Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[MRJ25]

I know the feeling. I have contacted my congressman and senators, but no real response.
John Cornyn responded saying that the government cannot worry about people making bad investment decisions.
After I rebutted that statement he never answered again.

[clarencebeaks21]

I am not following the Lamberth filings so I cannot say what the exact status is. But I think Navy previously posted a copy of an email from the plaintiff counsel saying they expected the USG to file an appeal, despite the verdict. I would agree with that thinking. I would estimate the whole Shebang could take another 12-24 months.

[RickNagra]

Crappy Treasury.

[Rodney5]

Unfortunately no response.

[NeoSunTzu]

Translation: we are f*cked until TSY decides to play fair.

[imbellish]

Benson is out in his official capacity tomorrow - he exited the last of his shares at 1.45-1.46, and yet we just closed at 1.48

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444618/000112760213017852/xslF345X03/form4.xml

[RickNagra]

Great find and thanks for sharing. I read what Tim wrote. All good stuff but somewhat confusing and hard to understand. Maybe someone can explain what he is saying in plain English.

Read the latest comments from Tim Howard on the senior preferred stock and SPS line of credit: https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2024/01/16/the-crt-charade/#comments

[stockanalyze]

and the response?

[NeoSunTzu]

clarencebeaks: WTF is the legal standing / situation with Lamberth's jury case. I have nothing coming since I'm only in FNMA but some clarity would be nice. Is he following protocol, are the two sides still haggling over something arcane, or .... ??!!

[tutt1126]

99.99 % of all insiders never spent a dime to buy shares.

How do/did they get shares ?
They got shares through granting.
Now most of insiders are filing form 3 to open for future granting of free shares upon releasing from conservatorship

[toupeeman2000]

Any insider information would/should have been
acted on when F & F were trading in the .50-.70
range. Quick increases of share price is the FOMO.
These two will not make any lasting gains until they
have been released from Conservatorship. Once these
are released, share prices will be in the double digits,
and volume will increase dramatically. Joe B doesn't
care and neither does his opponent. They have more
pressing problems. I hope to see them released in my
lifetime, but it has gone on too long.

[Rodney5]

stockanalyze, yes I have contacted several of the lawyers involved, in addition I contacted the FINANCIAL SERVICES Committee Members 118th CONGRESS. Also, contacted my local House of Representative. Hope you are doing something to help our cause. Best Regards

[CatBirdSeat]

Crappy Alias (RickNagra)

[RickNagra]

Crappy day.

[NeoSunTzu]

Read the latest comments from Tim Howard on the senior preferred stock and SPS line of credit: https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2024/01/16/the-crt-charade/#comments

[stockanalyze]

rodney, you have written this many times over here. the thing is to reach out to all the plaintiff lawyers involved to date. have you?

[EternalPatience]

Rkt - that's how a stock shd react for fascinating results in this housing market

FNMA and FMCC - go figure

[MannSinger]

3R or pay $1.5B fine with upcoming FNMA common lawsuit

For both JPS & FMCC common, total fine plus interest is $900M. If you add FNMA common in future lawsuit, GSEs have to pay $1.5B.

Why would they pay $1.5B? They can just do 3R. That makes everbody happy.

[CatBirdSeat]

Please pass the joint friend…

[skeptic7]

Well said. I prefer just to keep it more simple. The NWS is alive n well and to be employed at the discretion of the conservator.
Thanks.

[TightCoil]

Suit Up with High-Altitude Gear
and take a 3D Printed Fish Filet
for the Flight to the upper realms
of FNMA and FMCC stratosphere

[Golfbum22]

"whack a mole" day today. MM's have strict orders to keep under 1.50

it's all fixed

[TightCoil]

FNMA volume so far: 1.8 million shares
FMCC volume so far: 645,000

WEIRD

[NeoSunTzu]

What it does mean is that if they are to do so (convert senior preferred shares to any other class) they will need another amendment. After the jury decision, presided over by Lamberth, I want to see how they pull off yet another self-enriching act knee-capping current shareholders. Any new amendment will be the perfect opportunity to reassess the full picture and, in light of all that has transpired, the new assessment should be quite positive for the company and current shareholders.

[uf-john]

And think about who has positons... John Paulson, Carl Icahn, Bill Ackman, etc....Think of the Legal Power those 3 guys have on our side and their ability to litigate with the top lawyers in the game!

