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.
philipmax, yeh, interesting for sure everyone who has taken a look at the facts know the Treasury is stealing from the shareholders.
EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16 of the Charter Act. There was no emergency.
Forced the write down of the deferred tax assets, to make the companies appear bankrupt.
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.
Violated the 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc
And Paulson freely admitted the companies were Nationalized. Bragged about it in the face of the shareholders on national television. That’s BOLD! Criminal
MRJ25, The Treasury made a deal a non-cash activity, so in essence the FHFA gave away the companies for free with no cash added on to the balance sheet. A verbal transaction. Amazing!
It appears no money changed hands from the Treasury to the balance sheet of the enterprises. As per conversation on this board.
I asked the question, with the replies posted below...
Rodney5
Re: None
Monday, April 17, 2023 9:10:47 PM
Post#
753028 of 759056
I have a question, when the SPSPA took place did any money change hands from the Treasury Department on to the balance sheet of the companies? Recorded in the amount of $1 billion?
Page 5
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Bryndon
04/17/23 9:34 PM
#753030 RE: Rodney5 #753028
I'm pretty sure it was a non-cash activity.
Fannie Mae's December 31, 2008 10-K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304
Guido2
04/17/23 10:42 PM
#753033 RE: Rodney5 #753028
Haven’t looked lately, but my recollection is Fannie and Freddie were charged $1 billion each commitment fee. Look at 2009 first payments made by the corporations to Treasury. It was $25 million each as quarterly dividends on $1 billion each. I didn’t see any money going from Treasury to the corporations till later.
Wise Man
04/18/23 2:08 AM
#753039 RE: Rodney5 #753028
15 years later, you wonder what $1B SPS was about, on day one of conservatorship.
Also, these SPS issued for free (all others, increased) are an essential evidence of the accounting fraud with today's SPS increased for free, because FnF, in 2008, posted a charge on the Additional Paid-In Capital account (shareholders' pocket) to reflect that they were securities issued for free.
Today, with the APIC exhausted, it's debited from the Retained Earnings account (Core Capital and Common Equity too).
But FnF now don't post the gifted SPS on the Balance Sheets, in order to don't post this offset and peddle the big lie of "FnF build capital".
Playing the fool is not an option, Mr. Pro Se, after 10 years messing around in the U.S. courts. It's called abuse of court process.
Can't wait to see the penalties.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171709055
Charter Act
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.
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
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.
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
Thanks clarencebeaks21,
When I get an opportunity will look at the link you provided.
Note: Purchase Obligations, the Treasury did not purchase any obligations of the companies. The FHFA / Treasury forced the companies to take a line of credit they didn’t need.
Note: The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge. The SPSPA demands assessment of fees in this illegal contract forced on the companies.
Charter Act
Subsection (c)
Purchase Obligations
$200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): subsection (c)
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).
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
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).
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. 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).
Anyone?
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity in FNMA? It's all illegal and unconstitutional.
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
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
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Barron Quote: “The statute of limitations will expire in 2025, 6 years from the 2019 letter agreement.”
Letter agreement link: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm786
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 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.
Again, I stress the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
“Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act?” Great question.
Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:
Maybe Barron or Bryndon can weigh in on this. I have no idea. Kthomp19 mentioned someone needs to hurry up.
Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.” End of Quote… Link to conversation below.
AGAIN: The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Barron Quote: “They are only true if the illegal actions of Treasury and its subservient FHFA are not eventually overturned.”
Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.”
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171706295
Barron on statute of limitations per conversation below. He said 6 years from 2019…
Rodney5
Re: Barron4664 post# 753019
Thursday, 05/11/2023 1:31:34 PM
Barron, you mentioned 2019 letter agreement.
The last letter agreement was January 14, 2021. Did the time clock start in 2019 or 2021?
Thanks
Quote: "I have 6 years from the material change to the LP as agreed in 2019 to challenge the commitment in district court under the little tucker act. There doesnt seem to be a reason not to also challenge the original PSPA agreement just for the sake of arguing based on the supreme 9-0 ruling. Just a couple extra paragraphs, doesnt matter, as The Justice Departments policy on statute of limitations is valid since under their policy, the 2019 letter agreement creates a new injury. No one to my knowledge has challenged Treasury on the Charter Act yet, hoping for some traction there." End of Quote
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Executed-Letter-Agreement-for-Fannie-Mae.pdf
Barron4664
05/12/23 12:03 PM
#755063 RE: Rodney5 #754986
Hi Rodney,
I used the 2019 agreement because it was a fundamental change from the NWS to an increase in LP for free. It is a new form of the same insult. I dont remember what the 2021 letter agreement entailed. I assume it was a further clarification of the 2019 agreement.
