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.
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.
This statement by NO Name is about as stupid as it gets!
Quote: “ No, the law doesn't. You keep referring to something that is discretionary, which even if it applied, still doesn't give the right to the FHFA director to pay down anything. That discretionary privilege (assuming it ever existed) was negotiated away.” End of Quote
“was negotiated away.” ??
“The Law is discretionary” ??
FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. And certainly cannot negotiate the law away.
Thank you Guido,
Sent to all the contacts you provided.
Kthomp Quote: “Naturally, because you like what Barron and Rodney say and you don't like what Treasury said. Just look at all those qualifications you put in the second part of that sentence.” End of Quote
Kthomp, your argument has been the CONTRACT SPSPA doesn’t allow the pay down of the Liquidation Preference with the cancellation of the SPS. That maybe so under the terms of the contract but the Law does. The FHFA Director doesn’t need the Treasury approval.
Congress
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
The Treasury did not take a Perpetual Equity Investment in the enterprises, the government said so themselves, temporary investment period!
Cumulative Senior Preferred Stock with a 10% coupon that’s redeemable. The money sent to the Treasury above 10% pays down the Liquidation Preference and the SPS cancelled by LAW!
The lawyers are stuck on the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement. APPLY THE LAW!
THE LAW allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
ewtrader Quote: “ Send to Hamish Hume email hhume@bsfllp.com and also Cooper and Kirk for ROP v Treasury” End of Quote
Sent the following Hume, I do not have contact for Cooper etc… you are welcome to forward. Regards
Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c) Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
THE LAW allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
LuLeVan, The Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes right now.
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c) Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Why would this lead to panic selling of Fannie and Freddie MBS, which would trigger a severe crisis in the U.S. mortgage market?? In a receivership the companies business is not dissolved only thing taking place is ownership transfer to the Treasury.
As we speak the value of the LP is greater than the entire business operation of Fannie and Freddie, in essence the Treasury owns the companies now.
You do realize if the Treasury decides to wipe out your investment in your not so protected JPS they can? It was in the original plan to wipe out all shareholders both JPS and Common. So stop with the nonsense, everyone on this board knows all the different possibilities of the out come.
Paulson’s plan wipe out both.
Quote, “On July 11, the New York Times published a front-page article saying, “Senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen.”Shares of the companies plunged, and in response Paulson publicly pledged support for them on July 13, saying, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies.”Yet he had a very different private message for Wall Street insiders. As reported by Bloomberg in November of 2011, Paulson met with a select group of hedge fund managers at Eaton Park Capital Management on July 21, where he told them that Treasury was considering a plan to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, which would effectively wipe out common and preferred shareholders.This, of course, is precisely what happened six weeks later. End of Quote, From “Treasury, the Conservatorships, and Mortgage Reform” January 11, 2015
What’s the difference imposed receivership on the legacy common (name given to existing common shareholders by the cram down people) BUT the jps are saved??
That argument is about as stupid as it gets.
FOFreddie,
Somehow the JPS will be miraculously saved, but the common shareholders are wiped out into oblivion. Seems this is the conversation repeated every day. Why would the Treasury take a haircut to make the JPS whole??
What makes the JPS so sure the Treasury will not demand payment in full on the Liquidation Preference wiping out both JPS / Common in receivership?
The Treasury’s LP continues to grow the regulator is authorized or required to place the companies into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Money received by the Treasury pays off the LP by confiscation of our companies. Leaving nothing for JPS or Common.
As we speak the value of the LP is greater than the entire business operation of Fannie and Freddie.
Company’s Financial Statement
Risk Factors Summary
GSE and Conservatorship Risk
Quote: "Our business activities are significantly affected by the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Amounts recovered by our receiver may not be sufficient to pay claims outstanding against us, repay the liquidation preference of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders." End of Quote Page 33
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/media/46276/display
"In the event the assets legally available for distribution to stockholders are insufficient to pay the liquidation preference of all Preferred Stock in full, the assets available for distribution will be divided among all holders of Preferred Stock on a pro rata basis, based on the value of the liquidation preference of each series of Preferred Stock." Page 5
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052220000121/descriptionofsecuritie.htm
FOFreddie, The cram down will make the counterfeit shares disappear. Why is this person pushing so hard to wipeout the common shareholders? Working for the market maker? The people pushing the cram down are using the term wipeout the legacy common. Can’t deny the fact the counterfeit shares outstanding.
