[955]

Spoken like someone who's been here a long time. ...and that's what it takes to see through all the muckety-muck.

[trunkmonk]

No US president can do anything about GSEs. congress can, Treasury and FHFA Director are in charge.
Trump put both in office, put out exec order, SM was just a snake from the garden

[955]

Correction: Werfel

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128445366

[955]

Warrants were issued to "ensure LOAN repayment" - ALREADY DONE !!!

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167774855

Wrong! Warrants were issued to keep PPS depressed as stated by Mr.Woeffel of FASAB. Is still working 15 years later. Already scrubbed from the internet by AI.

[955]

Why would WB all of a sudden change his tune and be interested in the GSE's? DEMS have dramatically altered their mission. Nothing has changed with them or Gov attitude towards them. He fueled their demise and holds strong positions in direct opposition to them. I see no discussions between him and the current admin. Pipedream.

Warren B priming the pump. Salivating like a lion over a lkill.

Warren can’t wait to get his grubby hands on Fannie and Freddie. He’s sitting on over $100 Billy and he needs to put that cash to work. He is purposely waiting to invest in re-ipo where he will dump billions in these cash cows!!

BUCKLE UP boys and girls.

In Reply to this message by Huntbeachwhale

[trunkmonk]

GSE shareholder lawyers should be using this. From other board.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/courts-chevron-deference-to-agencies-should-go-to-the-landfill?campaign=18E7890E-EEC6-11ED-A495-FD8142689A38&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk

[EternalPatience]

Brooge


Aren't you a premium paid customer? You also get one post only like me on the FNMA board? LOL. Welcome to the club

[trunkmonk]

A man once said the following, but remember there is complete bias involved in GSE analogies.

Anything that is bad for the juniors is at least as bad for the legacy common.
Anything that is good for the legacy common is at least as good for the juniors.

This statement is not fact, and worse yet does not exist in real world corporate structures. Commons own the company, preferred only make claim is in receivership or BK. They are 2 completely different contractual structures.

[trunkmonk]

Anyone wanna guess when common stock price overtakes FNMAS? clowns or fantasy Ps will not get a response. They have never been right in court or on stock prices.

[955]

Racist!!!

[955]

Yet another major bank collapse. First Republic Bank taken over by FDIC and sold to JPM. Largest bank collapse since 2008.

Biden Admin enacts subsidizing high risk mortgages at the expense of those with high credit scores.

A little-noticed revamp of federal rules on mortgage fees will offer discounted rates for home buyers with riskier credit backgrounds — and force higher-credit homebuyers to foot the bill, The Post has learned.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will enact changes to fees known as loan-level price adjustments (LLPAs) on May 1 that will affect mortgages originating at private banks nationwide, from Wells Fargo to JPMorgan Chase, effectively tweaking interest rates paid by the vast majority of homebuyers.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/16/how-the-us-is-subsidizing-high-risk-homebuyers-at-the-cost-of-those-with-good-credit/

It's 2008 deja vous.

[trunkmonk]

From other board.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171813230

Mike won’t ever be Director, but not for a reason other than he would do the right thing. Which is something none, absolutely none have done to date. U have to have no ethics to be Director of FHFA.

[trunkmonk]

FNMAS down big, almost 10% on large volume. they are taking commons down a bit too.

[trunkmonk]

in my 20+ years of investing, one thing has been obvious. volume and float is key to any stock movement. when there is a lot of volume and the stock goes up, the float is getting dried up, then if the demand is still there, the stock movement up can accelerate with almost no volume. where are the GSEs? i dont know outstanding vs float. so recently going up or down a couple pennies on average or below volume, it could mean anything from lack of real interest or the float is drying up. so lets see if real, good news, makes the stock shoot up, or does it just fade as in interest by a few longs and shorts nibbling for the penny swings or not.

[trunkmonk]

Nothing in the history of man took 14 years to fix something that is not broke. As a matter of fact they have made it worse. Only the US gov could extort, loan shark, steal, and say it’s in the name of taxpayer after steeling 300 billion from private corporations

[trunkmonk]

Even Ps green with information from today. Nothing misleading other than the beached whales who know nothing but negative info minus the facts.

