Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[tutt1126]

What is going on with pps?

[Boat Shoes From Yahoo]

Wiseman, Will DJT have access to the “Secret Plan”? Or is this ONLY for the current President?
(Asking for a friend).

[Patswil]

Hello? $1.55

[FNM500K]

Very much appreciated !

[clarencebeaks21]

You’re confusing the law with its case-specific application to facts. I was only discussing the former because the original poster made the assertion that actions of the conservator could not be questioned, which is a false statement.

Again, and as I said twice before, read page 12 of Collins and you’ll see every circuit ***to review*** 4617f agreed with the statement of law I posted.

[Fannie Heyyyyy]

If your selling, I'm buying. Good Karma for F&F

[Rodney5]

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.

Director Regulator / Conservator two different positions. Strangely enough Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator held both positions as Regulator and Conservator at the same time.

The Senior Preferred Stock, with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates is a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA.

Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the new products sold to Treasury. The FHFA did not follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act.

The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market.

The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years.

Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; Conservator Lockhart is required by law to file notice to himself as Regulator.

The Safety and Soundness Act required Director Lockhart as regulator not conservator to approve a new product issued by Director Lockhart acting as conservator FHFA-C (SPS with variable liquidation Preference) to Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA for the purpose of carrying out the secondary mortgage market. He was required as regulator to file notice in the federal register, seek public comment and issue federal regulations for the new product we call the Senior Preferred shares sold to Treasury.

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Page 2689
SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf

[JOoa0ky]

I'll still have 75% left, don't I still qualify?

[Donotunderstand]

hhmm
boy does that sound right

[Donotunderstand]

the return to Lamberth - to quantify and finalize damages - was sent to Lamberth by SCOTUS - upholding that small part of the EN BANC ruling

[Donotunderstand]

not sure every circuit - appeals court - agreed

now if you add - EVENTUALLY -- that might be a different story

we - plaintiffs for equity would never have asked for or needed and then received an EN BANC hearing and ruling if the first three judge panel of that circuit - appeals court had ruled for plaintiffs. So that circuit first dais nope to us - then the total court said yup - if FHFA exceeds the law then courts can come in - despite the courts not allowed sign on the fence (written into HERA)

[Rodney5]

Seems odd?? It’s been explained, not odd at all… The fact of the matter the lawyers got it wrong.

Barron4664
09/20/23 9:36 AM
Post #768746 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results.“ End of Quote

[RickNagra]

Good bye. Thanks for coming. Close the door on your way out. I will cross you off the Vegas party list at the Wynn.

[clarencebeaks21]

To your first question, no, Lamberth said FHFA acted within its powers and functions, but in doing so it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing anyway. This seems odd, but Lamberth explains that the alleged APA violation and contractual violation are very different claims and have different legal elements. FHFA violated only the latter.

But to your second question, yes.

[Rodney5]

This “Separate Account plan” kindly, explain to us how this will unfold. And when will this take place?

You calculate “An adjusted $402B core capital shortfall as of end of 2023.” What I understand from your perspective is the shortfall is by reason of the outstanding Senior Preferred Stock with the Liquidation Preference. Are you saying the SPS LP will be cancelled?

My understanding is Fannie Mae had a GAAP positive net worth of $78 billion at YE23, the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework excludes the stated value of the senior preferred stock ($120.8 billion), as well as a portion of deferred tax assets, resulting in the Company being significantly undercapitalized. Indeed, at YE23, the shortfall to adjusted capital requirements totaled $243 billion, with the Company reporting negative regulatory capital ratios given deficit for each tier of capital. Given covenants under the PA, Fannie Mae also does not have access to equity funding except through draws from the U.S. Treasury (and only when total liabilities exceed total assets).

[JOoa0ky]

Sorry boys, I'll be putting on some selling pressure today. Liquidating 25% of my FnF position today.

[Sammy boy]

Invest in a coloring book!

