Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
brilliant response.
JUDGEHonorable Royce C. Lamberth already ordered that any personal from any government agencies ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BUY any stock securities of Fannie and Freddie.
You are wrong. Trump had to wait for the term to end. SCOTUS allowed Biden to fire Trumps pick. This is recent history I don’t know how you can be so wrong when you can literally google it.
Classic Calabria:
However lawless you suspect federal agencies might be, I can assure you from first hand observation, it’s a lot worse
— Mark Calabria (@MarkCalabria) June 29, 2024
Is this a confession? Feel free to add to my list of your sins as @FHFA Director:
— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) June 30, 2024
Sent your wards equity to @USTreasury.
Hid stress test results mandated by law.
Purposely established an unreasonable high capital requirement.
Bravo !!
I should have said this long time ago.
But the reason that I say now is to refresh our memory..
Any updates on restructuring or JPS conversions? Eagerly waiting for expert opinions
2014 you bought in knowing well of nws. what are you crying about? you and pglara said this admin is going to release it. did you forget? now you go to the other side? credibility please.
he should be ashamed to write a book that has failed and trying to grab attention through x. sick. look what he did on jan 14, 2021, read it carefully
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Executed-Letter-Agreement-for-Fannie-Mae.pdf
I hear you and it is a problem
Is it the role of GOV in a capitalist system to intervene ? this is capital searching for good or best use ?
I have no answer to the concern - even when I share it - . University of Chicago economists would argue this will ONLY continue until TOO MANY houses are bought for rent out and rents go down and vacancies appear and the practice comes to an end as it becomes UNWISE use of capital. That will occur as markets go to excess and correct. Should the GOV be socialist - authoritarian and intervene sooner is a GREAT question !!!!!!! (I caution - what happens when some one finds another problem - you do not agree - but the GOV intervenes in the free market)
this could be the famous slippery slope
Now - as a capitalist who is left leaning --- maybe some REGULATION that slows it down ? Makes it more expensive? and then maybe tax subsidies for homes that get bought by those who live in it --- would be wise right now
in light of the letter agreement on his way out that still gave treasury every penny i am finding it hard to believe that there was an intent to release them. calabria was there for 2 years, doesn't take that long when they were in conservatorship for 10+ years at the time, what was not known to delay it? hide the stress test? i rest
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Executed-Letter-Agreement-for-Fannie-Mae.pdf
I am on your side.
It would be against law to stop Calabria from commenting about gses on x.
Or and also
It would be against the law , if governments try to stop or cancel this
CASE Number 13-mc-01288
JUDGEHonorable Royce C. Lamberth
Must serves the verdicts of those 8 jurors .
Due to the violations in shareholder contracts during the 2nd trials, conservatorship is almost ended.
yes the headline is misleading - political - wrong - and a lie
I hear you
I simply noted that safety nets ARE SOCIALISM ---- and that those safety nets show we have a bunch of WISE socialist programs - much needed . More importantly - if you read fair history you will find that the final vote may have been two party the initiation is solely DEM. And most recently with the ACA (Obamacare) the R side did not vote for this helpful program and only now - as 65% of the population says they like it does the R side stop talking about repeal. So - that hand (of on the one hand) is the product of D --- and then over time - ff they become accepted by the population and indeed loved --- the R side has joined in. To contrast with respect --- when Paul Ryan wanted to cut SSA and Medicare he did it with a true sense of conservative economics and while I disagree violently - I understand how he was truly and with honesty driven by an effort to balance the budget. Today - as R beats up select programs like Medicaid - I do not buy there is an honest - intellectual based budget constraint philosophy --- not after the R party in four years created nearly 9T in deficit and debt and want to do the same again.. Or said another way - it is not correct to claim that deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich is capitalism --- and deficit spending and efforts to reduce income inequality and solve true problems -- socialism.
The second concern is one I can understand. At same time - when the programs are a helping hand they are called socialism and when they support Big Tech -- Big Oil (one dollar leases) -- Big Ag (called the "family farm") - etc. they are called needed subsidies
And -- of interest as i read a post that starts with there are two concepts at play here ---- is the below copied sentence
What many people fear is a transformation of our form of Government to some form of authoritarian regime using the tactics of Marxism to bring us “socialism” through the equitable redistribution of wealth from a formerly sovereign people to an authoritative state.