[trunkmonk]

C = green, P = red

[955]

De-dollarization attempts will remain contained and constrained for a long time to come, Goldman Sachs says

De-dollarization attempts will remain contained and constrained for a long time to come, Goldman Sachs says

Phil Rosen

The dollar won't lose its dominance on the world stage for a long time, according to Goldman Sachs.
Threats to the greenback will remain contained and constrained, the bank said on Friday.
Strategists wrote that de-dollarization is "lots of talk (again), not a lot of action."
Attempts at de-dollarization will remain contained and constrained for the foreseeable future, according to Goldman Sachs.

In a Friday note to clients, strategists wrote that de-dollarization is "lots of talk (again), not a lot of action." Goldman acknowledged a recent uptick in media and online interest in the dollar's strength, but in the bank's view, there's little to be concerned about.

"[P]art of the Dollar's declining share can likely be attributed to regular market forces as Treasuries fell and Asian central banks sold their Dollar holdings to counter the stronger Dollar last year," strategists said.

In addition, the bank said sanctions imposed on Russia, Brazil's plans to set up yuan clearing agreements, speculation about the yuan's use in commodity trading, as well as the US banking and debt ceiling crises aren't enough to displace the role of the dollar in global reserves or in trade, even if they do spur more countries to diversify their currency holdings.

Other currencies still have to overcome many obstacles to attain the same status as the dollar, strategists maintained, including capital market depth, building trust for access and the accompanying legal framework, trade invoicing, and currency management systems.

Because these factors together are so interlinked, a challenger to the dollar won't arise for "a long time to come."

"While that is a clear risk if the US abuses its 'exorbitant privileges', we see no evidence of that in the data so far (for example, even Brazil's rising share of CNY reserves replaced CAD, not the Dollar), and our strong view is that there is currently no real contender," Goldman said.

While the dollar's status as a global reserve currency has seen a gradual erosion for two decades, its role in international trade remains unlikely to diminish anytime soon, according to a recent note from Eurizon analysts.

The dollar is estimated to account for 88% of all international transactions, while China's yuan holds a 7% share.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/dollar-dominance-dedollarization-goldman-sachs-china-yuan-renminbi-brazil-russia-2023-4

Do I sense a little panic in one of the chief architects of reckless monetary policy and CONFLICT OF INTEREST in our Federal Gov?

Try reversing Hanky Panky Paulson theft and releasing F&F from wards of the state. What goes around comes around. Tsk Tsk.

[trunkmonk]

Reverse split, receivership, par, ain’t happening. Ps just don’t get it. Commons will.

[EternalPatience]

Nothing is getting restarted. The FNMA board is bored and delusional. Nothing g is going to happen for the rest of this regime window

[trunkmonk]

of course this was dug up again, for posterity sake, lets review.

https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-and-common-securitization-solutions-create-single-security

there would have be one entity, after an IPO of common shares on a real exchange, at a much higher price than today, and it will include dividends. say 25 to 40 cents per share. every common share will be rolled into the new IPO. they will obviously sell more shares to fund the new entity with transition costs and operating capital. lest we not forget the 200b stolen money, unless handled properly, it will be a brand spanking new target for law suits.

[trunkmonk]

if and when dividends start for GSE common shareholders, i will put it towards my capital stack in my business brokerage account.

I may even restructure my back yard with extended patio and pergola.

[trunkmonk]

GSE shareholders, with good reason, grand theft, extortions, complete corruption and lies for 15 years.

How do i get his hair???

[trunkmonk]

From Rodney, we all knew it was done like this, GSEs were perfectly fine that very same year.


Quote: “Former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO Dick Kovacevich says the federal government's bank bailout during the depths of the financial crisis was an unmitigated disaster and laid much of the blame for the financial crisis on ineffective regulators.

The decision by the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve in October 2008 to make banks take TARP money even if they didn't want it or need it was one of the worst economic decisions in the history of the United States, Kovacevich.” End of Quote.

Quote: “Kovacevich said some might ask, Why didn't I just say no and not accept the TARP money? As my comments were heading in that direction in the meeting, Hank Paulson turned to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke sitting next to him and said, Your primary regulator is sitting right here. If you refuse to accept these funds, he will declare you capital deficient Monday morning. Kovacevich recalled, Is this America? I ask myself.” End of Quote.

[955]

Justice Breyer comments

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171721227

Donotunderstand, I appreciate your contribution to our effort in getting out of this prison.

“time of emergency-near “war times” ?

Even in war time real property is compensated under the 5th...