[Wise Man]

Now, hit this wall: Definition of Core Capital 12U.S.Code§4502(7)
This is the FHEFSSA, not the U.S. Code:


Retained Earnings account is core capital. The only account that absorbs the future (unexpected) losses (the other Loan Loss Reserve -ALLL- is for expected losses -CECL accounting standard-. ALLL shows up as Asset writedown, that is, it assumes that the loss already occurred. Though it isn't true and that's why it's recorded as Tier 2 Capital for the Total Capital that has to meet the Risk-Based Capital requirement)

Today, the Retained Earnings accounts stand at an adjusted $-216B ($-91B officially on their Balance Sheets), adjusted for the offset (reduction of Retained Earnings) for the $125B worth of SPS LP increased for free (without getting the corresponding cash) since December 2017, with the masterminds of this 3rd phase of the Separate Account, Mnuchin/Trump, when they agreed with the FHFA director at the time, Mel Watt, on $3B gifted SPS on December 2017, when the Applicable Capital Reserve was raised to $3B.


Then it continued with Calabria on the September 2019 PA amendment and the latest, on the January 2021 amendment with the fraudulent concept "Capital Reserve End Date": when the capital requirements are met with Capital Reserve, and badly assessed, because of the offset mentioned (adjusted CR = $0)
It's the Core Capital the one that meets the Minimum Leverage Capital requirement, as per the definition of Capital Classification of Undercapitalized.
An adjusted $402B core capital shortfall as of end of 2023.

So much for "rehabilitation".

Mnuchin/Trump and Watt simply looked up the definition of capital distributions posted before, which are restricted, and when judge Willett called them out, unware that there is a Separate Account plan behind and in a half-baked ruling commented before, stating, about the NWS dividend, "that kind of liquidation exceeded the powers of the conservator", 3 weeks later they picked a different compensation to UST, notwithstanding that it's the same Common Equity Sweep as before, as we can see in:
- The Income Statement: Net Income less dividends or other compensation to UST, equals $0 Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders. That is, $0 EPS.
- The Balance Sheet: here we can't see it here, because this SPS LP increased for free and its offset, are missing (Financial Statement fraud). But have a look to this adjusted Net Worth activity table, to see how it plays out. The Common Equity is always held in escrow, in order to uphold the Rehab power.


In the best interests of the Agency: mess around, in a conspiracy with the crooked litigants and Co.

[Wise Man]

You shamelessly conceal that the UPMOST judge, justice Alito, began his interpretation of the FHFA-C's Incidental Power: "Rehabilitate FnF in a way....".


By the way, this comes after judge Sweeney's interpretation of this provision, deleted the words "authorized by this section", so she could read "take any action in the best interests of the FHFA", ending up with "the FHFA is the government". She was called out and renamed "The Tipp-Ex Queen", and it's when the big boys stepped in to give a proper interpretation of the written text. Primarily because take their capital away is NOT authorized by this section (a breach of the FHFA-C's Rehab power, knowning that "may" is imperative in legislation, once the capital has been generated, and not a choice. Already commented.)

Justice Alito was just making clear what judge Willett stated in a prior ruling (5th Cir.) over the same Collins case and regarding the same provision: "Any action within the enumerated powers".


Therefore, the savy Justice Alito simply looked for the FHFA-C's Powers, something that judge Willett missed, and determined that it's about the rehabilitation of FnF, when he read: "Put FnF in a sound and solvent condition", because he knows that the soundness in a financial company is measured with the Capital levels, where the Retained Earnings are recorded as Core Capital. And solvency (ability to meet the obligations) is suitable for the reduction of the SPS (obligations in respect of Capital Stock) and restore their capital levels as well.
Both are, precisely, the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions.



Then, we can come to the conclusion that the Restriction on Capital Distributions is a tool to achieve the FHFA-C's Rehab power.
This is why the FHFA's Power is also called "the Rehab power" or the "Recap power".

