InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 3038
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/25/2020

Re: LuLeVan post# 769146

Monday, 09/25/2023 1:37:02 AM

Monday, September 25, 2023 1:37:02 AM

Post# of 797221
You don't even know that FnF are sellers of CRTs, not buyers.
A CRT is a simple bond that FnF issue and they pay interests, an invalid Credit Enhancement operation, and thus, a breach of the Charter's Credit Enhancement clause. Illegal, commented yesterday. Also illegal were the PLMBSs that lacked one of the 3 credit enhancement operations.
Likely, the CRT expenses are sent to the UST as a backdoor Commitment Fee, pursuant to Goldman Sachs' Mnuchin's slogan: "The taxpayer be appropriately compensated", which is barred in the Charter's Fee Limitation clause (only a rate with a small spread over Treasury yields on SPS)
So, likely, they aren't operations with Wall Street but with the UST. Anyway, illegal in the Charter, we are requesting a refund of the CRT expenses, net (turned into Retained Earnings -Core Capital-), which is how FnF are protected against losses. Goldman Sachs' alumni, Sandra Thompson's "CRT, to protect the taxpayer", is another slogan. The taxpayer doesn't have credit risk in FnF. The SPS aren't taxpayer's losses as rep. Hensarling pointed out one day, before joining UBS. The SPS are obligations: promise of repayment.

And about the "$1.1 billion on programs to address social inequality in real estate ownership", you are referring to the 4.2 bps on new acquisitions corresponding to 2021, for two Affordable Housing funds managed by HUD and UST, the Housing Trust Fund (65%) and Capital Magnet Fund (35%), respectively. FHFA made the announcement in a press release as conservator, on behalf of FnF, because it's a mandate on FnF in HERA.
It was also commented yesterday, when I stressed that it's illegal in the Charter's Fee Limitation of United States clause (Watch the screenshot: "PROHIBITION.......")
An example of deregulation by the Dems-Trump: both legal and illegal at the same time.
Neither

Sandra spent $1.1 billion

, nor

Sandra has generously paid for it out of (scarce) corporate assets

.
It was paid for by FnF and it's mandated by law.
Quit praising the FHFA Director as part of the investment case of the hedge funds that you represent, Bradford.
The theme of Housing affordability is related to the construction of houses (supply), not related to financing.