“how do two judges come to the edge of saying we got screwed and then vote with the assailant”

It has been covered a dozen times on this board...

It was explained to you in the post you replied too.

“Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7

The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. And IT IS NOT WORKING!


Again,

“Well, why didn't you bring a takings claim?”

JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this seems like a takings claim, why should we stretch out of recognition or stretch or try to draw lines unnecessarily on the question of derivative actions? Page 71

JUSTICE BREYER: I'm -- I'm aware of derivative action of the conservator. In fact, he so -- goes so far that the company's hurt, really hurt, and the shareholders are destroyed, bring a takings claim, but as long as there's a colorable claim, as long as there's a colorable defense, forget it. Apply ordinary derivative law. Page 71

JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …

MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, we have brought a takings claim, but that doesn't absolve this Court of -- under the APA, of addressing our challenge to the lawfulness of the agency action. There's no reason to think that – Page 70

Let me interpret MR. Thompson, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'colorable claim' so we can collect Par Value. JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …

The question was asked on this board, “Why did Breyer vote along with the other Justices?” Ha


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!

UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

DERIVATIVE. Coming from another; taken from something preceding, secondary; as derivative title, which is that acquired from another person. There is considerable difference between an original and a derivative title. When the acquisition is original, the right thus acquired to the thing becomes property, which must be unqualified and unlimited, and since no one but the occupant has any right to the thing, he must have the whole right of disposing of it. But with regard to derivative acquisition, it may be otherwise, for the person from whom the thing is acquired may not have an unlimited right to it, or he may convey or transfer it with certain reservations of right. Derivative title must always be by contract.

The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.

THE CHARTER ACT IS THE LAW

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171648502

[955]

It appears JPS attorney's aren't interested in any legal actions that would result in commons benefiting on their behalf. Perhaps by direction of their clients. No? Certainly would explain all the JPS holders on this board bashing commons. Perhaps they're afraid of commons 'stealing' too much of their pie. Breyer, on the other hand, wants a resolution that would benefit all stakeholders, not just a certain class. Thoughts?

[Wise Man]

$FMCC. SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP AND THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT PLAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Watch my signature image to see how the Net Worth evolved during conservatorship (the PLMBS lawsuit settlement wasn't included yet) and how the UST backup of FnF works; The dividend on the cumulative SPS coincide with the interests on the amount due to FnF, after applying their special borrowing right from UST. So, it's netted out.

COMMON EQUITY: $97B ($150ps). It was calculated:
Beginning balance, June 2008:$-1.2B
+Accumulated Total Comprehensive Income (adjusted for the charges in several Accounting standard changes):$72B
+CRT, net (Retained Earnings):$7.7B
+73% PLMBS lawsuit, based on the AOCI (unrealized losses in PLMBS) on June 30, 2008, compared to Fannie Mae: $19B
It's reflected on the Balance Sheet with a posting of $97B on the Retained Earnings account and the Treasury Stock is reduced to $0 (the stocks repurchased are retired), the other accounts are approximately $0 as seen today.
Common Equity as of end of December 2022:
$0 common stock par value
$0 Additional Paid-In Capital
$0 Treasury Stock
$97B Retained Earnings account
$0 AOCI

CASH REFUND=$74B
U.S. Treasury, $55.8B: $48B SPS overpayment +$7.7B CRT, net.
FHFA, $18B PLMBS lawsuit (Atty fees, included)

[trunkmonk]

Facts from Rodney:
4/15/23
You mention the illegal stock, SPS certificate, statement “cumulative" dividend. A certificate that also states that a dividend is paid out of available funds for distribution. And you think this is legal. You think this is okay? Ha

IT IS ALL ILLEGAL!

LISTEN! IF MR. Fisher can get us out of this prison under the terms he set forth, personally I am all for it.

Barron, has it right!

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.

SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16

Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...

(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)


There was no 'Emergency.'

FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.

SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS

Minimum Capital
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.

Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.

Link:https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-Announces-Suspension-of-Capital-Classifications-During-Conservatorship-and-Discloses-Minimum-and-RiskBased-Cap.aspx

https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf

------------------------------------

Judo Jeff,

Quote: “This sets the stage for dealing with FHFA since it seems to satisfy the three Thunder Basin work arounds that were created in Axon and Cochran today.” End of Quote...

Help me out?