You have just posted justice Alito's add-on "and the public it serves" in your piecemeal approach (The Tipp-Ex gang), that stretches the interpretation of the FHFA-C's Incidental Power, useful to use FnF for government policies and to put an example, it would allow the Congress to keep the estimated $15B it owes to FnF for managing Obama's Making Home Affordable program (HAMP and HARP), that even made FnF advance the payments to borrowers and servicers (banks), with the promise that they would be reimbursed for this cost with TARP funds, but it didn't happen.
Also, the utilization of the hedge funds as a tool for government policies, after Trump approved the debt forgiveness plan (the short-sales that DeMarco prohibited), forcing FnF to sell their NPL and RPL to the hedge funds at a deep discount, because it contains a clause that includes debt forgiveness, and with the collateral (properties) valued sky high given away. This is an incentive to prompt manufactured crisis.
Fannie Mae. Sale of RPL:

purchasers must offer delinquent borrowers a waterfall of loss mitigation options, including loan modifications, which may include principal forgiveness, prior to initiating foreclosure on any loan. Source.

This is fine. Once the dust settles, we will bring it up as windfalls for the UST, knowing that what is the bailout, it will net $0 as per the Charter Act (the amount of cumulative dividend on SPS , with a weighted-average 1.8% rate and applying a 0.5% spread over Treasuries, is netted out with the interests on the $152B cash owed to FnF)

The first part of his sentence that we are talking about, "Rehabilitate FnF in a way, although not in the interests of FnF (on paper -Balance Sheet-, just watching their awful ERCF tables you know why), it's beneficial to the Agency". We see how the justice twisted the text as it's written, just what he was told, in order to play the game of the hedge funds and private equity firms about a "Government theft story" that is what is making the stocks trade at rock bottom prices (stock price manipulation), because with "beneficial", the justice wanted to transmit the idea of "monetary benefit", when the written text states "in the best interests", and the interests in a regulatory agency are always related to activities in the regulated entities, no one can think of depleting their regulatory capital, by taking their money away in broad daylight.

BOTTOM LINE
What justice Alito was really allowing, is the rehabilitation of FnF in a Separate Account that resembles the one carried out by Congress and the FHFA in 1989 with the FHLBanks, for the repayment of principal of the RefCorp obligation, and with an extended version for their recapitalization. Either on purpose or inadvertently, because no matter how you spin the law, all roads lead to Rome.
Now we are talking.
CET1 > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets as of end of 2023. Even it was achieved a 25% of the Prescribed Capital Buffer under the Table 8: Payout ratio, for the resumption of dividend payments (Capital Buffer = amount of capital above the threshold Tier 1 Capital > 2.5% of ATA), after the redemption of the JPS (AT1 Capital) with the 4Q 2023 reports of the laggard Fannie Mae.
Achiving the FHFA's will of expulsion of the unwanted Equity holders in FnF (The bulk of JPS holders are hedge funds and Community Banks) in the run up to unveiling the Privatized Housing Finance System we were bound for, since it was chosen by the UST for the release from conservatorship, in a Report to Congress dated February 2011, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law.
The same "membership cleansing" was carried out by the FHFA with the FHLBanks in a Final Rule of 2016.

[Wise Man]

You continue to hit the wall of the Restriction on Capital Distributions and its exception (pay down the SPS) U.S.Code §4614(e), along with the exception added in "the supplemental" on July 20, 2011 CFR 1237.12 (Recapitalization in a separate account, either in the exception 1, 2, 3 and 4, because it (c) supplements and it shall not replace or affect the Restriction on Capital Distribution by the statue I began this comment with, which is meant for the recapitalization as well, because when you pay down the SPS, you are recapitalizing FnF at the same time, as the SPS are pay down with normal cash and they aren't core capital, whereas the posting on Retained Earnings stays, Core Capital)

At the same time, the FHFA is complying with its Power of Recapitalization and also improving their Solvency with the reduction of SPS.
"(May) put FnF in a sound and solvent condition".