TRADING FLOOR OF THE MARKET-MAKER:
The primary market-makers in these GSE's are Goldman Sachs (Fannie Mae) and LaBranche & Co. (Freddie Mac). These are the specialists on the NYSE where the GSE's are listed, thus all trades executed on the NYSE in the GSE's must flow through these market-makers.
Quote: “Without the counterfeiting of the GSEs shares and the concerted effort to manipulate the stock prices, the GSEs potential to raise significant capital would have been much greater and it is unlikely that the U.S. Taxpayers would be the conservators of these companies at this time.
This report shows why this is true and that illegal sellers of the shares of the two GSEs made a vast sum of money taking down these companies to the detriment of the U.S. Citizens. This report names who the key market participants are in the trading of the GSEs.” End of Quote.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf
jog49 Quote: " Before trying to make the government adhere to the laws on the books," End of Quote.
That's the problem the Plaintiffs did not bring the laws on the books to the Judge.
Barron Quote: “Perry, Fairholm and all the other Plaintiffs made the fatal error to not challenge the SPSPA using what I believe are violations of the Charter Act and the Safety and Soundness Act that would nullify the SPSPA outright. Further arguments could be made that the 200 billion commitment where not authorized by The Appropriations act as they weren't used to purchase obligations or securities but rather used as a taxpayer debt obligation of the GSEs with a rate that also violates the Charter. Potential violations of the CFO act leading to 14th amendment violations could have been argued as well as MQD issues. But none of that was brought before a court.
The Plaintiffs attempted to get around the HERA sand trap by arguing the NWS was ultra vires by way of the APA’s arbitrary and capricious language, or Delaware corporate Law etc etc. All failed except the Common Law implied good faith and fair dealings implicit to contracts that Congress can’t legislate away. So here we are cheering on the last scraps of a failed legal strategy that will do nothing but take cash from the beleaguered GSEs and make some Attorneys more money.
I believe that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendments to the SPSPA have created new distinct injuries to the GSEs and shareholders such that under the continuing claims doctrine, the Statute of limitations on the original Charter Act and Safety and Soundness act violations instituted by the SPSPA are still ripe. Would you be willing to help me with this?” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172532488
stockanalyze,
I have reached out to several lawyers involved in the lawsuits, including the FHFA Director.
If you believe the information to be correct you are welcome to pass it along to whoever you will.
Regards
Vancmike, you ask why the charter act has not been used by any of the plaintive lawyers in going after the illegal conservatorship?
I have no idea.
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23
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. 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.
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252.30.0.pdf
FHFA has numerous violations of Federal statutes.
Guido Quote: “Does a government agency head avoid Senate Confirmation by being named ACTING Director of FHFA for a period exceeding 4 years and 4 months. And this Director has the authority to give away his wards' equity in perpetuity ??” End of Quote
DeMarco Avoided Senate Confirmation
The Charter Act amended by HERA passed by Congress the Director has to be confirmed by the Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
122 STAT. 2662 PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
‘‘SEC. 1312. DIRECTOR.
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.—There is established the
position of the Director of the Agency, who shall be the head
of the Agency.
‘‘(b) APPOINTMENT; TERM.—
‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—The Director shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
from among individuals who are citizens of the United States,
have a demonstrated understanding of financial management
or oversight, and have a demonstrated understanding of capital
markets, including the mortgage securities markets and
housing finance.
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 Net Worth Sweep.
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.
JSmith5, ask TH
Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:
The Law actually exists!
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Someone needs to start applying the law Congress enacted. The law actually exists!
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 Net Worth Sweep.
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.
The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the LP can be paid down and the SPS redeemed under the terms of the LAW OF HERA. The money kept by the Treasury by the NWS should be applied to principle and 10% interest and over payment should be returned to the companies. $301 billion is more than enough to pay the LP and redeem the SPS. Secondary IPO replaces the commitment.
The Treasury did not take a Perpetual Equity Investment in the enterprises, the government said so themselves, temporary investment period!
Cumulative Senior Preferred Stock with a 10% coupon that’s redeemable. The money sent to the Treasury above 10% pays down the Liquidation Preference and the SPS cancelled by LAW!