I have been spending some time researching the issues around Oaths of Office. See my last few posts. I think I would like to begin drafting a claim sometime around 2nd half of July. I would like to file in district Court for illegal exaction based on the Actions of Treasury under the Little Tucker Act. I would like to see what happens in DC with the Writ of Quo Warranto. I would probably file a motion for a Writ of Quo Warranto for the FHFA and Treasury officials involved in the conservatorship going back to 2008. I don’t know that the Statute of Limitations would apply for criminal acts. If you would like to collaborate with me let me know. I dont have Private messaging here.
You have it right…
The Fed reported it in their 95th Annual Report dated 2008
Evidence
The Toxic Waste funneled through Fannie and Freddie to the Fed.
Quote: "It's a big event that the Federal Reserve is offering to buy up nearly 10% of the agency mortgage market," said Art Frank, a mortgage strategist with Deutsche Bank Tuesday morning, the Federal Reserve announced that it would buy up to $500 billion of mortgage bonds guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae, providing the ultimate support to prop up the $4.8 trillion market of these securities. The central bank also will buy $100 billion of the mortgage finance companies' debt securities, including that of the Federal Home Loan Bank, through reverse auctions starting next week. So far, other initiatives to prop up the market including a plan to have both the government-sponsored enterprises buy nearly $200 billion of these bonds and the U.S. Treasury's unlimited purchase of these bonds have done little to stop the weakening of risk premiums on mortgage bonds. As a result, mortgage rates have remained at elevated levels with little relief to consumers." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33791597
From Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
95th Annual Report 2008
Quote: "since the November 25 announcement of the Federal Reserve’s program to purchase MBS issued by the housing GSEs and Ginnie Mae, and they currently stand at 5 percent." End of Quote page 19
Link: https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual08/pdf/AR08.pdf
Page 33
“Amounts recovered by our receiver may not be sufficient to pay claims outstanding against us, repay the liquidation preference of our preferred stock” … THIS IS YOUR JPS… The Treasury can choose and demand payment and your wiped out. The amount of the Treasury’s LP is worth more than the entire business.
READ IT,
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
Solution, Challenge the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in a Court of Law using the Charter Act enacted by Congress. I would but I’m not a Lawyer nor do I have the financial means to do so.
In my opinion Barron has the best approach, The Charter Act…
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
familymang did the math for you back in June. Everyone is wiped out unless the Treasury decides to write down the LP and declare the SPS paid in full.
Rodney5
Re: familymang post# 756483
Thursday, 06/01/2023 5:33:06 PM
familymang, Please read what you wrote.
Quote: “ Today UST's Fannie LP is $185b, JPS LP is $19b.
- Fannie is worth approx $175b today (17.5b net income x 10 P/E).” End of Quote
Treasury’s Liquidation Preference calculated value that you gave is more valuable RIGHT NOW than your calculated value of the entire business! Both JPS and Common are wiped out!
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
Somehow the JPS will be miraculously saved, but the common shareholders are wiped out into oblivion. Seems this is the conversation repeated every day.
If the cram down will make the JPS whole explain to me why the JPS Holders have been fighting the government tooth and nail for years?? Absolutely makes no sense!
The answer to the above was as stated on this board the Treasury and the junior pref holders taking the same percentage haircut.
Why would the Treasury take a haircut? The last administration’s Treasury Secretary is gone, it’s in the history books.
bradford, what makes you so sure the Treasury will not demand payment in full on the Liquidation Preference wiping out both JPS / Common in receivership? The young writer of the seeking alpha article was expressing an opinion. Why should anyone value your opinion over this writer’s opinion?
What I hope will happen, Treasury declares Liquidation Preference paid in full and Senior Preferred Stock canceled release the companies back to the shareholders.
If 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.