I think we can all agree the jailing of F and F is an authoritarian state - across two R and two D presidents. And bluntly - is it an effort at Executive control (v free market) or Authoritarian ----- ? or is it an effort to make them public and GOV run (socialism) ----- or maybe it is both and thus it lasts and lasts. I do not want Marxism and I would suggest if that would be a real threat it is from the left (but Bernie and Elizabeth and now the SQAD are not the majority of D). I do not want a supremely powerful authoritarian White House (or now SCOTUS) and I would suggest that if that is a real threat it is coming from the right.
correct.
“There are no guarantees that Trump will successfully end the conservatorship, having not done so in his last term. “
i agree and have said this before.
history speaks. paulson, corker, demarco, mnuchin, calabria. may be in for a disappointment.
the solution comes from somewhere else and not from either party.
i think the market is going to drop big , very frothy. may be even time for a rate increase than a decrease. michelle bowman of fed is right on. inflation is going to go up with all these freebies of 10k, 25k in buying a house by those who cannot afford, offering a 9% freddie home equity loan by undercapitalized freddie mac that is in 16 year conservatorship. disaster in making. stock up your groceries.
Typo error on my part. I should have said, “would have allowed” I know Trump couldn’t fire Watt. Thanks Guido
Rodney agree 100% with your second paragraph. Not with your first sentence of your first paragraph. I let it pass yesterday when Barron made a similar statement as I'd already corrected him twice. But those of us - you and Barron included - who believe in truth and fairness should be a little more careful with our statements.
SCOTUS ruled on Collins after Biden became President. Trump didn't fire Mel Watt. Watt was Director of FHFA for his full 5 year term. The Collins ruling enabled Biden to immediately fire Calabria.
Can someone x or tweet this post at Calabria daily and many many times until he stops making comments about the gse’s?
Thank you !
this is hype and manipulation by only talking about the spike, ignoring the huge drop just few weeks back, could be the same group of people
Article is sort of garbage when it comes to breaking down the numbers. Yes they have 2% liability coverage, but those liabilities are almost always have at a minimum 20% loan to value coverage. So homeowners take the first hit and then if their value drops further then that they can consider declaring bankruptcy and walking away. Almost no one would do that though I imagine once rates drop refinancing should result in lowering payments enough that there won’t be a flood of bankruptcies.
Anyone new to the board link below…
The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Paul,
DONALD J. TRUMP November 1, 2021
Thank you for talking to me about the need to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two great American companies, and about the question the Supreme Court has raised about what I would have been able to accomplish if I had been able to fire the incompetent Mel Watt from day one of my Administration.
Another Obama/Biden scam in legal trouble was when they allowed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to steal the retirement savings of hardworking Americans who had invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has recognized that my Administration was denied the ability to oversee the work of FHFA in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision asks what I would have done had I controlled FHFA from the beginning of my Administration, as the Constitution required. From the start, I would have fired former Democrat Congressman and political hack Mel Watt from his position as Director and would have ordered FHFA to release these companies from conservatorship. My Administration would have also sold the government's common stock in these companies at a huge profit and fuly privatized the companies. The idea that the government can steal money from its citizens is socialism and is a travesty brought to you by the Obama/Biden ad ministration. My Administration was denied the time ti needed to fix this problem because of the unconstitutional restriction on firing Mel Watt. It has to come to an end and courts must protect our citizens.
Link: https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/11/1921_trump_letter_to_rand_paul.pdf
Thanks for posting this
The SCOTUS decision enabled Trump to fire Mel Watt that’s the reason Mark Calabria got the job. The Trump letter to Rand Paul explained it.
Who in their right mind would not agree with Barron’s statement…. “They should have nullified all the decisions done up to that point by unconstitutional single directors and sent HERA back to the drawing board at Congress. Congress should have required an independent commission be created and appointed conservator of a GSE. Imagine if the Commission had to vote on accepting Treasury’s corrupt terms and conditions for its purchase agreements? It would be like just about every other independent agency and would only have needed to be independent when acting as a Conservator.”
Fannie Mae: An Indirect Bet On Trump Polling Numbers
Jun. 30, 2024 3:29 AM ET - Harrison Schwartz - 15.59K Followers
.......... Summary ..........
--- Fannie Mae's value has rocketed higher following the Trump-Biden debate, implying it is an indirect bet on a Trump win.
--- Historically, Trump is far more likely to end FNMA's conservatorship than the Biden administration.
--- There are no guarantees that Trump will successfully end the conservatorship, having not done so in his last term. Further, FNMA's fundamental risks would not necessarily decline in this scenario.
