Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[navycmdr]

$FNMA Simon says

Posted on November 25, 2014 by admin — No Comments ?
http://www.glenbradford.com/2014/11/fnma-simon-says/

Shareholdersaid: November 25, 2014 at 12:39 pm

Tim, I just want to point out something about the third amendment sweep. Many people refer the the actual agreement as illegal, but it is the right of the main creditor to change the terms of the loan. In this case, the creditor is the UST, and the term changed was to receive an unspecified cash payment instead of a fixed interest rate payment. This is not illegal until the government receives more than they lent + interest. We are now in a grey area as to whether we reached the value of the loan plus interest, but soon there will be no doubt that a “taking” has occurred. This is why Lambert can claim, at least for another month or two, that the claim was not ripe for taking. Although I think Lambert is wrong, since ripeness can be argued that the intention to do something can hurt current prices (e.g. fnma is not trading as if the economic rights are suspended, and this hurts current holders) and not just when a company is in receivership. Additionally, Lambert’s response kept arguing that since a 4th amendment is possible, we cannot say for certain that shareholders have been cheated. TLDR: Sweep is not illegal until amount is easily understood as in excess of loan and expected interest payments. Be patient and keep the faith.

REPLY

Shareholdersaid:

November 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Sorry, one more thing that is very relevant. While the sweep may not technically be illegal,

yet, it is illegal for the FHFA to act as an agent of the government and not consider the 200+ page HERA law that specifically stated the FHFA must protect and conserve shareholder rights.

So in Sweeney’s court, if it can be proved that the FHFA acted as a agent of the treasury, then the agreement itself is illegal.

This is a different point than the one I made above.