[NeoSunTzu]

Let's give the ba$tard$ what they so desperately desire: free reign to enrich their selected winners. Time to false flag post you have had it with the corruption and are exiting your positions. I'll start: over the next week I will liquidate in 25% chunks. They obviously will not make a move until they face no risk of enriching the plebians.

[DaJester]

DoNotUnderstand,

Yes, it states this in the SPSA:
6. No Conversion or Exchange Rights
The holders of shares of the Senior Preferred Stock shall not have any right to convert such shares into or exchange such shares for any other class or series of stock or obligations of the Company.

However, this doesn't mean it's not possible to happen. FHFA and Treasury simply have to agree to another amendment to change these terms. Treasury doesn't have the *right* to convert, but FHFA can *offer* them to convert, if that makes sense.

Whether FHFA does or doesn't offer conversion, or what they may offer may depend on directions given to the FHFA Director by our Executive leader. IMO, Sandra Thompson isn't going to offer anything to Treasury, as she is awaiting instructions that may or may not be coming.

[TightCoil]

i think we can be pretty certain that some serious
insider trading is now going on, and, assuming
plans will be in place for release, some double
serious insider trading will be going on big time

[naveedkhan]

treasury secretaries, heads of large government administrative bureaucracies, heads of government sponsored entities, voters that can't or won't pay their own bills...

probably missed some as well.

[Golfbum22]

there is so much corruption behind all of this. makes you wonder if the lawyers have been on the take from the TBTF banksters as well.

the list is amazing, something the mob would tip their hats too

paid off list-

judges
media
BOD
social media
lawyers

who am I missing?

why don't the TBTF banksters pay us off to go away? LOL

[JOoa0ky]

Come on Joe, set FnF FREE already!

[Rodney5]

Lawyers failed and never applied the Law! The argument in the courts “pay me my dividends.” The SCOTUS basically said we will not be an arbitrator in such matters of contract. SPSPA is an illegal contract that requires the application of Law to prove it’s an illegal contract which non of the lawyers brought the Law before the Judges. The courts dismissed the lawsuits…

Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference). More importantly the actions of Treasury to appropriate 200 billion in taxpayer debt, take non regulatory control of the companies through the SPSPA (require Treasury permission at least 10 separate times) and ownership of more than 50% of the companies requires them under the GAO act and the CFO act to consolidate the GSEs onto the nations balance sheet. The fact that that hasn't happened means the Treasury has violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution by repudiating the 5 trillion plus in debt the Treasury has acquired through their actions since 2008. Their actions have resulted in a takings of the entire enterprise value of the formerly private companies. These actions have necessarily turned the GSEs back into agencies of the executive branch as they were originally created. This is the definition of a major question and also a separation of powers problem since Congress did not authorize the actions Treasury took and continues to take. Non of the lawyers mentioned any of this.

[clarencebeaks21]

“I do not think SCOTUS ruled on this specifically.”

The reason that specific part of Alito’s rationale is precedential is because it is necessary to the court’s explanation that supports its opinion. That is a basic concept of law.

[Donotunderstand]

?
I thought some one cleared this up with the distinction

Conservator acting as conservator - and in norms - has a ton and then more capacity/authority to do what they want (and all is kosher and 4617 or whatever is a stop sign)

Conservator acting as conservator - but ULTRA VIRES - can be reviewed by a court and 4617 is not a stop sign

I do not think SCOTUS ruled on this specifically - but said GOV followed rules in setting up the NWS and FHFA is within the norm
(although a breach of an equity contract is pursuable)

??

[clarencebeaks21]

Assuming that case in the link was never heard en banc, and that it remained a two-person panel majority, their opinion was simply superseded by Collins.

Future lower court decisions are duty-bound to follow Collins, not a conflicting decision in any federal circuit at any level.

[Donotunderstand]

really?

[Donotunderstand]

it says not convertible ?

there have been 1,000 posts on if and when and how the GOV will convert the SPS to common

you say the agreement says they are not convertible

help from some one who knows a lot more

[Rodney5]

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

Quote: “ 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). ” End of Quote

STRICT LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

The SCOTUS is barred from ruling on the case. It was dismissed.

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/

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.“

[stockanalyze]

several posts within a minute, i could not even type with spelling mistakes suggests well cordinated effort here. look them up. beware.