--- Fannie Mae's book value should be below its market value by 2027-2028 at its current income level, given it continues to retain its profits.
--- Although home prices seem likely to decline, Fannie Mae's exposure is limited because very few people are obtaining mortgages at today's extremely low affordability levels.
The Federal National Mortgage Association, or "Fannie Mae" (OTCQB:FNMA), has avoided significant headlines in recent years. The government-sponsored enterprise remains in conservatorship under the Federal government roughly sixteen years after its failure. Fannie Mae and its peer, Freddie Mac (OTCQB:FMCC), are the primary mortgage insurance providers to qualified or "agency-backed" mortgages, backing around 70% of US mortgages. Most mortgages are pooled into mortgage-backed securities or "MBS," such as those seen in the ETF (MBB).
Fannie Mae is on the hook if mortgage borrowers fail to pay their loans. Thus, theoretically, mortgage-backed securities have limited credit risk, given that Fannie Mae should protect against losses. Historically, that would not be true if not for the government bailout in 2008, as Fannie Mae (and its peer) lacked the funds to meet the immense obligations created during the 2008 foreclosure crisis.
The company has not been tested to the same degree since then. Although delinquencies rose in 2020, these were classified as "forbearance," stemming from the temporary issues created during the large but short-lasting unemployment spike during lockdowns. In my view, if not for the immense QE-driven decline in mortgage rates in 2020 and the stimulus efforts, we would not have seen the recovery in real estate.
Of course, we could argue that the housing market's "recovery" since 2020 has created a renewed housing bubble. Home valuations are at record highs. Now that mortgage rates are far higher, affordability is extremely low. Home sales are also at, and often below, the levels seen during 2008. The market has had added support from rising rents and low inventories, though these two beneficial factors are fading, increasing the potential for a decline in home prices over the coming year or two. As such, we must reconsider the risk profile facing Fannie Mae to determine if its long era of conservatorship has improved its stability.
Further, we must consider the election, as it is generally viewed that a Trump administration would end its conservatorship. Hence, the stock is positively correlated to Trump's poll numbers. The company was close to restructuring and privatization toward the end of his term, but that was upended by the economic shock caused by lockdowns. As such, I'd argue that macroeconomic factors play a more significant role in FNMA's value regardless of who wins in November.
Fannie Mae's Capitalization is Improving
Investors in mortgage-backed securities indirectly pay a small fee to Fannie Mae to provide insurance risk coverage, ranging from 25 to 50 bps. Typically, the number of mortgages in default that require Fannie Mae coverage is relatively low and predictable. Thus, the company usually earns a solid profit margin on its revenue. In a normal (non-recessionary) period, its profitability is primarily driven by its operating overhead costs, which have been sustained at ~10% in recent
years. See below:
Fannie Mae is earning significant profits today because very few mortgage owners are in default. The 2010s decade saw very low mortgage rates and fair housing prices. Those who borrowed in this period often had lower payments than their incomes, giving them low default risks. Fannie Mae cannot pay its income out to investors, per its conservatorship rules, but it has used this income to improve its balance sheet. Still, its net book value for common stock investors is quite negative. See below:
The company's shareholder equity was near zero from 2010 to 2020, as it was still not seeing great solvency improvement as it recouped its immense losses from the decade prior. Thus, there is a large time lag between the company's solvency and the solvency of homeowners. Today, it is benefiting from the strong solvency conditions of those who borrowed during the 2010s. Depending on what occurs in the property market, it may be years before current borrowing conditions impact its solvency.
Fannie Mae's equity is much healthier today, but its equity for common stockholders remains very negative, amounting to a book value per share of -$50. In other words, should the company liquidate all its assets, liabilities, and preferred equity, it would have no money for common shareholders in FNMA. Thus, FNMA is similar to a stock option or warrant on the company's overall equity. Its fundamental value may rise dramatically above its current value only if its common equity rises by another ~$58B.
FNMA's market value is $8.2B, so a $66B increase to its common equity (through retained earnings) must be discounted to its book value. The company's annual income has been around $15B to $20B in recent years, and all else being equal, it should rise with today's larger mortgage sizes (given home prices), so its book value should be very attractive within three to four years.
