they may shorts in cash in RL

He wants cheap shares , untill court has decided... drivers shares prices down... lmao

yeah it better at 1$

I am buying that why!

On Tuesday Freddie Mac announced a net loss of $354 million for the first quarter of the year. The loss was due mostly to how decreases in interest rates affect Freddie’s derivative holdings and not a weakening housing market. In fact, an accompanying statement from CEO Donald H. Layton confidently declared, “Freddie Mac’s first quarter business results continued to be strong, reflecting our transformation to be a more competitive company.” Fannie Mae, meanwhile, announced today quarterly profits of $1.1 billion. Of course, $919 million of that was snatched up by Treasury.

Indeed, both companies’ statements noted that the terms of the conservatorship, amended by the 2012 Net Worth Sweep that will whittle their capital to zero by 2018, make it inevitable that they will experience a negative net worth and have to draw from public funds.

This week’s earnings reports were eagerly anticipated. Many market watchers suspected the stage was set for a draw by Freddie or Fannie back in February when Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt warned that D-day was looming. Watt’s deliberate candor about his concerns over dwindling rainy day capital made news but he was merely summarizing financial reality. Of course, the GSEs’ 2015 net income was a far cry from the companies’ historic 2013 earnings, when Fannie and Freddie posted record profits following the reversals of off-balance sheet losses that the government forced them to write down in the wake of the Great Recession. But the GSE business model clearly remains very healthy – slight income and profit declines and market fluctuations happen to the best of companies. Just ask Apple.

Of course, what Apple has going for it is that it gets to keep its earnings. By doing so it has created an ample capital buffer – $233 billion in cash and securities – far beyond ample, in fact. Thus, even if iPhone sales slow, the company should be fine over the long term. It is remarkable how resilient companies can be when they are allowed to retain capital and function based on market principles.

http://investorsunite.org/fannie-freddie-capital-sank-closer-zero-first-quarter-planned/

"Conservatorship with no capital and facing a political regime change poses a real threat to our mortgage system," Stevens said. MBA has called for the creation of a single GSE security and for up-front risk sharing to increase competition and provide market access to lenders of all sizes. It also called for the common securitization platform (CSP) to ensure data standardization, fungibility, and objectiveness.

Director (Melvin) Watt responded, Stevens said, the single security is in sight, the CSP is being built although MBA must push aggressively to get it completed, and progress is being made on risk sharing to bring private capital into the market.

Progress has extended beyond the GSEs. MBA fought for a safe harbor in Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage (QA) rule and to align QA and the Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) rule, one without a downpayment requirement.

Pivoting toward the future, Stevens said that MBA's work is far from finished. While many calls for key policy actions are being met, many are moving at too slow a pace. With the major rules required under Dodd Frank implemented, MBA now needs to keep leading and pushing to refine them to give borrowers the opportunities they deserve.

QM, he said, has done a lot of good but falls short of being a long-term solution. The GSEs can purchase loans that are solidly underwritten but fail to meet the QM standard of 43 percent debt-to-income (DTI) ratios because of a QM "patch" that provides safe harbor for these loans. Without the parch and the permanent exemption for GNMA loans, credit would be much tighter.

But the patch only exists for as long as the GSE's remain in conservatorship or seven years, whichever comes first. When it expires or if GSE underwriting changes substantially "a whole segment of qualified potential borrowers will be frozen out of the market." The QM rule should not punt all credit decisions to two companies that aren't even regulated by the same agency, he said, and the rule should demand the same credit approval process for a borrower whether the loan is being sold to a GSE or a private investor, as long as all the other terms are the same.

He admitted that the industry did advocate for the patch to gain time to assess QM's impact, but said there are now too many "what ifs" that could impact the real estate finance system. What if a new regime at CFPB has a different view about the rule and the patch, or the next FHFA director comes with different ideas of the role scope, and size of the GSEs in the market, or the conservatorship ends?

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/05162016_mba_regulatory_issues.asp

MagneGas Corporation (NASDAQ:MNGA) to Report Quarterly Earnings: What’s in the Cards?

General operating expenses increased approximately $900,000 for the first quarter ending March 31, 2016 to $2.9 million from $2.0 million for the same period last year. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company had approximately $1 million of non-recurring operational and capital expenses related to the move to the new headquarters and various consulting contracts that expired in March of 2016.

The Company recently began an aggressive cost cutting campaign aimed at focusing operational expenses on major business opportunities as an initiative for 2016.

Stock’s Performance

MagneGas Corporation (NASDAQ:MNGA) shares traded during its most recent trading session in the range of $0.85 – $1.01. The stock has slipped -3.48% in the past week and plunged -10.70% in the last 4 weeks, historically the stock illustrate that its six months performance stands at -16.18% while its year to date performance is at -40.65%.