[jog49]

Guido,

If you wake up one morning to find your feet encased in concrete, and before your journey ends, know that we appreciate your efforts

[RickNagra]

Quite a few big buys so far in the day. We should be turning green momentarily. Please be prepared and look your best. Whales like well dressed and well mannered astute brilliant smart intelligent investors.

[clarencebeaks21]

The assertion that the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal is false or misleading or both.

If by “illegal” you mean ultra vires or arbitrary or capricious, you are incorrect. In Collins, SCOTUS quite plainly reviewed the plaintiffs’ APA 702 claims and held —unanimously —that the Agency acted within its powers and functions.

If by “illegal” you mean something else, you are guilty of the fallacy of non-sequitur because SCOTUS cannot fail to decide on something it is not considering.

Skeptic, to me, is suggesting that Collins stands for a proposition: if FHFA survived one challenge under the APA, then it could use the same legal standard to survive another similar challenge. And that is correct.

To understand why, reread pages 14-15 of Collins. To survive an APA 706(2)(A) challenge, the standard is that an agency only needs to provide a reasonable basis in the record for their decision. In Collins, Alito failed to expressly list this standard, but he did explain its application to the facts and how FHFA *met the standard*:

“Whether or not this new arrangement was in the best interests of the companies or their shareholders, the FHFA could have ***reasonably concluded*** that it was in the best interests of …the public…” (emphasis added)

So altogether, in Collins, SCOTUS *does* decide the legality under the APA of FHFA’s decision, and Collins stands for the proposition that Conservator decisions that elevate the interest of the public over that of the companies or shareholders, only need a reasonable basis for doing so. A reasonable basis may arguably be a low bar, but it is not no bar at all.

[imbellish]

Based - this is exactly correct.

Rhetorically using expressions "dollar for dollar" does not explain the accounting. It's just rule by Rhetoric which they expect to get away with. Pungent den of parasites.

[trunkmonk]

the anti GSE common share crew is maybe a couple people, 🤡KTNoNameCarneyClown🤡 and many others that complement each other, are one in the same person. He is an angry little reporter, who was paid by Preferreds or Gov, maybe Corker, to bring down the commons because they were shorting or they were pushing the receivership BS for years in order to get lots of common shares at 10c. U know the voice, the former shell man who was lost and now is coming back to center, he was the front runner for the big conversion while they were laser focused on losing in courts. most of the real pro reporters are gone, filled in by 3rd rate guys like KTNoNameCarney, with all kinds of agendas that include impersonating legal counsel on social media. what a freak. But he still draws in feeble minded kids and new investors, which is why how he survives and thrives his tainted agenda.

[RickNagra]

Oh wow. Did you open another bank account this morning ? There is no need. My bank account is completely empty. Just use mine.

[Guido2]

I'm not suicidal either. If anything happens to me, it will be because I continue to expose our government's swindle of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac equity while they remain in a fraudulent "temporary" conservatorship since 2008.

FREE FANNIE!
FREE FREDDIE! https://t.co/PMNPzEAUP3

— Guido da Costa Pereira (@GuidoPerei) May 2, 2024

[Guido2]

Just wish to add to your excellent post. Mnuchin sent SCOTUS a letter stating that he and Calabria had ended the NWS. One of the justices even referenced that letter.

[skeptic7]

they upheld the validity of the NWS and said it was not illegal and could be enacted at the discretion of the conservator. You are correct, they did not say that the NWS or the c-ship was here in perpetuity, and my meaning was that by upholding the validity of the NWS, it will be used in a manner to reduce capital retention as needed, so they've simply assured that c-ship isn't going away.

My opinion, so you can talk about all of the acronyms and nuances you like, but easier to just look at the blue print they've laid out and realize the possibility. You know a lot of companies with trillions on the books, most profitable earnings per employee, billions every quarter in profits, that trade on the OTC and whose PPS goes down after better than expected earnings...every time? Me neither.

[DaJester]

"no write off is written in a footnote"

I'm not sure what this refers to. There is no law or regulation that I'm aware of that prevents Treasury from writing off some or all of the LP. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd want to read it. The SPSA says the seniors are not convertible, but that doesn't mean much either.

[Rodney5]

Skeptic Quote “ Because of the scotus ruling the NWS is here in perpetuity,” End of Quote

I’m not sure if you’re understanding what the SCOTUS actually said,

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit. The SCOTUS did not rule the NWS is here in perpetuity.

Now if the lawyers would apply the Law.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174342904