Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

That does not make AIG or GSE's situations isentical. Never were, was or will be.

The situations do not have to be identical to have similar outcomes. And the situations are far more similar than you realize.

1) Why then are we in this conservatorship for 15 years?
2) Was AIG in conservatorship?
3) Was AIG hibdered by HERA?
4) Did AIG need congress, FHFA and treasury to do something, anything to release back to public?
5) Were there as many court presedences set with the AIG cases as there have been with the GSE's?
6) Does AIG have outstanding incriminating presidential documents hidden by the courts?
7) Did AIG raise 100 billion of its own capital?
8) AIG insured period, the GSE's packaged, funded loans via government, with a backing by government, also provided affordable housing mandates and watched the banks for loan disclosures, credit scores, etc lots of stuff...so these both are identical businesses, correct?
9) Is AIG spelt GSE?

1) Because there is not yet enough political will to end them, just like there wasn't enough political will to end the government's control of AIG until there was.
2) They were under government control from 2008 to 2012. Not technically conservatorship but not far off.
3) No, but they were subject to Dodd-Frank instead.
4) They needed the Fed and Treasury. FHFA didn't apply, and Congress wasn't needed.
5) No, though I don't know what point you're trying to make. All the court precedents set in FnF cases (nearly all about the NWS) have been bad for shareholders.
6) Maybe? How would we know?
7) Not $100B, but they did raise at least $20B from outside investors (source). FnF would need to raise about $100B combined (about $50B for each company) to hit 2.5% of balance sheet assets right now, but that amount will decline to zero by 2026 for Fannie and 2029 for Freddie with current income and balance sheet growth trends.
8) AIG was, and FnF were and are, systemically important. FnF are monoline insurers; their business is not at all completely dissimilar to AIG's.
9) Irrelevant.

My turn. Here's a little quiz:

1) Did Treasury own preferred stock in AIG that ranked ahead of all other stockholders?
2) Were those shares non-repayable and non-redeemable?
3) Did Treasury convert those shares to commons?
4) Was AIG's board of directors controlled by the government while Treasury still had its equity stake?
5) Were there limits on executive compensation during government control?
6) Was the government able to avoid consolidating AIG's balance sheets onto the government's even though they owned 92% of the common stock?
7) Was AIG still able to raise capital in light of everything above?

Since I'm feeling generous I will give you the answer key: they're all "yes".

show me an exact similarity.

You're still prey to this particular logical fallacy, it seems. Two situations do not need to be identical in order to draw parallels.