As we speak the value of the LP is greater than the entire business operation of Fannie and Freddie.
READ IT,
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
Donotunderstand,
“Consent Decree” it’s illegal according the Charter Act. The below no one that I know has proven Barron wrong.
Barron asked, to anyone...
“This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity in FNMA? It's all illegal and unconstitutional.”
The below documents are the Starting Point .
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
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
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Barron Quote: “The statute of limitations will expire in 2025, 6 years from the 2019 letter agreement.”
Letter agreement link: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm786
you ask can the Treasury continue to do so?
No, not according to Congress: What’s crazy the law is being ignored.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act
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).
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. 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). The SPSPA is an illegal contract that the FHFA forced the companies into with the Treasury.
You said viewed as fair??
Somehow the JPS are made whole and the Common get the shaft!
If Treasury demands payment in full the companies are in receivership.
" 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." link below.
NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY CLAIMS OF OUR PREFERRED STOCK... This is your JPS! The Treasury’s LP is more valuable than the entire company is worth! Your JPS are wiped out! The deception of the cram down. The prayer of relief should be Treasury declares Liquidation Preference paid in full and Senior Preferred Stock canceled. Turn the companies back to the Shareholders. $301 Billion has been collected by the Treasury. It’s the ethical thing to do. Therefore, both common and JPS holders are made whole.
The Senior Preferred Liquidation Preference at $290 billion for both Fannie and Freddie both JPS Shareholders as well as the Common wiped out if the Treasury chooses to.
If 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 goes into the dark hole of the Treasury! Which pays off the LP by confiscation of our companies.
READ IT
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
skeptic,
Said Quote “ Was forced to protect the banks and give them a place to dump toxic loans.” End of Quote
You have it right.
It was replied to your post Tim found no evidence, Tim didn’t dig deep enough…
The Fed reported it in their 95th Annual Report dated 2008
Evidence
The Toxic Waste funneled through Fannie and Freddie to the Fed.
Quote: "It's a big event that the Federal Reserve is offering to buy up nearly 10% of the agency mortgage market," said Art Frank, a mortgage strategist with Deutsche Bank Tuesday morning, the Federal Reserve announced that it would buy up to $500 billion of mortgage bonds guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae, providing the ultimate support to prop up the $4.8 trillion market of these securities. The central bank also will buy $100 billion of the mortgage finance companies' debt securities, including that of the Federal Home Loan Bank, through reverse auctions starting next week. So far, other initiatives to prop up the market including a plan to have both the government-sponsored enterprises buy nearly $200 billion of these bonds and the U.S. Treasury's unlimited purchase of these bonds have done little to stop the weakening of risk premiums on mortgage bonds. As a result, mortgage rates have remained at elevated levels with little relief to consumers." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33791597
From Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
95th Annual Report 2008
Quote: "since the November 25 announcement of the Federal Reserve’s program to purchase MBS issued by the housing GSEs and Ginnie Mae, and they currently stand at 5 percent." End of Quote page 19
Link: https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual08/pdf/AR08.pdf
If the cram down will make the JPS whole explain to me why the JPS Holders have been fighting the government tooth and nail for years?? Absolutely makes no sense!
It’s the same repetitive pattern that’s not working!
Robert posted Quote: “To the contrary, Plaintiffs make no claims asserting the illegality of the conservatorship." End of Quote
The above is no different than wazee. Same ole tired mistake. “This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008.”
THE FOCUS SHOULD BE
The FHFA forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a contract with the United States Treasury by Senior Preferred Stock. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act passed by Congress is the supreme law of the land that governs the two companies.
When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the FHFA no emergency existed and the FHFA had no authority granted by Congress to take over the companies, no authority written in the Charter Act that gave the FHFA right to take down the companies.
Rodney5
Re: None
Monday, 04/03/2023 3:27:34 PM
This has been the MISTAKE of the JPS Lawyers from the beginning. And making the same mistake over and over.
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23
Quote: "8. 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
Treasury Department is in violation of the law.
The Treasury Department has commanded periodic commitment fee from the Enterprises. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprises.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
Therefore, the Treasury Department of the United States is in violation of the LAW by placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorships under the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provides Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with financial support through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs), which were executed on September 7, 2008, one day after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered conservatorships.