The lawyers are stuck on the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement. APPLY THE LAW!
THE LAW allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Quote: “The SPS were created without a redemption possible without Treasury permission,” End of Quote
That statement maybe true under the terms of the SPSPA, by reason of the commitment; but not under the law written in HERA. The FHFA Director does not need Treasurer’s permission, Congress gave the Director permission.
THE LAW allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
No HERA doesn’t allow the Director to release with a consent decree and no Treasury can’t give approval either only Congress.
What Congress approved with the passing of HERA.
The Treasury was authorized by Congress a limit of $2.25 billion FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS. This amount was increased by Congress in the Charter Act that was amended by HERA. The amount today $200 billion as of December 24, 2009, expired on December 31, 2009: AND NO MORE.
Sandra Thompson CANNOT release pursuant a consent decree without congressional approval. LAW: Congress will have to approve a consent decree. Administrative means to provide financial support by ongoing fee is not authorized by Congress. A consent decree is a line of credit, NOT PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS, two different products.
With the passage of HERA Legislation: (purchase obligations increased with an expiration date of December 31, 2009).
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion) up to the point in time of ‘‘(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
You have that right!
“ Been saying it for years. Plaintiff attorneys are among the dumbest.”
Barron said it best Quote: So there you have it. A blatant Administrative Procedures Act violation. Where were all the attorneys for the past 15 years? Our supposed betters. The experts class with fancy degrees? The APA violations have been staring us in the eyes out in the open since day one. In stead we have been lead down the rabbit hole with legal obfuscations of ultra vires actions of the Conservator when they could have voided the whole damn thing without ever considering the Conservator. I wish I had read this law years ago instead of just recently. Instead we are following the silly trial for the second time in Lamberths Court. And yet Hamish Hume ignored me when I offered him this statute for this trial and the Wazee case. But at least I tried." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172449191
Donotunderstand, with all the activity this past week on the board maybe you missed it.
STOCK = PRODUCT
Definition with example
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
Accounts & Products
https://www.schwab.com/
Senior Preferred Stock is a product by definition.
Below all categories are investment products.
Mutual Funds
ETFs
Index Funds
Stocks
Options
Bonds, CDs & Fixed Income
Money Market Funds
Cash Solutions & Rates
Cryptocurrency
More Investment Products
They were new and obligate the GSEs to pay their networth to Treasury as a liquidation preference. APA applied to FHFA director Lockhart. He ignored. This makes SPS illegal.
4541 Prior Approval Authority for Products
Page 1607
https://www.fhfa.gov/Government/Documents/Federal-Housing-Enterprises-Financial-Safety-and-Soundness-Act.pdf
Wiseman Quote: "A SPS is a security, not a product (activity)" End of Quote
WRONG
Definition with example
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
Accounts & Products
https://www.schwab.com/
Senior Preferred Stock is a product by definition.
Below all categories are investment products.
Mutual Funds
ETFs
Index Funds
Stocks
Options
Bonds, CDs & Fixed Income
Money Market Funds
Cash Solutions & Rates
Cryptocurrency
More Investment Products
What Congress approved with the passing of HERA.
The Treasury was authorized by Congress a limit of $2.25 billion FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS. This amount was increased by Congress in the Charter Act that was amended by HERA. The amount today $200 billion as of December 24, 2009, expired on December 31, 2009: AND NO MORE.
Sandra Thompson CANNOT release pursuant a consent decree without congressional approval. LAW: Congress will have to approve a consent decree. Administrative means to provide financial support by ongoing fee is not authorized by Congress. A consent decree is a line of credit, NOT PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS, two different products.
With the passage of HERA Legislation: (purchase obligations increased with an expiration date of December 31, 2009).
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion) up to the point in time of ‘‘(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Sandra Thompson CANNOT release pursuant a consent decree without congressional approval. LAW: Congress will have to approve a consent decree. Administrative means to provide financial support by ongoing fee is not authorized by Congress.
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Director Lockhart Regulator cannot just decide to change the LAW.
The Senior Preferred Stock was a new product, a new product OBLIGATION, that had never ever been sold ever in the past by the enterprises. The FHFA violated the safety and soundness act of 1992 and the administrative procedures act. This new product is not what Congress intended written in the Charter Act Treasury purchase of obligations under the subsection.
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.
