that fed chair position again.

you are right. he spent all his time under pence's desk.

A standard response here might be "Because THEY won't allow it." Who are they? "Them." Who is "Them?" "The Deep State." Who is the Deep State? "Them." Gets a little circular but this is what my notes show after more than a decade here. lol.

Well, except the on again, off again discussion of money taken from the GSEs being used to subsidize Obamacare. That's a WHOLE other discussion. I don't think it is but different people here have different ideas.

To anyone new to this discussion.

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract between two government agencies which Fannie and Freddie had no say so. The only legal contract is the one with the U.S. Congress, called the Charter Act. The Senior Preferred Stocks are illegal because the Stocks have an illegal commitment fee attached to it.

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.

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).

The Plaintiffs have to prove the FHFA / Treasury broke the law. No mention of Federal Statute.

yes

Dem view point
some mission-focused utility, agnostic as to ownership

Obama care has nothing to do with gses.
Every time mnuchin spoke the word Obama care , he smiled inside of him.

You ask why? First off the shareholders who hired these Lawyers should demand their money back!

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.

THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.

We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).

Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:

Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.“ End of Quote

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/

Yes, Justice Breyer told us how to win. Why is this not happening?

Viking61, you are absolutely right. The problem the Plaintiffs Attorneys did not address the Law. Ha

The Plaintiffs have to prove the FHFA / Treasury broke the law. The Plaintiffs made no mention of Federal Statute.

JUSTICE BREYER told the Plaintiffs how to win. Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12

The link may not work anymore, the above statement was made and recorded in the transcript.

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

So did justice’s Breyer and Sotomayor.

The CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?


The Congressional Budget Office publication states, “Federal Government effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

The Enterprises have been Nationalized by the Government according to the CBO: The liabilities have not been added to the National Debt nor have the Shareholders been compensated by U.S. Law of the 5th Amendment.

Congressional Budget Office
From: Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2023

Page 1, Foot Note 1.

Quote: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in federal conservatorship since September 2008. CBO treats the two GSEs as government entities in its budget estimates because, under the terms of the conservatorships, the federal government retains operational control and effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For more discussion, see Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Recapitalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Through Administrative Actions (August 2020), www.cbo.gov/publication/56496; and Congressional Budget Office, The Effects of Increasing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Capital (October 2016), www.cbo.gov/ publication/52089” End of Quote

Link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58031-Federal-Credit-Programs.pdf

The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.

The Charter Act the Law of the Land.

Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c) Terms and Rates

Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14

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

Well, I certainly consider them Nationalized since the Govt took full control and 100% of all proceeds without ever compensating the shareholders.

No $1.37 close. I do like your number more than the actual close though

Since when have they been nationalized. Do you have any coherent link..of course not. A dictionary to check the nationalized meaning? Of course not…
Fnma

In financial crisis of 08 , government used 700 billions to bail out all tbtf.

But where did $700 billions come from? China
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1170724.shtml#:~:text=China%20pulled%20the%20US%20out%20of%20the%202008,on%20Thursday%2C%20saying%20that%20China%27s%20opening-up%20is%20win-win.

So spspa was acting as a Bridge to allow all money flow out to pay bond of $700 billions from China


Now China needs help

The Biden Administration Is Preparing to Bail China Out | Opinion

Published Sep 06, 2024 at 9:38 AM EDT

Stress tests? They got caught cooking the books to show the twins on the brink of insolvency.
Early lawsuit settlement. Gag order to follow.

Hope breaks out over $1.30

Yeah. GSEs passed all stress tests and got Nationalized. Other banks failed the same stress tests yet were given loans with 2% interest and let keep going while their bad loans were forced on the GSEs.

Yer but if the DJT admin (if they win) can't deal a cancellation of all shares both common and JPS when there donors have large portions of both. Why would they wipe out shareholders that give money to the campaign ??

Now if these CEO's of both company's are getting stock as a bonus then when???? That would tell you something.

Especially considering they did it upon the premise of "insolvency", of which nothing was further from the truth.

I am a SHAREHOLDER. The government isn't. If it were, the SPS would be counted as capital and there would have never been a need for conservatorship in the first place.

Our topic is spspa !
What is the purpose of spspa ?

The purpose of spspa is to protect bond debt securities which Freddie Mac delisted on June.
For the past 16 years, all president administration didn't want to delist the bond.
Now that bond was out of the picture,
Do we still need spspa to protect the bond ?