When "may" is imperative once the capital has been generated, and it's only to give the conservator some leeway to carry out activities or actions (upholding the law, obviously. It wasn't turned into an outlaw Agency).
The Restriction on Capital Distributions is written in stone.
The same as the penalty on all those individuals that have covered it up in formal documents: court briefs including Amicus briefs, GSE slides, "letters to my partners", articles, books, etc., as long as these documents are publicly available
The obsession to conceal the FHEFSSA, so that the definitions regarding capital go unnoticed, is of epic proportions.
Like the very Mnuchin's Treasury Department:

Something that people should have learned beforehand, in order to make decisions about FnF, that's why to become FHFA director is required a deep understanding in financial matters.
The judges are providing the alibi to not unveil the Separate Account plan. That is, playing the fool with the pomp of a black robe.

Now, hit this wall too. CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION: Dividends, today's SPS increased for free and the Lamberth rebated added later in #3 through regulation CFR 1229.13.

[IronMan123]

So, dosen't the Lambreth case do exactly that? We just need it finialized, right?

[clarencebeaks21]

Every appeals court to review the anti-injunction clause held that relief was allowed if FHFA exceeded its authority. Again, refer for this to Collins on page 12. Something to read, indeed.

[jcromeenes]

And because your rhyme, I'd be exited about a dime.

[Rodney5]

“ granted motion to dismiss based on 4617”

I think you have it right Donotunderstand. That’s my understanding of what took place at the SCOTUS.

[stink stack]

Count on Double Barrel middle fingers this time.....
LOL
Go FNF

[Donotunderstand]

something to read

I did not know Alito said that in the ruling (that courts can "enter" when conservator exceeds)

BEST I recall - all judges at circuit said ouch - too hot to touch when cases came to them

the first panel of the circuit said too hot to touch !! 4617 chases us away

but then then the EN BANC --- at the circuit level ---- said --- YUP if the Conservator GOES TO FAR that creates the green light for trial - fact district courts to enter

So that idea - that courts are not 100% "injunctioned" was an EN BANC circuit court (appeals court) decision --- that then is repeated by SCOTUS as an appeals court too
(no real re examination of fact pattern)

But --- until the EN BANC so declared partial freedom every judge in every case - granted motion to dismiss based on 4617 as I recall - not just Lamberth

Is that right or wrong ?

[Donotunderstand]

$125B as long as the GOV does not claim 300B of LP or do a conversion

[EternalPatience]

Q1 earnings will be stellar. Higher profits, higher margin, higher everything

But we investors, as usual get the finger

We can take it to the bank

[nagoya1]

Let’s see what the Fnma quarterly looks like. Can only look forward to more profits.
Fnma

[Rodney5]

I want to thank our friend Barron for bringing his knowledge to this board.

“ Notice I do not touch the conservatorship. That is a failed legal strategy of 15 years.”

Barron4664
08/16/23 2:32 PM
Post #763179 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The idea behind my proposal is for the little share holders to use their local federal district courts to put foreword direct claims for illegal exaction based on actions of Treasury and FHFA as regulator that I believe violate the Charter Act, Safety and Soundness Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and possibly the Chief Financial Officers Act. Notice I do not touch the conservatorship. That is a failed legal strategy of 15 years now and counting. A legal rabbit hole. The Treasury violates the Charter Act by attaching a variable liquidation Preference based on the amount of public debt used to the purchase of a set number of senior preferred shares and calls this a commitment fee. The same with the warrants. Defined as “in consideration for access to the commitment (public debt)”. The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market. The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years and not one plaintiff attorney has bothered to ask why Dir Lockhart didnt do his job. My idea is that if multiple shareholders file in different districts using the little tucker act, we might get some results. Even better if different districts get different results as it would then be a controversy. These are plain language laws. If we win then everything in the SPSPA would be null. What does that mean? I don’t know. Someone smarter than me would have to figure out the unwinding of this. I do know that Mr. Kelly would be the biggest benefactor of a positive ruling of this sort. I would imagine all money returned to the GSEs. SPS and warrants cancelled.

[Rodney5]

Clarence, again I appreciate you wanting to understand our situation. I’m saying it one more time.