If we could assume that there was zero risk to the housing market, FNMA would likely be undervalued today since its net income is generally 2X its market value. However, if a slight shock exists in the property market, this value trade is upended. Fannie Mae's solvency has markedly improved, but its total liabilities to assets remain at 98%. See below:
So, if Fannie Mae takes a 2% loss on its assets, its shareholder equity (including preferreds) would be back at zero. From 2008 to 2012, Fannie Mae's book value fell by ~$150B. It had around $880B in assets in 2008, meaning it took a ~17% loss due to that mortgage crisis. So, even if we see a similar issue around a sixth as large, there is decent potential that FNMA's equity would be back at zero.
Home Prices Will Fall, But Fannie's Risk Is Low
The housing market today is similar to that of 2008 in many respects. However, the key difference is that most outstanding mortgages were made at far more affordable rates and prices. From 2020 to 2022, the company saw its assets rise by a staggering ~$750B, but that figure has stagnated since then since very few people are willing to buy homes at today's affordability level.
Theoretically, this limits Fannie Mae's exposure significantly because current borrowers are at much greater default risk than those of the 2012-2022 period, given affordability. We can see this statistic from today's low mortgage debt service payments to disposable income ratio:
This figure is more important for Fannie Mae than others. In 2006-2008, there was a housing valuation bubble, and many people were buying into that bubble. Today, there is, in my view, a potentially larger housing bubble, but far fewer people are exposed to it. Indeed, if we look at mortgage debtors at large, their ability to pay their debt has never been better.
It is the new borrowers that Fannie Mae needs to worry about. Home sales prices to income are relatively high today as affordability is low. Home sales are back at extreme lows after the housing shock and 2020. See below:
Notably, the US median home price to income ratio is around 7.7X today, well above the 6.7X peak in 2006. The metric above compares the price of homes sold to disposable incomes (which are lower), so it is a higher ratio. Further, the metric above has declined because smaller-priced homes are moving much better today than larger, more expensive ones; the actual overall home price-to-income ratio has not declined since 2022, as home values continue to march to all-time highs.
Realistically, large homes are probably significantly overvalued today. Technically, their values have not declined significantly, but they're also not moving. This is seen as older Americans are typically not selling their usually larger homes, defying the historical pattern. Suppose this changed and more looked to downsize. In that case, I believe there would be significant negative price discovery in larger homes because they're currently highly unaffordable to those who require a large mortgage.
This is a significant risk to the housing market but is likely not a risk to Fannie Mae. Most owners of large homes are older and, therefore, have lower mortgage debt insured by Fannie. Further, that demographic likely purchased their homes at a much lower price, so a decline in valuation would only limit appreciation gains, not resulting in negative equity.
Arguably, home prices have not declined because inventories have been low. Rental vacancy levels have also been low, stemming from decreased building activity in the 2010s. This is starting to change, as building activity rose significantly from 2019 to 2022 and is now reversing. Inventories and rental vacancies are also increasing, signaling a shift back toward a "buyers' market." See below:
Overall, I think there are many tell-tale signs that US home prices are in the process of peaking and should decline. Theoretically, a substantial decline of around 50% is needed for affordability to return to historically normal levels. Realistically, home prices should not fall by 50% outside of a severe economic crisis. Instead, I expect prices will stagnate or decline while inflation will increase, creating a ~50% decline compared to a decade or more in the future. Thus, it will likely be that people will begin to see housing as a poor investment, but I only expect those who purchased from 2022 onward to be at risk of negative equity (the chief risk for Fannie Mae).
Fannie Mae's Political Exposure is Large
FNMA's value has spiked by 25% over the past week, with most gains occurring after the recent Trump-Biden debate. It is not my aim to present a political bias here, but it is a fact that Trump is far more interested in releasing Fannie Mae than Biden. In 2021, the Biden administration utilized a Supreme Court ruling to fire the Trump-appointed FHFA chief interested in ending its conservatorship.
Since the debate, betting odds of Trump returning to office rose from ~52% to ~59%, while Biden's fell from 45% to 36%. FNMA's value has spiked accordingly, adding to its 230% YoY gain, which largely stems from the positive longer-term trend in Trump's odds compared to Biden's. Still, there remains considerable potential that Democrats do win, which would likely delay Fannie Mae's restructuring. Further, Trump did not end this issue during his term, so there is no guarantee that he will in a potential future term.
The political issue seems to have had a significant impact on FNMA's volatility lately. That said, I don't think it's essential in the long run. Fundamentally, FNMA's equity value will rise if mortgages don't go belly-up. Yes, FNMA could have dividend potential under Trump, but I think it would be fine if it retained its income and improved its solvency further before paying dividends. Of course, an end to conservatorship would give FNMA other benefits, such as more capital access that may benefit it, so a Republican win is bullish for FNMA.