In exchange for Treasury’s financial support, the SPSPAs require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things, to make quarterly dividend payments to Treasury, provide Treasury with a Liquidation Preference, and beginning in 2010 pay Treasury a periodic commitment fee that reflects the market value of the outstanding Treasury commitment, as well as Stock Warrants for the purchase of common stock representing 79.9% of the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, on a diluted basis.
On May 6, 2009 Treasury and the Enterprises amended the SPSPAs, increasing Treasury’s commitment of financial support from $100,000,000,000, respectively, to $200,000,000,000, respectively.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
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).
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. 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).
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
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
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
FOFreddie, Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Seems to me Congress can put a stop to this insanity by reason of the Charter Act.
When the Attorneys mention "Government’s actions" should be more specific FHFA / 'TREASURY'S ACTIONS'... Congress did not give to the FHFA / Treasury the right to place the companies into conservatorship by the Charter Act. It's the FHFA / Treasury that is in violation of the LAW.
Guildo, were you able to forward this by PDF by twitter to the Congressman? I am not on twitter or a resident of his state. Best Regards.
Congressman Warren Davidson,
I appreciate your concern in asking the Secretary of Treasury to address the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which has continued for over 15 years. I am not sure if you understand the history of the takeover of the companies and pray you will of your clemency hear me in a few words.
Before the take down of the companies Treasury Secretary Paulson was unaware that the FHFA had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told FHFA Director Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEO's and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship.
When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat.
The FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized.
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
The FHFA forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a contract with the United States Treasury by Senior Preferred Stock. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act passed by Congress is the supreme law of the land that governs the two companies.
When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the FHFA no emergency existed and the FHFA had no authority granted by Congress to take over the companies, no authority written in the Charter Act that gave the FHFA right to take down the companies.
Again, The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.
Charter Act: SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection no emergency existed.
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Treasury took it upon themselves and authorized a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity illegal and unconstitutional.
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
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 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.
Again, I stress the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
In addition 'Deferred Tax Assets' the Treasury forced the companies to write down and record these non-cash expenses making the companies appear bankrupted. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were no where near bankrupted.
Mr. Howard wrote below,
Quote: “Between the time Fannie and Freddie were put into conservatorship and the end of 2011, well over $300 billion in non-cash accounting expenses were recorded on their income statements. These non-cash expenses, most of which were discretionary, eliminated all of the Companies’ capital and forced them, together, to take $187 billion from Treasury. But because accelerated or exaggerated expenses cause losses that are only temporary, Fannie’s and Freddie’s non-cash losses began to reverse themselves in 2012. Coupled with profits resulting from a rebounding housing market, the reversal of these losses enabled both Companies to report in August 2012 sufficient second quarter income to not only pay their dividends to Treasury but also retain a total of $3.9 billion in capital. As soon as it became apparent that a large percentage of the non-cash accounting losses booked during the previous four years was about to come back into income, Treasury and FHFA entered into the Third Amendment to the PSPA. The Third Amendment substituted for the fixed dividend payment a requirement that all future earnings—including reversals of accounting-related expenses incurred earlier—be remitted to Treasury. From the time the Third Amendment took effect through the end of 2014, Fannie and Freddie paid Treasury $170 billion, $133 billion more than they would have owed absent the Amendment.” End of Quote
The United States was not obligated after 1968 to back 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.
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
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
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
FOFreddie, you were not a fool and certainly not a fool now. You were lied to. Treasury insinuated a lie, knowing all well the plan to take down our companies. Many people were hurt in a very bad way, life savings wiped out.
I appreciate you my friend.
May God richly bless you and your family.
Fannie Heyyyyy, as far as I am concerned any investor on our team is welcome to forward, please do. After posting I noticed a typo error maybe more than one, kindly correct it if forwarding.
I appreciate Barron, Mr. Tim Howard and everyone that has contributed to the fact-finding truth on this board. Thank you all.
Guildo, can you forward the below writing to the Congressman? I am not a resident of his state.
Congressman Warren Davidson,
I appreciate your concern in asking the Secretary of Treasury to address the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which has continued for over 15 years. I am not sure if you understand the history of the takeover of the companies and pray you will of your clemency hear me in a few words.