Conservator AND Regulator are entirely two different positions. The attorney’s DID NOT CHALLENGE the Authority of the Regulator. The plaintiffs are focused on the contract SPSPA lost dividends and never challenged the FHFA Director Regulator as breaking the Law.

[akennedy_stocks]

Bradturd, you have not been right about ANYTHING!

Why do you even post?

Aren't you embarrassed?

[TightCoil]

For tomorrow?
Launch before Lunch
Moon by Noon

[TightCoil]

Fight, Fight, Fight for what is Right
Fight to Right the Wrongs done to Shareholders
Fight with All your Might
Shareholders have been Wronged -
Cheated out of their Investments in Fannie and Freddie
Thousands upon Thousands of Shareholders ROBBED

[clarencebeaks21]

The assertion that “4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator” is a false statement.

As background, 4617f is the so-called anti-injunction clause.

I suggest reading Collins v Yellen, particularly published pages 12-15 in Justice Alito’s opinion. Alito expressly states that “where the FHFA does not exercise but instead exceeds those powers or functions, the anti-injunction clause imposes no restrictions. With that understanding in mind, ***we must decide whether the FHFA was exercising its powers or functions as a conservator***” (emphasis added).

After analyzing statutory construction and reviewing the Agency’s actions, Alito concludes in the last sentence of page 14 that “the FHFA could have reasonably concluded that (the Third Amendment) was in the best interests of the … public. The Recovery Act therefore authorized the Agency to choose this option.” So, not only is your assertion false, its converse is true:

Courts first are duty-bound to decide whether the FHFA exceeded its authorized powers or functions as conservator. Only if this review (i.e., in your words—questioning the conservator) shows that FHFA did not exceed its powers or functions, is 4617f then triggered.

Whether or not some lower courts had the correct understanding before Collins, the approach in Collins is the law. We would all be wise to understand it.

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-422_k537.pdf

[EternalPatience]

LOL

The government would have given the $$$ and the companies back?




Can I have a puff too? Whatever it is, it must be a powerful one

[Ispro]

Correct

[jog49]

If these "high profile" lawyers can't bring the proper suit before the court for the plaintiffs, then they ought to be liable. As it is now, win or lose, they make out like bandits, financially speaking. When they display they have no expertise, let's let them get their asses handed to them by hitting their bank accounts. They have no problem hitting ours!

[FOFreddie]

Does anyone expect a settlement for Lamberth? There is no need for one - just let it play out and collect the post judgement interest?

[Ace Trader]

I believe the Gov brought this lawsuit to SCOTUS to get this ruling. Why spend millions $$ fighting shareholders when you can spend millions $$ getting the law changed with these types of lawsuits.
These lawyers are high profile big $$ law firms and lawyers. Don't you think for a minute they new what they were doing! Helping the Gov get the law changed so shareholders don't have standing.

If the lawyers did bring the right case to SCOTUS then the opposite would have happened and Gov would have to give back the companies and $$$

[Wingsjr]

The SCOTUS ruled in Fed that government agencies can be held accountable. We also have 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, gives people the right to sue state government officials and employees who violate their constitutional rights. this second law is a bit of a stretch.

[Freddie bagholder]

Joky you stole my plan. I predicted this on dumb POS Sandra's appointment.
You need to give me credit for that. It has been painful 4 years. Could had been betters if clowns like skateboard/PagLiar did not spread false information or LIES.

I am not going to wait for full release by Trump.
I will sell after Trump's win in Nov. (its going to take atleast 12-18 months for him to do a release, firing dumb POS might take few months, then appointing another will take few more)

Been saying all along these idiots are there just to pass time and collect paychex.

[Rodney5]

UPMOST IMPORTANT

SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.

THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.

Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:

Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.“ End of Quote

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/


Barron4664
09/20/23 9:36 AM
Post #768746 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results.“ End of Quote

[Ispro]

With Vergleich he means settlement I guess

[Fannie Heyyyyy]

I still predict 1st half of 2025 IF Trump wins.

Late 2027 if FJB stays in.

[TightCoil]

What's next for Lamberth?
He would have to reject the appeal...
Or is there a comparison?