The Bottom Line
Fannie Mae's risk-reward profile today is tricky. I'd argue the US housing market is weak. Further, based on an argument I've presented regarding bonds, unemployment will likely rise over the coming year in a recession. For this reason, I think investors should be cautious about buying housing-related stocks, particularly homebuilders.
However, Fannie Mae's risk is significantly mitigated because most homeowners today are not in the high-risk cohort created in 2022. It would take a massive decline in home prices for the median homeowner today to have negative equity.
Still, even if a small portion of Fannie Mae's exposure is to those new buyers since 2022, that could be enough to create significant issues for the company, particularly if it coincides with an unemployment driven recession. Its solvency is much better than it was, but it is still not necessarily adequate.
On the other hand, FNMA's valuation is extremely low compared to its potential EPS if released from conservatorship. My view on FNMA is very speculative, but I am bullish on it since I think its financial risk exposure to mortgages is low. The odds of Trump winning are decent, albeit far from guaranteed, at ~60%. That is not a political opinion but a view based on the betting market odds (which may be more accurate than polling data).
That said, FNMA faces significant risk. It is very volatile and has a negative common book value. I expect it may decline during a housing market shock and recession over the next year or two, so my bullish outlook is long-term. Unless the recession is severe, I'd see declines in FNMA's value as a buying opportunity. Lastly, the long-term risk to FNMA is likely new homebuyers from 2022 onward. If the housing bubble continues, FNMA may end up in a 2008 repeat as it's exposed to a more significant portion of high-risk loans.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
This article was written by - Harrison Schwartz - 15.59K Followers
Would your dad have any investment insight today?
Oh wow. Second article today. We could see a pop Monday.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4120865-fannie-mae-matterport-gain-as-debate-increase-odds-of-trump-win
Or maybe it's just end of quarter short covering
Senator Padilla is right. The unsophisticated judiciary is a big problem.
No matter how you dress it up. Dividend payments are never interest payments, if this is what they are after, after overruling Chevron.
We saw the example of justice Alito, not only talking about "dividend obligation" in order to turn a dividend payment (Changes in Equity on the Balance Sheet. I.e., a distribution of Earnings -CET1-. Restricted.) into interest payment (An expense on the Income Statement. Without restrictions) like the FHFA, the litigants and the FnF management (all of them in court too), evidence that he was egged on, but also outlining what he wanted the endgame to become, and not the reality of the written text and basic financial concepts.
For instance, with the "beneficial to the FHFA", thinking of monetary benefit, when the written text states "in the best interests of the FHFA". The interests in a regulatory agency, with respect to the regulated entities it oversees, are never monetary.
This is why the "blame DeMarco", that started in the Lamberth trials, was defused in time. DeMarco is the one that legalized their actions. The plotters want the judge to legalize them instead, with their twists.
I bet that Justice Alito still doesn't understand that, either on purpose or inadvertenly, he was talking about the Separate Account plan, 1989 FHLBanks-style, which is what really is "rehabilitating FnF" that he pointed out, and upholding all the statutory provisions and basic Finance.
He authorized also keeping the funds owed to FnF for the Making Home Afforfable program, and the use of FnF for Public policies like nowadays (loan sales to minority- and women-owned businesses, etc.)
Finally, the "for cause" removal restriction is constitutional when the FHFA has very limited powers (mentioned by the SCOTUS-appointed amicus, prof. Nielson, representing the FHFA in the Collins case), both as conservator and as regulator, in congressionally-chartered private corporations and with the FHEFSSA that evaluates the financial condition. For that, first he has to acknowledge that the Charter Act exists.
Justice Alito declared it "unconstitutional", so that now Tim Pagliara, the Conspirator in Chief, can claim that it's the President the one in charge of the resolution of Fanniegate, a President in need of public recognition.
It's Congress for the Privatized Housing Finance System revamp chosen in 2011 for the release, jointly with the FHFA and the UST after coming clean about the Separate Account plan, including the refund of the unlawful Credit Enhancement operations, other than the PMI and the Commingled securities (Credit Enhancement clause. Charter Act).
Let alone a refund of the PLMBS lawsuit settlement, net of attorney's fees.
We stand with DeMarco.
UNSOPHISTICATED JUDICIARY
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) June 29, 2024
-Chevron deference attempted to legalize unlawful actions, notwithstanding that it's DeMarco who legalized them all.