Donotunderstand, The Senior Preferred Stock was a new product, a new product that had never ever been sold ever before by the enterprises. The FHFA violated the safety and soundness act of 1992 and the administrative procedures act. This new product is not what Congress intended written in the Charter Act Treasury purchase of obligations under the subsection.
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
Layton, government appointed CEO Quote: “The Treasury was legally obligated to inject equity funds into the two companies so each would never have a negative net worth.” End of Quote.
No were in the Charter Act did Congress give the Treasury permission to provide a LINE OF CREDIT. Congress granted ONLY PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS (MBS).
What did the Treasury's funding commitment of $200 billion buy? NOTHING
Quote: “(3) FUNDING.—For the purpose of the authorities granted in this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury may use the proceeds of the sale of
any securities issued under chapter 31 of Title 31, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of Title 31 are extended to
include such purchases and the exercise of any rights in connection with
such purchases. Any funds expended for the purchase of, or modifications
to, obligations and securities, or the exercise of any rights received in
connection with such purchases under this subsection shall be deemed
appropriated at the time of such purchase, modification, or exercise.” End of Quote
THE ABOVE TAKE NOTE:
PURCHASES,
WITH SUCH PURCHASES,
EXPENDED FOR THE PURCHASE OF,
CONNECTION WITH SUCH PURCHASES,
AT THE TIME OF SUCH PURCHASE.
SEC. 304 Purchase Obligations
Subsection (c)
$200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop, this money was not used to purchase anything. What did the $200 billion buy? NOTHING
This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA.
The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop.
Layton, government appointed CEO Quote: “It is the general expectation that, upon exit from conservatorship by administrative means, the PSPAs would continue to provide financial support to the companies and there would then be an ongoing fee to compensate taxpayers for this risk. This fee remains unknown, as it has yet to be developed or specified by Treasury.” End of Quote
Administrative means to provide financial support by ongoing fee is not authorized by Congress.
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The government appointed CEO of Freddie Mac repeats numerous times IMPLICIT in the article.
Explicit and Implicit
The Treasury was authorized by Congress a limit of $2.25 billion. This amount was increased by Congress in the Charter Act that was amended by HERA. The amount today $200 billion as of December 24, 2009, expired on December 31, 2009: and no more.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASURY; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
The Secretary of the Treasury shall not at any time purchase any obligations under this subsection if such purchase would increase the aggregate principal amount of the Secretary’s, then outstanding holdings of such obligations under this subsection to an amount greater than $2,250,000,000.
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
"The U.S. Government does not guarantee, directly or indirectly, our securities or other obligations." ... (Implicit is not worth the paper it WAS NOT WRITTEN ON).
The United States was not obligated after 1968 to back any debt of Fannie Mae. The United States Taxpayers became obligated when the government took over the two companies.
Originally, Fannie Mae had an explicit guarantee from the United States government; if the entity got into financial trouble the government promised to bail it out. This changed in 1968. Fannie Mae became a private stockholder owned company. Fannie Mae securities received no actual explicit or implicit government guarantee. This is clearly stated in the securities themselves, and in many public communications issued by Fannie Mae. (Other than a limit of $2.25 billion by the Charter Act).
Quote: “Although we are a corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Government does not guarantee, directly or indirectly, our securities or other obligations. We are a stockholder-owned corporation, and our business is self-sustaining and funded exclusively with private capital. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and traded under the symbol “FNM.” Our debt securities are actively traded in the over-the-counter market.” End of Quote.
Information from: Fannie Mae form 10K Dec 31, 2007
part I, page 1, item 1.
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2007/form10k_022708.pdf
With the passage of HERA Legislation: (purchase obligations increased with an expiration date of December 31, 2009).
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion) up to the point in time of ‘‘(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Your argument doesn’t work anymore, we see right through your smoke and mirrors. The mistake of the lawyers over and over has been the focus on the SPSPA.
THE LAW allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
The problem with Professor Epstein his evaluation focused on the contract SPSPA between two government agencies. All he had to do was to apply the LAW WRITTEN IN HERA: with that being said doesn’t change the fact in what the Professor wrote is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
According to Professor Richard Epstein
The Senior Preferred Stock would have been redeemed.
