Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

First of all, "off-balance sheet" doesn't exist if later FnF present the financial statements on a consolidated basis and subject to a 100% Credit Conversion Factor (CCF): how external exposures are reflected on the balance sheet.
So, any Special Purpose Vehicule (SPV) like today with their MBS Trusts, is never really "off-balance sheet" if their accounts show up on their Balance Sheet.
By the way, the SPS LP increased for free that is absent from the Balance Sheet ($118B) is simply fraud, as they must appear, like the initial $1B gifted SPS that does appear, along their offset (reduction of Additional Paid-In Capital account back then. Now, reduction of Retained Earnings account).
Yet, there is always a shill calling the missing SPS "off-balance sheet", like kthompt19 and Glen Bradford with LuLeVan, to provide the alibi for the Financial Statement fraud with its absence. Even if that were the case, these SPS and their offset must be shown on the Balance Sheet once the accounts are presented on a consolidated basis.
Just say that you don't understand what "on a consolidated basis" means, another basic financial concept that you should know, more if you are a plaintiff.

It'd prove that the Common Equity is held in escrow with the aforementioned offset, in order to comply with the CFR 1237.12 (Recap.), and that FnF are not building regulatory capital nowadays (Ackman and his subordinate Bradford: "FnF continue to build capital")

Biden/FHFA/Treasury 'ordering'/setting up for F&F to purchase mortgages/mortgage securities off-balance sheet like they did in the '90s and 2000s up until Conservatorship.

And secondly, you still don't understand what the Conservatorship was all about from the beginning: the goal of removing the privileges that FnF (and thus, their Equity holders) enjoy, bound for a Charter revoked endgame.
In order to remove them, first you have to honor them, like the cheap UST backup of FnF that the professor Nielson (SCOTUS-appointed amicus) called "special borrowing right from Treasury". And don't reply now that it was a "loan" like you always do (💩fan strategy).
One of the privileges is to have access to low cost funding thanks to this UST backup of FnF in the Charter Act at rates similar to Treasuries, that later was invested in the purchase of PLMBSs, earning a big Net Interest Yield. By the way, the PLMBSs were illegal in the Charter Act. Breach of the Credit Enhancement clause (lack thereof).
This privilege was removed by winding down their Investments Portfolios 10% per year, established in the SPSPA. Soon it was changed to 15% per year, until a cap of $250B was reached. This cap was reduced further by Calabria to $225B as of end of 2022.
It deviated to the infamous "wind-down of FnF" rhetoric, like nowadays peddled by the shill Robert from Yahoo bd on this board, but it began with the GOP in 2011. As always, playing with the words, like a Telephone game.
"Remove their privileges" was written in the very 2011 UST Report to Congress, in light of the "recommendations on ending the Conservatorships", at the request of the Dodd-Frank law of 2010, and with regard to a second privilege removed "Ending the capital advantages", referring to the statutory capital standards that FnF were subject to. For the new the Basel framework (a back-end Capital Rule: effective after the Transition Period to build capital, not before as usual), FnF needed to charge a level of guarantee fees that reflect their risk. Then it's when FnF can be subject to the same capital requirements as the fully private financial institutions.
The endgame is to remove the most precious privilege, the UST backup of FnF at rates similar to Treasuries. It would no longer be necessary and the Charter would be revoked. Public Mission unnecessary as well: no subsidized g-fee anymore, duty to serve is what any company is after, etc.