If all president administration didn't want to delist bond. Who ordered to delist bond ?
It must be Lamberth.

Hasn't the government already breached ALL faith by Nationalizing these companies?

I've heard so much logic, excellent/outstanding logic, all these years that I don't even know what to think any longer. Your suggestions are valid. It's the government and their positions that simply have not made sense so who knows what they are thinking, or what we should expect. Expect the worst and pray for the best.

Good point. Who knows what it means then? lol.

Then it will be a breach of good faith and fair dealing of minority shareholders.

Strong!!

Finally getting long overdue traction

Spspa can only be sold before 8-0 verdicts.
Verdicts are the verdicts, now waiting for Lamberth for what he has to rule on.

Lmao even though I would be “fine” thanks to pref position I would be furious about the loss of potential from my common holding which should be set to increase exponentially once freedom has been secured. My overarching thesis has changed and now assumes that release is coming and common shares at WORST lose 4/5ths ownership value with exercise of warrants (which is a stupid premise to begin with as they were only intended to be a backstop preventing losses and the duration on them was BS to boot). That said with the growth of the company and retained earnings it would still mean $20-30 a share is real and easily accomplished.

I think my new preferred release terms would be
1. LP/SPSA written off as paid in full.
2. Warrants sold back to FNMA/FMCC valuing them on the weighted average share price the last 5 years.
3. Explicit guarantee backing the companies in exchange for a realistic small fee. Small fee can be used to extend housing assistance to first time buyers or low credit loans or whatever government wants for “mission driven lending”

This means government benefits from
1. Paid in $$$ which is $100B profit from initial loan.
2. An additional lump sum from warrant tender
3. Perpetual money to fund their housing plan which is free money for what they were already implicitly doing.

If they go this route shares are easily $100+. Rewarding those who have been stuck holding for 15+ years and those with the fortitude to buy a company stuck in government purgatory. Unfortunately government probably doesn’t want to reward shareholders that handsomely so unlikely but I think it would be reasonable… you know… as a shareholder

Nah Calabria wouldn't be hanging out on a message board w/ small time retail traders that dabble in conspiracy theories...

Agree. But sad! Many "investors" promote some terms they don't understand. Some examples of the past are pivot security, IPO and capital structure. Our own Rick thinks getting rid of SPSA is free money. Sad! Sad! Sad!

i dont think so, no institution, or investor would touch them after that. and they whomever steals the capital stack from shellman and KTCarneyCorkerCircus garage gang we can then files class actions all day long for Trillion dollar assets.

Do you suppose Ackman would be a happy camper....where does one get that kiteflying nonsense from?
FNMA

Probably the shares get wiped out on exit so all of us with commons are screwed.

I’m predicting $1.37 close!
All I do is spew nonsense, I haven’t been right yet. Anyone want to hear a poem?

Thanks for the advice, but I enjoy the rational discourse that which some members engage. Also, frankly, the history of this saga interests me greatly and there are few other venues to discuss it with people who understand the nature of what has been done over the years. Forgive me the indulgence, but even though I am not as vested as some others any longer, I am vested emotionally because it's so difficult to believe this could happen here in this Country.

I'll partially agree. #1 seems reasonable. The rest is garbage.

I'm starting to think Calabria was on this board. Maybe KT could tell us accurately what Calabria thinks because he was/is him? Always pumping that damn book. Always talking about probability percentages.

Where is Wiseman with the multiple people theories when you need him...

And remember -
However lawless you suspect federal agencies might be, I can assure you from first hand observation, it’s a lot worse. - Mark Calabria, June 29 2024

serious question

why would F and F be losing a large amount of money in the CRT program

if the underwriting of risk is close to accurate F and F sell paper for a good price ?

my two cents again

1. Kill the SP/LP obligation --- a must - and IMO does not need Congress or even POTUS

2. PPS IMO at that point goes up to say 8 --- as reserves are now positive and real

3. Any major change - IMO - after that might might - need Congress or

4. In particular I want to see an equity owned national utility model for F and F -- such that they face some things they need to do that others do not need to do -- but - but the utility gets a GOV backing !! - secondary to reserves - but a GOV backing

5. The path of utility with obligations but backing is open to ALL to create if they wish (e.g. TBTF banks would keep private label per bank but form a CO-OP to own one utility model - if only to test out the value of the Guarantee