The stock ended previous trading session in the red zone in a volatile trading. The stock closed down -0.016 points or -1.60% at $0.956 with 1.03 million shares getting traded, post opening the session at $0.96.


http://www.thepointreview.com/magnegas-corporation-nasdaqmnga-to-report-quarterly-earnings-whats-in-the-cards/





You made 30% if you was short this ....easy money!

50cents coming with delist notice ! MNGA GL

Let the Sunshine of Disclosure Disinfect Fannie Mae Litigation

National Review - March 4, 2016 - March 8, 2016

By Saikrishna Prakash

In the coming days and weeks, federal judge Margaret Sweeney will rule on a motion to compel the federal government to disclose tens of thousands of documents sought by Fairholme Funds Inc. related to the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government’s attempt to shield these documents via a claim of executive privilege looks absurd, especially since the documents may reveal wrongdoing on the part of the Treasury Department. Let’s hope Judge Sweeney forces the government to turn those documents over.

The suit had its origins in 2008, when the federal government moved to prevent the collapse of the federally chartered enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgage loans from banks and bundle them into securities that are sold to investors. This is aimed at helping to keep markets liquid so that banks can make more home loans. That year’s Housing and Economic Recovery Act provided Fannie and Freddie with billions in public funds and placed them in conservatorship under the authority of the newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), but did not eliminate the interests that private shareholders had in Fannie and Freddie. In 2012, when the companies began generating profits again, Treasury Department officials negotiated what has become known as the Net Worth Sweep. The Net Worth Sweep diverts nearly all net income from both enterprises to the Treasury. Thus Fannie and Freddie have sent over $241 billion to the Treasury, leaving Fannie and Freddie shareholders out in the cold.http://investorsunite.org/let-the-sunshine-of-disclosure-disinfect-fannie-mae-litigation/

Gore & Obama Admin Lay Out Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Reform Strategy?

Advisors to Clinton, Gore and Obama Admin.’s Lay out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reform Strategy “for All Americans” – but, not really (all Americans) by Amanda Maher

In what some are considering a blow to the Obama Administration’s position on the “recap and release” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which is not to do so), an advisor to the administration released a report yesterday titled, “A Strategy to Promote Affordable Housing for All Americans by Recapitalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”. The report is co-authored by Dr. Robert Shapiro, a former Clinton administration official and current advisor to senior members of the Obama administration, and Dr. Elaine Kamarck, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and former advisor to Vice President Al Gore.

The plan lays out four key elements to the recap and release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/11/obama-fannie-mae/

She did comments on UFO its real or not If She becomes The President! Rather than talks about USA matters like borrowing money ,raising tax and eligal taking private property not a subject to talk about!

Attorneys John Yoo and Horace Cooper have an op-ed in Investors Business Daily, published just now, asking why the Obama Administration is hiding thousands of documents relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Can't be national security reasons, surely...

A clue might be found in the fact that shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have sued the U.S. government, contending that the federal government's takeover of the institutions in 2008, and a diversion of profits to the federal government in 2012, constituted an unconstitutional taking of property.


http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2016/4/26/federal-judge-slaps-obama-administration-coverup-attempt.html

Treasury’s Fannie and Freddie rip-off
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/treasurys-fannie-and-freddie-rip-off/2016/05/04/3fd6eb16-1158-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

Your Tuesday Evening Briefing: Paul Ryan, North Carolina, Equal Pay Day

1'''2'''3''''4'''5'''6'''7'''8. Unsealed documents show that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recovered quickly after their bailouts. That counters the picture the government painted in 2012, when it ordered the mortgage finance giants’ profits to be sent to the Treasury Department, saying they were in a death spiral and taxpayers needed protection against losses. The government’s take to date: $50 billion.''''

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/nytnow/your-tuesday-evening-briefing-paul-ryan-north-carolina-equal-pay-day.html?_r=0

earning report today ! any idea ?

Trump's Right: Paying Back the National Debt With 'Discounts' Is Already Official Policy

Well, now. These “very low rates” could not have anything to do with the fact that the Fed has vacuumed-up $3.5 trillion of Treasury debt and its close substitute in GSE securities since September 2008. Apparently, the law of supply and demand has been suspended until further notice — except for the fact that when Bernanke even hinted that the Fed might sell-down some of its grossly bloated balance sheet in April 2013 treasury yields erupted higher in the infamous taper tantrum.

The fact is, ultra-low rates on Uncle Sam’s mountainous debt have everything to do with central bank manipulation of interest rates; and “confidence” in Washington’s fiscal rectitude is but an empty platitude.