The executive branch entities are not given the power to hold in-house tribunals, constitutional propriety.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies precedent to determine that Axon Enterprise’s and Michelle Cochran’s structural constitutional claims need not be channeled through the administrative review schemes at issue. I write separately, however, because I have grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.


The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law.

Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA.

The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests. DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf

[Ace Trader]

Fillings Fillings Fillings
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/federal-home-loan-mortgage-qb-FMCKJ/stock-news/90739504/disclosure-of-asset-backed-securities-abs-15g

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/federal-home-loan-mortgage-qb-FMCC/stock-news/90739490/disclosure-of-asset-backed-securities-abs-15g

What does that mean ??
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9175.pdf

[Ace Trader]

A BIG bag of GSE money !!!! For there JPS while my ( wild card play ) for my commons get the crumbs… Maybe, maybe not but wait and see!!

[trunkmonk]

Ps gonna get handed a bag, commons will prevail.

[Rodney5]

Ace Trader,
I appreciate your attitude. Really like your suggestion.

Quote: "Best thing we could do is find a young keen lawyer fresh out of law school hungry to make a name for him or herself." End of Quote.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171611458

Also, I like what Barron had to say...

Barron4664
Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255
Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM
A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171193506

[Ace Trader]

Your talking about a bunch of penny stock guys hiding behind there computers. A lot can’t even fork out $20 for a pacer account so any thought of putting together a lawsuit is all talk in there part except me and Rodney and a couple of others who are willing to Atleast look at the potential.

[Rodney5]

Trunkmonk, I think you are right, in plain sight of defense not good. Yesterday, I was throwing out thoughts on the subject, asking for others' opinion. I appreciate shareholders as yourself. I did notice the communication vanished; Did you see that? Regards

[trunkmonk]

Well I’m thinking if I was gonna buy a stock, and saw that current shareholders after 14 years, are discussing what they want to propose in court. I wouldn’t buy it. GSEs need solid case, not arm chair thoughts in plain sight of defense.

[trunkmonk]

commons shares in every company are a risk, especially GSEs. some people cant understand this, especially the ones who have no business in the stock market. if they want safety they go with preferred. everyone knows this, but they keep saying commons have no security, and in the same breath preferred should get par. sad sad world for some so in debt they have no life other than to post negatives about common shares. commons wait until either courts decide something, or FHFA and treasury or congress totally mess up by stealing more.

[EternalPatience]

Are you all talking here becoz of the admin attrocities in the Fnma board???

[955]

Section 304, Charter Act:

SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(a) PURCHASE AND SALE OF MORTGAGES; SECONDARY MARKET
OPERATIONS; ADVANCE OF FUNDS OR ORIGINATION OF LOANS;
SETTLEMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF BORROWERS RIGHTS.—
12 U.S.C. 1719
(1) To carry out the purposes set forth in paragraph (a) of section 301, the
operations of the corporation under this section shall be confined so far as
practicable, to mortgages which are deemed by the corporation to be of such
quality, type, and class as to meet, generally, the purchase standards
imposed by private institutional mortgage investors. In the interest of
assuring sound operation, the prices to be paid by the corporation for mort-
gages purchased in its secondary market operations under this section,
should be established, from time to time, within the range of market prices
for the particular class of mortgages involved, as determined by the corpo-
ration. The volume of the corporation’s purchases and sales, and the estab-
lishment of the purchase prices, sale prices, and charges or fees, in its
secondary market operations under this section, should be determined by the
corporation from time to time, and such determinations should be consistent
with the objectives that such purchases and sales should be effected only at
such prices and on such terms as will reasonably prevent excessive use of
the corporation’s facilities, and that the operations of the corporation under
this section should be within its income derived from such operations and
that such operations should be fully self supporting. Nothing in this title
shall prohibit the corporation from purchasing, and making commitments to
purchase, any mortgage with respect to which the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development has entered into a contract with the corporation to
make interest subsidy payments under section 243 of the National Housing
Act.
Institutional
Investor Purchase
Standard
Operations to be
Self-Supporting
(2) The volume of the corporation’s lending activities and the establishment
of its loan ratios, interest rates, maturities, and charges or fees, in its
secondary market operations under this section, should be determined by the
corporation from time to time; and such determinations, in conjunction with
determinations made under paragraph (1), should be consistent with the
objectives that the lending activities should be conducted on such terms as
will reasonably prevent excessive use of the