Quote “The conflict of interest took a more ominous turn with the adoption of the Third Amendment between FHFA and Treasury nearly four years later. At that time, the market had quieted down, and the GSEs were making timely dividend payments on Treasury’s preferred stock. Nonetheless, FHFA and Treasury ripped up the old agreement, and substituted in its place a new deal that created a “net worth sweep” whereby all of the funds received by the GSEs were paid over to Treasury as a dividend, even in amounts far in excess of the original 10 percent dividend. The consequences have been huge. Without the Third Amendment, virtually all the senior-preferred stock would have been redeemed. With the Third Amendment, about $128 billion that could have been used to redeem the preferred shares has been reclassified as a dividend payment, rather than a return of capital.” End of Quote
Please Note: “Without the Third Amendment, virtually all the senior-preferred stock would have been redeemed.”
Link: https://ricochet.com/326448/fannie-freddie-fiasco/
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
AIG the difference in the case of FNMA
Barron Quote: In the case of FNMA, the charter act is everything. The Charter is FNMA. It takes precedence over all other laws and regulations enacted to regulate FNMA. This is why Congress amended the Charter act in HERA. In other words, no other legislation or regulation or contract can negate the requirements of FNMA charter. The arguments and claims just havent been brought before the judiciary yet.” End of Quote bottom of the page
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171741857
Guido, The expert lawyers never mention the Federal statutes which are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Lawyers are stuck on the 3rd Amendment net worth sweep! THE CONTRACT IT’S NOT WORKING. TRY USING THE LAW!
HOW TO WIN !
Barron Quote: “I posit that the variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and all amendments are an illegal commitment fee/charge attached to the purchase of the senior preferred shares. Prohibited by the Charter Act. The warrants are also a fee in consideration for access to the commitment. Prohibited by the Charter Act.
I posit that the senior preferred shares with their variable liquidation preference as outlined in the SPSPA constitute a new product for the purpose of the secondary mortgage market outlined in the charter act at sec 1719.
I posit that under the safety and soundness act as modified by HERA, the sale of SPS with a variable liquidation preference to Treasury under authority of sec 1719(g) of the Charter Act required notice in the federal register, opportunity for public comment, and official rule making by the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
I posit that the above statutory violations necessarily violate the warranties on behalf of the FHFA-C contained in the SPSPA.
301 Billion to be returned to the corporation. LP and warrants canceled. Future of 191 billion of taxpayer debt illegally given to corps to be determined.” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172470841
Barron Quote: “Perry, Fairholm and all the other Plaintiffs made the fatal error to not challenge the SPSPA using what I believe are violations of the Charter Act and the Safety and Soundness Act that would nullify the SPSPA outright. Further arguments could be made that the 200 billion commitment where not authorized by The Appropriations act as they werent used to purchase obligations or securities but rather used as a tax payer debt obligation of the GSEs with a rate that also violates the Charter. Potential violations of the CFO act leading to 14th amendment violations could have been argued as well as MQD issues. But none of that was brought before a court.
The Plaintiffs attempted to get around the HERA sand trap by arguing the NWS was ultra vires by way of the APA’s arbitrary and capricious language, or Delaware corporate Law etc etc. All failed except the Common Law implied good faith and fair dealings implicit to contracts that Congress can’t legislate away. So here we are cheering on the last scraps of a failed legal strategy that will do nothing but take cash from the beleaguered GSEs and make some Attorneys more money.
I believe that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendments to the SPSPA have created new distinct injuries to the GSEs and shareholders such that under the continuing claims doctrine, the Statute of limitations on the original Charter Act and Safety and Soundness act violations instituted by the SPSPA are still ripe. Would you be willing to help me with this?” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172532488
Barron has an excellent approach to this entire debacle. “ No fancy legal doctrines are needed for mental gymnastics. It is plain letter law that avoids all the traps”
Quote: “ If you were paying attention to my posts you would have realized that my proposed strategy that Rodney has been posting relies on filing little tucker act claims in the local federal district court. If you file a takings claim for greater than $10,000, it has to be heard in Sweeny’s court of federal claims. If you challenge any aspect of the SPSPA, such as the NWS the terms of the agreement requires all claims to be heard in the DC district Court aka Lamberth.
I propose neither. I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point. It is called a categorical error. Kind of like the “war on terror” how do you fight a war against a weapon?
