Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

The allocation of a one-time 4.2 bps on new acquisitions to 2 Affordable Housing Trusts managed by the UST and HUD, is a capital distribution too (an expense unrelated to the business activities or an operation that affects the Equity), but they have their own restrictions in their own statutory provision of the FHEFSSA, as amended by HERA, unlike dividends and gifted SPS that fall under the U.S. Code §4614(e): restricted upon undercapitalized IN GENERAL.


These exclusive restrictions for the 4.2bps explain the obscurantism surrounding the conservatorships, so that these payments can go through.
Suspension upon:
- Classified Undercapitalized. Capital Classifications suspended during conservatorship.
- When a Capital Restoration Plan is in place, necessary in the case that FnF were released before the MANDATORY release Undercapitalized, at the discretion of the Director (Struck by HERA, this threshold is still considered regardless).
- And the 3rd reason for the suspension of these payments, is another evidence of the Separate Account plan, because Mel Watt lifted the suspension during conservatorship on December 2014, and it's only possible if he determined that it doesn't contribute to the financial instability of the enterprises, at a time when, according to the law, Fannie Mae repaid the last SPS outstanding (Freddie Mac one year earlier as seen in my signature image below) under the guise of dividend payments to UST (restricted and unavailable funds for distribution as dividend with Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings accounts) and this repayment of the debenture with the taxpayer (SPS) added up to a solvent condition.

These legislative fees, like the TCCA fees (10 bps guarantee fee syphoned off to UST as well), sum a total estimated in $46B during conservatorship, shouldn't have been enacted because they are barred in the Fee Limitation of the United States in the Charter Act.
The key is that these payments don't contravene other statutory provisions, as they have their own restrictions. Unlike the 2nd UST backup of FnF at unlimited yields, that contravenes the original low cost UST backup "at rates that take into consideration the Treasury yields as of the end of the month preceding the purchase".
And the restricted dividends and gifted SPS that went through, I've already told you that we are here to legalize the actions, not to cry out loud that they are unlawful. These payments are part of the famous Separate Account for the reduction of SPS and recapitalization, whether they want it or not, because it's what makes them lawful.

A few years ago, I stopped requesting a refund of the legislative fees.
Now, they are useful in the case of Fanniegate resolution "as is" or "takeover" of FnF by bigger players at the stocks' fair value, without a "Taking" of our stocks at book value beforehand, because the UST would make $0 in profits (cumulative dividend on SPS is netted out with the interests owed to FnF on $150.9B due), and we can reply that, along with the amount of the Making Home Affordable programs, called "Obama's programs" but defrayed by the Equity holders of FnF, estimated at $15 billion, the $0 in profits turns into a $61B windfall for the UST that shouldn't have existed under the Fee Limitation of the U.S., so it appeases tensions in lawmakers that still don't understand that FnF are not ordinary businesses.

All of the above is set forth in the law and it's been explained on this board before. More evidence that you haven't read the laws and regulations in force, pro se plaintiff, and you are writing here daily like mad and filing lawsuits in the Lamberth and Sweeney courts.

The DOJ is compelled to address our claim on social media against all the frivolous lawsuits that are the reason why the stocks trade at rock bottom prices, and others peddling their Govt theft story in formal documents, based on the cover-up of statutory provisions, regulation and basic financial concepts (dividends, a distribution of earnings from the Retained Earnings accounts): books, court briefs, letters to investors, articles, financial analyses, etc., plus their sponsors behind the scenes, others are publicly known, like BX and John Paulson, the sponsors of the Moelis Plan.
$4.8 billion will do it.
The DOJ, hit with two rounds of $4.8B as well, accordingly (relieved in the two scenarios mentioned in the case of common stocks), could earn big money penalizing these conspirators as well, regardless that they have worked hand-in-hand with them to share the booty with Wall Street.
-We've been robbed!
-Yes, we stole it all! Arrr!
The taxpayer doesn't understand of these conspiracies to rip off the shareholders.

Let alone, those to blame for the Banking crisis. Those that chose the HTM portfolio accounting in investments in debt securities, instead of AOCI (accumulated unrealized losses in Equity) or Fair Value change, it doesn't comply with GAAP, that requires assets to be valued at the market price if there is one, like this case. They are the large banks that didn't have the surreal "AOCI opt-out election": 12 CFR §324.22 (b)(2), and instead, the FDIC regulation requires that they "must deduct identified losses" (deduct losses of AOCI from CET1, if they weren't recorded beforehand as Fair Value change reflected later in the Retained Earnings account) in the 12 CFR §324.22 (a)(9).