There has been a central bank Big Fat Thumb on the scales for nearly two decades, and it now includes the $1.7 trillion of treasury debt owned by the People’s Bank of China (including its off-shore accounts), the $1.2 trillion owned by the BOJ and the nearly $7 trillion owned by central banks and their affiliates as a whole.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/DavidStockman/Donald-Trump-National-Debt-Economy-Default/2016/05/10/id/728125/

Forget Flipping Houses—These Retail Investors Flip Mortgages “While titles and deeds establish property ownership, notes — the financial agreements between lenders and home buyers — set the terms by which a borrower will pay for the home. Financial institutions have long passed them back and forth as they rebalance their portfolios. But the trade in delinquent notes has exploded in the post-financial-crisis world. As government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have struggled with the legacies of the housing bust, they’ve sold billions of dollars’ of delinquent notes to big institutional investors, who resell them in turn.” (MarketWatch)

http://nreionline.com/nrei-wire/10-must-reads-cre-industry-today-april-12-2016

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/forget-flipping-houses-these-investors-flip-mortgages-2016-04-11

Why it matters: This month we discuss two interesting court cases involving the False Claims Act (FCA). On April 19, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, a case involving the issues of implied certification of compliance and legal falsity in an FCA context. This was the only FCA case as to which the Supreme Court granted certiorari this term, and the Supreme Court's decision will resolve a multicircuit split on these issues. We review the oral argument here. In addition, we discuss a recent Ninth Circuit decision addressing the question of whether the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (a.k.a. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively) constitute "federal instrumentalities" for purposes of the FCA. Short answer: They don't. Last, the DOJ announced a couple of significant FCA resolutions in connection with FHA-insured mortgage loans and sleep apnea masks—read on for a recap.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/corporate-investigations-white-collar-79193/

Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) are higher for the second straight session following unsealed documents that some government officials new the company would be profitable before the decision to sweep all of the two companies profits.

Documents showed that Ex-Fannie Mae CFO, Susan McFarlan, told Treasury officials on August 9th, 2012, days before the change to the bailout terms, that it would be profitable for the foreseeable future. She also said that at some point in the not-so-distant future factors might exist whereby the allowance on the deferred tax asset would be released.

Investors of the preferred and common stock have sued the government, claiming some of these profits belong to shareholders.

FMCC is up 14.8% and FNMA is up 12.3%, after gaining 29% and 35%, respectively, on Tuesday.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Hedge+Funds/Fannie+Mae+(FNMA),+Freddie+Mac+(FMCC)+Gain+for+Second+Session+on+Hope+Trade/11498528.html

A decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday could have big implications for a Delaware case where plaintiffs are arguing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Delaware corporations and therefore are subject to state, not federal law.

Because Delaware law doesn't allow for the net worth sweep of Fannie and Freddie profits, if the GSEs are ruled to be private companies, that profit sweep would be illegal. The 9th Circuit seems to be saying just that in a decision that upheld a district court finding.

"The district court properly held that a claim presented to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is not presented to an 'officer, employee or agent' of the United States. And that’s because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies, albeit companies sponsored or chartered by the federal government," the ruling from the 9th Circuit stated.

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/36442-fanniegate-9th-circuit-rules-that-fannie-and-freddie-are-private-companies

$2 FNMA mark

2$ is coming http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a865201-1879-4a53-87c7-8703d6ee3a6b

It's mean ReCap coming!

Spotlight on the False Claims Act - 6 May, 2016

USA May 6 2016
Why it matters: This month we discuss two interesting court cases involving the False Claims Act (FCA). On April 19, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, a case involving the issues of implied certification of compliance and legal falsity in an FCA context. This was the only FCA case as to which the Supreme Court granted certiorari this term, and the Supreme Court's decision will resolve a multicircuit split on these issues. We review the oral argument here. In addition, we discuss a recent Ninth Circuit decision addressing the question of whether the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (a.k.a. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively) constitute "federal instrumentalities" for purposes of the FCA. Short answer: They don't. Last, the DOJ announced a couple of significant FCA resolutions in connection with FHA-insured mortgage loans and sleep apnea masks—read on for a recap.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a865201-1879-4a53-87c7-8703d6ee3a6b

MJNA Security Details
Share Structure
Market Value1 $157,382,402 a/o May 04, 2016
Authorized Shares 5,000,000,000 a/o Dec 31, 2015
Outstanding Shares 2,866,710,414 a/o Dec 31, 2015
-Restricted Not Available
-Unrestricted Not Available
Held at DTC Not Available
Float 411,045,323 a/o Mar 31, 2013
Par Value 0.001

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MJNA/profile

yeah , A/S is 5 bils shares ....you should be very careful !

Hope I can collect all cheap shares before Judges decisions! Good work ....thank you ! If some one or Institutions brings it down to 1.50$ or 1$ ....my lottery shares look more beautiful! lol

FNMA active board #court case#http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/11/fannie-mae-civil-rights-advocates-urge-obama-to-release/

collecting cheap FnF shares! Iol

Leading Civil Rights Advocates Urge Obama To “Recap And Release,” While Stegman Stands Firm by Amanda Maher

It’s becoming increasingly clear that housing finance reform isn’t going to happen any time soon. With the U.S. Treasury sweeping all of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits, investors are growing inpatient. With FHFA making piecemeal, and often unilateral, changes, housing advocates are growing inpatient.