Rather, I propose a simple set of questions:
1) is a variable Liquidation preference pegged to the amount of commitment drawn by the GSEs (with a 10% rate later changed to NWS, later to LP increased for free) attached to the sale of 1000 Senior Preferred Shares considered a charge or fee for the purposes outlined in the Charter Act?
2) are the warrants in consideration of the Commitment a charge or fee?
3) If they are determined to be a charge or a fee attached to a GSE obligation or a security, are they prohibited by the plain language of the Charter Act?
4) what appropriations law did treasury use to make $200 billion of tax payer debt available for the GSEs to draw from?
5) are the SPS with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA?
6) If they are a new Product, Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to these new products sold to Treasury. Did FHFA follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act?
7) The CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?
The answers to these questions would hopefully result in the voiding of the SPSPA in its entirety and a cash sum of less than $10,000 to me. Each of these questions can be answered by just reading the plain language of the statute and the Agreements. No fancy legal doctrines are needed for mental gymnastics. It is plain letter law that avoids all the traps. The only doctrine involved is the doctrine of continuing claims. Otherwise we are limited to the SOL on the 4th amendment to the SPSPA.” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172580067
Wise Man said Quote: “The law isn't HERA but the FHEFSSA-Charter Act, as amended by HERA.” End of Quote
That statement is not completely correct. Yes, FHEFSSA, Charter Act the law and HERA amended both, READ PAGE 1
HERA PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT 2008
Wise Man Quote: “The 10% and NWS dividends existed and they are forbidden,“ End of Quote
You are exactly right. NO CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION IS ALLOWED WHILE THE ENTERPRISES ARE UNDER CAPITALIZED
The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the LP can be paid down and the SPS redeemed under the terms of the LAW OF HERA. The money kept by the Treasury by the NWS should be applied to principle and 10% interest and over payment should be returned to the companies. $301 billion is more than enough to pay the LP and redeem the SPS. Secondary IPO replaces the commitment.
This is the argument of the Cram Down People, they reference the
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Optional Pay Down of Liquidation Preference Following termination of the Commitment.
Quote: “The companies can't terminate the commitment anyway no matter what without Treasury's approval. The funding commitment doesn't have anything to do with the NWS. The funding commitment came into existence when the original SPSPAs were signed in 2008.” End of Quote. WRONG!
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract.
The LAW
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
In essence allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract.
Explained: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172666360
THE LAW
Code of Federal Regulation
1237.12 Capital distributions while in conservatorship.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship.
(b) The Director may authorize, or may delegate the authority to authorize, a capital distribution that would otherwise be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section if he or she determines that such capital distribution:
No 1: Will enhance the ability of the regulated entity to meet the risk-based capital level and the minimum capital level for the regulated entity;
No 2: Will contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity;
No 3: Is otherwise in the interest of the regulated entity; or
No 4: Is otherwise in the public interest.
Section c, this section is intended to supplement and shall not replace or affect any other restriction on capital distributions imposed by statute or regulation.
DID THE NET WORTH SWEEP
Enhance the ability to meet risk-based capital level? NO
Contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity? NO
In the interest of the regulated entity? NO
Is otherwise in the public interest? NO
(The taxpayers are responsible for the liabilities of the enterprises).
The Net Worth Sweep could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect and that one of the principal duties of the FHFA Director is to preserve and conserve assets.
Fannie is allowed to retain its earnings until it fully meets its applicable risk-based capital requirement (it’s currently short by $247.8 billion), but those increased retained earnings are matched by a dollar-for-dollar increase in Treasury’s liquidation preference.
https://gov.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-XII/subchapter-B/part-1237/subpart-D/section-1237.12
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 Net Worth Sweep.
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.
Professor Epstein made the calculation in 2016 that’s 7 years ago. Since then the GSEs have sent more than enough to pay down the LP with money left over.
THE LAW HERA
The trustees of Fannie and Freddie can go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full.
Cram Down People, they reference the
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Optional Pay Down of Liquidation Preference Following termination of the Commitment.
Quote: “The companies can't terminate the commitment anyway no matter what without Treasury's approval. The funding commitment doesn't have anything to do with the NWS. The funding commitment came into existence when the original SPSPAs were signed in 2008.” End of Quote. WRONG!
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract.
The LAW
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract.
Explained: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172666360