Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

The 4.2bps payment to HUD-UST, evidence of Separate Account plan.
You are Bradford and the fact that you are clueless about FnF matters, is another proof. I've told you this many times before in your SA articles.
As Freddie bagholder correctly pointed out:

Typical Skateboard kind of reply.

Once you have clear that the dividends, today's gifted SPS and the payment of Securities Litigation judgments are capital distributions restricted while FnF are undercapitalized, you ask about the $1.1B

in disguised social welfare programs ("reducing the racial ownership gap").....bypassing Congress.

that you made up, because it's a mandate by law (2008 HERA in an amendment of the FHEFSSA)
I already told you what it is about in this reply.

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.

But you keep on attempting to portray Sandra Thompon as a person in charge of racial justice and praising her all the time, thinking that it will change the reality of the Separate Account plan.

FIRST. This fee is illegal in the Charter Act.

SECOND. This fee is legal in the FHEFSSA as amended by HERA, continuing with the idea of enacting laws that break existing laws by the Dems-Trump allies, or directly, break them without consequences (PLMBS, CRT,...)

This fee is a capital distribution and thus, restricted when FnF are undercapitalized, just like all others. It was suspended from 2008 to December 2014. It was Mel Watt who lifted the suspension.
Although restricted in the U.S. Code §4614(e) mentioned, we see in the law that it has its own reasons when this fee is suspended, which adds up to the idea of laws that duplicate existing laws, drafted by low profile Senate staffer (the ambitious Calabria in this case)
Mel Watt found a black hole in the statutory wording to lift the suspension, in either of the three cases, that, not only is evidence of the Separate Account plan, but also it explains why FnF haven't been released from conservatorship before the Undercapitalized threshold (Mandatory release in the prior law, struck by HERA), at the discretion of FHFA with a Capital Restoration plan.

(1) are contributing, or will contribute, to the financial instability of the enterprise;
(2) are causing, or would cause, the enterprise to be classified as undercapitalized;
(3) are preventing, or would prevent, the enterprise from successfully completing a capital restoration plan under section 1369C.

(1) Notice the date when the suspension was lifted, December 2014, when I've pointed out that is when Fannie Mae terminated the repayment of the SPS under the Separate Account plan and as per the exception to the Restriction on Capital Distributions mentioned before. Freddie Mac fulfilled it one year earlier, as seen in my signature image below. So, Mel Watt determined that an important milestone was reached that added up to financial stability, pursuant to the FHFA-C's Rehab power: put FnF in a solvent condition: related to reduction of debenture like the obligations SPS. Only sound condition (Recap) was left.
(2) It talks about the capital classification undercapitalized, not undercapitalized in general like the original Restriction in the law U.S. Code §4614(e). There aren't capital classifications while in conservatorship.
(3) There isn't a formal Capital Restoration plan that would have been necessary, had FnF been released at the discretion of the FHFA Director before the mandatory release Undercapitalized that it's in the making (Fannie Mae catches up as of Sept 30, 2023, in the scenario of redemption of JPS (AT1 Capital), as it's been estimated just $1B Tier 1 Capital shortfall over Leverage ratio as of the Q2 2023 results; Freddie Mac reached this threshold with the Q2 of 2022 results, but the FHFA-C's Incidental Power allows this waiting "in the best interests of FHFA"). This is why the Equity holders are kept captives till the end, also taking into account that a Housing Finance System revamp would get rid of this fee right away, because it's money taken out from private shareholders and Charter-barred.