[jog49]

"What are we waiting for? Set the capital reserve to a more realistic level. 4% is too much. 2% is plenty. No more capital needed and exit C-ship."

You know that won't fly. It makes too much sense.

[Wise Man]

FACT: The authority of UST was about the PURCHASE of securities, and it hasn't purchased even one security.
No one has ever wondered how is this even possible.
It all began with the issuance of $1B worth of SPS free of charge (1 million stocks at $1,000 per stock), with the objective to reduce the Core Capital in the same amount (It carries an offset: it reduced the Additional Paid-In Capital account. Source) and justify the Conservatorship with (G) LOSSES: Likely to incur losses that deplete capital.
Since then, all the SPS LP corresponding to the draws from the UST (1:1) has been increased and that's a Securities Law violation because the securities must be dated at the time the company raises fresh cash, and necessary for the deed of purchase (necessary for the capital gains tax, etc).
Other theme is that, for reporting purposes, they can be unified in one security if they have the same price and characteristics.
The objective was to skip the deadline on the "TEMPORARY" second UST backup of FnF inserted by HERA with unlimited yield SPS, of December 31, 2009, because the deadline refers to the authority on PURCHASES mentioned, and there's been none.
The Warrant is another security that was issued for free on day one, in an attempt to override the prerequisite on PURCHASES by the UST of (iii) to protect the taxpayer (collateral). Once spotted, collateral it is. Collaterals aren't allowed in the original Fee Limitation of the United States ("PROHIBITION...."), this is why Calabria/Pelosi's HERA continues to raise our eyebrows.

This is one of the 7 Securities Law violations that need to be settled and also it serves as Punitive Damages that the Equity holders require to the DOJ. Although the common shareholders waive this claim in the case of "as is" and "takeover" resolution of Fanniegate, not in the case of a Takings at BVPS.
The same with the second round of Punitive Damages due to the Deferred Income accounting, in the case that it's allowed to amortize it into Earnings in one fell swoop without the existing shareholder ($61B Deferred Income together as of end of 2023, is recorded as Debt, not Equity. $42B in Freddie Mac alone)
The third round of Punitive Damages, is against the plotters of the government theft story in formal documents: court briefs, books, articles, etc., for the cover-up of many statutory provisions (Restriction on Capital Distributions; "May" recap is imperative once the capital is generated; etc.) and financial concepts (Dividends, a distribution of Earnings, unavailable with Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings accounts).

2- SPS LP increased for free since December 2017 and its offset, are missing on the balance sheets (Financial Statement fraud)
3- Fannie Mae posted a charge on the Income Statement, when no SPS LP was required to be increased in the 1Q2020 Earnings report.
4- Stock price manipulation.
5- The value of the Warrant was credited to Additional Paid-In Capital account.
6- Dividends paid out of an Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings account (for the Separate Account plan).
7- CRTs. Although it's a breach of the Charter Act (Credit Enhancement clause: not among the enumerated ones), it's included here to simplify and because it can also be considered a Securities Law violation. A credit enhancement operation in mortgages where the credit event is the credit loss, is a scam, because it occurs after the company carries out costly foreclosure prevention actions. For instance, Freddie Mac's STACR DNA or HQA notes. Whereas the credit event that triggers the claim of payment in the STACR DN or HQ notes, is serious delinquency. Since 2015, Freddie Mac only issues the former.
They are an excuse to make FnF pay an outstanding annual rate of return on these debt notes, currently between 9%-13% rate (Source: Earnings reports).
The CRTs look more like a continuation of the fraud in early conservatorship, with their 30-year zero coupon callable Medium Term Notes, redeemed at a 5% and 6% annual rate of return soon after they were issued, as a way to extort money from them, commented on Friday showing documentary evidence.

With the CRTs they made a mistake.
$19B in CRT expenses/recoveries is due because it's barred in the Charter Act, no questions asked.

[MRJ25]

You are working overtime.
You have nothing else to do?

[Wise Man]

Team work: Guido posts flawed analyses and I call him out.