Before the take down of the companies Treasury Secretary Paulson was unaware that the FHFA had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told FHFA Director Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEO's and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship.
When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat.
The FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized.
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
The FHFA forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a contract with the United States Treasury by Senior Preferred Stock. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act passed by Congress is the supreme law of the land that governs the two companies.
When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the FHFA no emergency existed and the FHFA had no authority granted by Congress to take over the companies, no authority written in the Charter Act that gave the FHFA right to take down the companies.
Again, The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.
Charter Act: SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection no emergency existed.
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Treasury took it upon themselves and authorized a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity illegal and unconstitutional.
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
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 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.
Again, I stress the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
In addition 'Deferred Tax Assets' the Treasury forced the companies to write down and record these non-cash expenses making the companies appear bankrupted. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were no where near bankrupted.
Mr. Howard wrote below,
Quote: “Between the time Fannie and Freddie were put into conservatorship and the end of 2011, well over $300 billion in non-cash accounting expenses were recorded on their income statements. These non-cash expenses, most of which were discretionary, eliminated all of the Companies’ capital and forced them, together, to take $187 billion from Treasury. But because accelerated or exaggerated expenses cause losses that are only temporary, Fannie’s and Freddie’s non-cash losses began to reverse themselves in 2012. Coupled with profits resulting from a rebounding housing market, the reversal of these losses enabled both Companies to report in August 2012 sufficient second quarter income to not only pay their dividends to Treasury but also retain a total of $3.9 billion in capital. As soon as it became apparent that a large percentage of the non-cash accounting losses booked during the previous four years was about to come back into income, Treasury and FHFA entered into the Third Amendment to the PSPA. The Third Amendment substituted for the fixed dividend payment a requirement that all future earnings—including reversals of accounting-related expenses incurred earlier—be remitted to Treasury. From the time the Third Amendment took effect through the end of 2014, Fannie and Freddie paid Treasury $170 billion, $133 billion more than they would have owed absent the Amendment.” End of Quote
The United States was not obligated after 1968 to back 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.
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
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
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.” End of Quote… Link to conversation below.
AGAIN: The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Barron Quote: “They are only true if the illegal actions of Treasury and its subservient FHFA are not eventually overturned.”
Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.”
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171706295
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME
In my opinion Barron has the best approach, The Charter Act! Challenging the illegal contract SPSPA. somebody better hurry up and file before we run out of time!
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
Form 10K
Quote: Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation.” End of Quote
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS
The Treasury owns the whole of the companies. And could easily demand payment by placing the companies in receivership and there’s absolutely nothing we could do about it. And some how you think your JPS will be saved!
Your JPS is not protected with some kind of special immunity. Unless the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS the shareholders are history both common and JPS.
The Treasury wipes out the Shareholders and at the same time sells the companies in the open market as an IPO. The Treasury collects the entire value of the companies. And we get nothing.
READ IT !
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
At the start of the conservatorship, there were many (not all) JPS Holders calling for receivership, throwing the Common Shareholders under the bus! And this has continued until today. That plan backfired, the Net Worth Sweep took place, wiping out both common and preferred.
The ‘Mistake’ of the JPS Lawyers was filling lawsuits against the 3rd amendment Net Worth Sweep and this has failed.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Barron Quote: “They are only true if the illegal actions of Treasury and its subservient FHFA are not eventually overturned.”
Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.”
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171706295
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME
In my opinion Barron has the best approach, The Charter Act! Challenging the illegal contract SPSPA. somebody better hurry up and file before we run out of time!
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
You really have to admire these lawmakers, they come up with some great terminology. Net Worth Sweep, think about that for a minute. Sweeping all of your net worth. If the government can manage your company, and take all of your profits, it’s not your company any longer.
Please read what you wrote!
Quote: “Treasury must take a haircut of some kind on its senior prefs in order to ever get any value out of them. Whether that's a full writedown, a full conversion to common, or somewhere in between, Treasury will eventually realize they cannot recover a dollar in cash for every dollar in liquidation preference the senior prefs have.” End of Quote
Eventually realize?? Get any value??
My land man! the Treasury has swept the ENTIRE NET WORTH! Both common and JPS are wiped out history and both will see no value unless the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS… Your JPS are not safe at all in the capital stack.