-Now, no deference,in order to peddle the *blame DeMarco"(abusive conservator)for the h-funds' battered JPS' Implied Contract.#Fanniegate pic.twitter.com/NXvl5QKXxL
Indeed.
Why would the buying from Friday continue?
Well ! One possible answer is that July 1 is the last day of bond debt securities to trade on NYSE.
This means that bond investors will have to sell at the lost.
My point is simple.
Will they sell bond at the lost to buy fmcc and fnma and including all preferred shares?
Here is the information I copied
"US Banks Dumping Exposure To $2,500,000,000,000 Market Before ‘Inevitable Losses’ Hammer Balance Sheets" starting Monday.
Let's face it . . . he had no clue of what to do when he got the job. I've never seen an academic, thrown into a real world job, that could pour piss out of a boot and Calabria was no exception.
I think the buying from friday continues — that debate was an awakening of animal spirits of buying we saw friday. Hard to imagine that buying spirit fading out of sight for very long
catman was the architect of hera
catman hid stress test
catman put in absurd capital levels
catman lied to everyone that he was working on releasing them
catman lied that conservatorship will end in 2024 despite knowing of his absurd capital levels and putting that letter agreement in place before he left with every penny still owed to treasury.
and catman learnt it from his cat.
Correct. Only the "removal clause" was unconstitutional. The rest of HERA remains intact.
Barron is wrong.
My response to my State Senator:
You think it's OK for a federal agency to keep 2 of the most profitable corporations in a "temporary" conservatorship since 2008 and swindle $301 billion of their equity?
— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) June 30, 2024
If US is not a🍌 REPUBLIC...
DISSOLVE @FHFA !
FREE FANNIE!
FREE FREDDIE!
"Come on man! How do you think Mark Calabria got his job when he did?"
My guess would have been he spent a lot of time under Pence's desk.
I don't think that happened so it can't be cited but I sure could site it as undesirable for shareholders!!! lol
It's happening so much so that it's bordering on monopoly. They say there are not enough single family homes and more need to be built. I recently say two new developments come available - 89 houses and 376 houses. In each case a large investor came in and bought every house for cash, above market level. This allowed for ZERO homes available for non billionaires to purchase. Every single home became a rental. This is a monopoly and monopolies are illegal.
Whatever you’re smoking
Can we have some?
lol
Price per share will not get anywhere close to pre conservatorship prices while still in conservatorship
Aka govt prison
No one trusts the government
No one
Come on man! How do you think Mark Calabria got his job when he did? The Supreme Court found the “for cause” requirement for the POTUS to remove the FHFA Director unconstitutional. The Supremes used a scalpel to remove that clause and keep the rest of HERA instead of a bulldozer to get rid of HERA. That enabled Trump to can Mel Watt and install Mark Calabria the cat man. I think that was a lousy decision. They should have nullified all the decisions done up to that point by unconstitutional single directors and sent HERA back to the drawing board at Congress. Congress should have required an independent commission be created and appointed conservator of a GSE. Imagine if the Commission had to vote on accepting Treasury’s corrupt terms and conditions for its purchase agreements? It would be like just about every other independent agency and would only have needed to be independent when acting as a Conservator.
SCOTUS held that the restriction on the President’s power to remove the FHFA Director at 12 USC 4512(b)(2)—commonly referred to as the Removal Clause—violated the constitution. SCOTUS simply severed that offending clause, and let the remainder of HERA stand. So the rest of HERA remains valid law.
See Collins v Yellen pp. 17-36.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-422_k537.pdf
Would like to see this recentl price action post debate continue
Being is conservatorship doesn't necessarily preclude us from being re-listed,
and see Fan and Fred pps' get back up into pre-conservatorship prices.
this is now permanent conservatorship.. seen too many of these charts, don't work. they can take it down back to $0.40 , this is otc jungle with lots of manipulation. sad.
"HERA was challenged and found to be unconstitutional." that is the first i have heard of. can you cite it?
not a lawyer but chevron case seems important for fannie mae, not exactly sure how
Followers
|
2331
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
2
|
Posts (Total)
|
802488
|
Created
|
07/14/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators not one red cent ~NORC~ stockprofitter Ace Trader EternalPatience jeddiemack FOFreddie |
Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association, or FNMA) is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) in the U.S. that was established in 1938. Its main purpose is to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the U.S. housing market. It does this by purchasing mortgages from lenders (like banks), packaging them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and selling those securities to investors. This process ensures that lenders have more capital to issue new home loans, helping more Americans get access to homeownership.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |