Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Are you pretending that the Capital Rule doesn't exist?
Isn't it crazy?

FNMA hitting 2.5% net worth absent SPSPA capital requirements in 2025.

Then I see that it's Glen Bradford. So, it's okay.
A Tier 1 Capital and Core Capital of 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets. It's called the Minimum Leverage capital requirement or Leverage ratio.
ERCF tables published every quarter as of January 1st, 2022, because the Captial Rule effective February 16th, 2021 (Source), compelled FnF to keep it secret till then (Source).

These capital requirements Basel framework, are an essential part for the plan of release from conservatorship under one of the 3 options for a Privatized Housing Finance System revamp, chosen by the UST for the release, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law, "no later than January 31, 2011". Source.
With the increase in the guarantee fees being another essential part to the same end, Privatized Housing Finance System, as stated in the 2011 UST-HUD Report to Congress mentioned before.

This is why I insist that the absence of the typical provision IMPLEMENTATION (as seen in the very FHEFSSA of 1992 in question, as it is also the one that mandates the 2021 FHFA Capital Rule in an amendment inserted by HERA, with the typical 18-month time frame given to a director when a change in a capital rule is required by law), is very important in their plan of deception, because we would have easily seen that the 2021 Capital Rule Basel framework and the 2011 UST's Privatized Housing Finance System from the release from conservatorship, required in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, are intertwined, if both are published at the same time.
Unless you are a savvy investor that figures it out right away, but I mean that it would have hindered their plan of deception playing the fool.


How can possibly someone see it now, 11 years apart, if the plotters in a coordinated attack yesterday, are now denying that the 2021 Capital Rule even exists? (Bradford; "Robert from Yahoo bd" asking at this point for opinions about what amount of capital is necessary; The plaintiff Joshua "Rodney" Angel claiming that 2.5% makes FnF Adequately Capitalized "according to Mr. Howard", instead of according to the Capital Rule).

Let alone the absence of the provision MANDATORY RELEASE UNDERCAPITALIZED, that makes clear that this is all about building capital and thus, the dividend suspension has more to do with Regulatory Risk with new "stringent capital requirements" (as stated in the Option 3 of the UST 3-option plan of 2011), than the Conservatorship itself meant to fix their operations and oust the management. Because let's not forget that this statutory provision also contemplated the release at the discretion of the Director
Source, and not just with the MANDATORY RELEASE.
So, it's all about a ruthless conservator maintaining the control of the enterprises for public recognition, launcheons and praised by the hedge fund managers that seek secured deals (Utility model).
At this point, it's not just Regulatory Risk with increased capital needs, because the FHFA Director has chosen to extend the conservator even beyond this shadow MANDATORY RELEASE, and, under the Separate Account plan, it presumably has chosen a new threshold of CET1 > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets, that enables the redemption of the JPS and meet the ERCF mandate of TIER 1 Capital > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets, thinking of a Housing Finance System revamp without these unwanted investors in AT1 Capital instruments (TIER 1 Capital = CET1 + AT1 Capital)
This Federal Agency is known for expelling unwanted shareholders in the FHLB System membership, mostly unrelated to Housing Finance like hedge funds. They were called "captives" and expelled mercilessly in a 2016 Final rule by "winding down their affairs with those entities", with the proposed rulemaking beginning in 2010.


With FnF, if you want to "wind down the affairs" with the JPS holders, mostly hedge funds as well, it's called redemption of their securities for cash, at their redemption value, which coincides with their adjusted fair value, equal to their par value (the fair value fetches the par value with the resumption of the dividend payments, that should have been resumed one year ago exactly in Fannie Mae when it met the threshold 25% of Capital Buffer under the Table 8: Payout ratio, and the Separate Account. Much earlier in Freddie Mac)

This extended period is a little bit harsh for the JPS holders that suffer the most with a dividend suspended in their fixed-income securities, but authorized in the FHFA-C's Incidental Power: "any action authorized by this section, in best interests of the FHFA". This is why the FHFA director is trying to make up for their losses with a swap JPS for common stocks, accompanying the JPS holders as counterparty of their frivolous lawsuits (Lamberth court, epitome of corruption: Illegal Class Action. Phony claim. Phony damages.)
You can't undo what's already been done.