The Treasury owns the whole of the companies. And could easily demand payment by placing the companies in receivership and there’s absolutely nothing we could do about it. And some how you think your JPS will be saved!
TODAY the LP has grown beyond the Net Worth of the company’s value! This means the JPS and the common stock both are wiped out unless the Treasury writes down the Liquidation Preference and cancels the SPS.
The Net Worth of the company is not enough to pay off the Treasury let alone pay the JPS and Common Shareholders.
And somehow the Treasury will gracefully take a so called haircut to preserve the JPS and wipeout the common? You are deceived if you think somehow the JPS will be saved.
If the FHFA and Treasury are determined to keep the companies in perpetual conservatorship pay the Shareholders fair market value compensation. Let us out of the prison. The Treasury has been paid in full, between the two companies over $301 billion has been sent to the Treasury. We all know the net worth sweep is theft from the shareholders, legalized stealing!
It’s not about the money for the Treasury owns the printing press with the power to create as much as they want.
Why are these people so determined to wipeout the Shareholders? Why does this have to continue beyond 15 years long years? This is wrong!
How many innocent people holding retirement accounts have died in the last 15 years?
Families suffering because of unelected bureaucrats behind the scene!
Retirement accounts wiped out!
NeoSunTzu, You are absolutely right, one month of tax revenue collected by the Treasury is more than the entire amount at $301 billion Fannie and Freddie sent Treasury.
Quote: “ Second, the federal government takes in more tax revenue each and every month than the additional amount swiped by the NWS and, in most months, the government takes in more tax revenue than the total thus far paid back ~ $301B.” End of Quote
The US Tax Revenue $4.6 Trillion per year divided by 12 calculates at approximate $383 billion per month,
The US Federal Tax Revenue consists of The Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Corporate Tax, Duties and Excise Taxes.
Link: https://www.usdebtclock.org/#
The prayer of relief Treasury declares Liquidation Preference paid in full and Senior Preferred Stock canceled. Turn the companies back to the Shareholders. $301 Billion has been collected by the Treasury. It’s the ethical thing to do. Therefore both common and JPS holders are made whole.
The Treasury’s Liquidation Preference increases dollar for dollar every time the company reports net income and none of the net income is applied toward paying down the SPS! SO WRONG! THE NET WORTH SWEEP never ended. The longer the Treasury continues to procrastinate on the release from conservatorship the LP of the Treasury grows larger and larger with not a dime towards paying off the SPS…
This calculates the Net Worth of the company is not enough to pay off the Treasury let alone pay the JPS and Common Shareholders.
And somehow the Treasury will gracefully take a so called haircut to preserve the JPS and wipeout the common??
The danger of the conservatorship continuing in time the Liquidation Preference continues to grow and the SPS remains outstanding. Money owed to the Treasury becomes much larger.
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
The Treasury’s Liquidation Preference increases dollar for dollar every time the company reports net income and none of the net income is applied toward paying down the SPS! THE NET WORTH SWEEP never ended. The longer the Treasury continues to procrastinate on the release from conservatorship the LP of the Treasury grows larger and larger with not a dime towards paying off the SPS…
This calculates the Net Worth of the company is not enough to pay off the Treasury let alone pay the JPS and Common Shareholders.
And somehow the Treasury will gracefully take a so called haircut to preserve the JPS and wipeout the common??
Treasury sweeping all the Net Worth.
The prayer of relief is for the Treasury write down the LP, cancel the SPS. More than enough monies above the 10 percent calculation sent to the Treasury can do this minus the NWS.
The report you posted is dated 2020!
TODAY the LP has grown beyond the Net Worth of the company’s value!
OLD NEWS!
We are all wiped out!
Better pray the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS.
familymang, gave you the calculation!
Quote: “ Today UST's Fannie LP is $185b, JPS LP is $19b. - Fannie is worth approx $175b today (17.5b net income x 10 P/E).” End of Quote
Treasury’s Liquidation Preference calculated value that he gave is more valuable RIGHT NOW than the calculated value of the entire business! Both JPS and Common are wiped out!
Unless the Treasury writes down the LP and cancels the SPS your JPS and my common stock are history.
Again, kindly explain to me why the Treasury would voluntarily take a so called haircut saving the JPS and cram down the common into oblivion??