Last week, Obama advisor Michael Stegman told a group of mortgage bankers that the administration plans to keep GSEs under government conservatorship instead of releasing and recapitalizing as investors and housing advocates alike have urged.

“The Obama administration wants to transition to a better system, one that provides broad access to housing supported by a sound and robust mortgage market, without exposing taxpayers to another rescue,” wrote Antonio Wise, advisor to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, at the time.

In response, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) wrote a letter to President Obama on Thursday expressing their deep concern for the lack of reform to date, and urging, instead, for the “recap and release” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/11/fannie-mae-civil-rights-advocates-urge-obama-to-release/

News: http://m.nreionline.com/multifamily/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-raise-eyebrows-dc

have you see the Link? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sen-bob-corker-says-investors-should-short-fannie-and-freddie-2015-10-07

Today, attorneys presented oral arguments in the appeal of U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth’s September 2014 dismissal of investors’ claims that the Sweep violated the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. Lamberth threw out the suit on the grounds that HERA gave the government wide discretion in its role as conservator of Fannie and Freddie. What has become increasingly evident is the absurdity of thinking that the statute’s authority was so broad as to allow the government to do the opposite of what the law was enacted to accomplish – which is what the government seems to be arguing.

“We are confident that the government’s attempt to nationalize and loot the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not withstand judicial scrutiny,” said David H. Thompson, managing partner at Cooper & Kirk, who is among the attorneys who presented oral arguments today before a three-judge panel.

Earlier this week, documents unsealed in another shareholder suit over the Sweep exposed the fact that a central rationale put forward by the Government – that the Sweep was imperative to protect taxpayers from additional losses – is pure fiction. In fact, those documents show that government officials were well aware of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were about to return to robust profitability on the eve of the Sweep.

“The documents unsealed this week in the Court of Federal Claims contradict government testimony that the Third Amendment Sweep of 100% of the profits of the GSEs was a necessary response to the companies imminent ‘death spiral,’” said Investors Unite Executive Director Tim Pagliara.“The Government’s breath taking level of greed is a clear violation of law and an unconstitutional taking of private property.”http://investorsunite.org/governments-case-sweep-shaky-ground-beyond-crumbling-wall-secrecy/

Let start from begin : "How Fannie met Freddie: The True Hollywood Story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.:"

The birth of Fannie Mae came at a time that was riddled with bank failures. During the 1930s bank after bank failed on bad loans and foreclosures skyrocketed. As documented by painful stories of people losing their homes during the Great Depression, this was the climate that bred Fannie Mae. The essence of Fannie Mae was to provide a larger incentive for homeownership. Keep in mind that in 1940 the homeownership rate was 44 percent. Measure that up with the peak of 69 percent in 2004.
As it turned out, the idea of a longer term fixed mortgage took hold and Fannie Mae served its purpose of providing liquidity for the next 30 long years. In fact, Fannie Mae held monopoly status on the secondary mortgage market all the way up until 1968. In 1968 Fannie Mae was converted into a private corporation. This is where I think much confusion lies in whether these are government agencies or private enterprises. Well, for 30 long years Fannie Mae was a government agency.
Fannie Mae’s primary method of making money is by charging a guarantee fee on loans it securitizes into MBS bonds. Investors assume that Fannie Mae takes on the risk and they get to keep this fee. The underlying assumption, at least from investors in these bonds, is that the principal and interest on the mortgages will be paid regardless of whether the actual homeowner pays.
In 1970 to expand the secondary mortgage market and end Fannie Mae’s monopoly on the secondary mortgage market, Congress chartered Freddie Mac as a private corporation to provide competition. Freddie Mac’s primary revenue stream and business model is nearly identical to that of Fannie Mae. Both GSE’s are only allowed to purchase conforming loans which is a reason why the current legislation battle and lifting of caps has been such a big issue over the past few years. During the boom, that is where other institutions jumped in with non-conforming loans such as Pay Option ARMs and jumbo loans that did not find a market and created a speculative fever. In fact, during the past decade Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started losing a significant share of the mortgage market.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/how-fannie-met-freddie-the-true-hollywood-story-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

It is true the GSEs, as a result of their indispensable role in buying up and packaging loans for resale to create liquidity, were major players in the mortgage market. However, this actually turned out to be a good thing. On a blended basis, serious delinquencies in the market overall were just over six percent of the country’s mortgages at the time. In essence, it was the banks that underwrote mortgages they never should have been offered in the first place. That is why they were fined by the Justice Department.

In his commentary of the movie, Wallison explains how misguided actions by Congress and Administrations beginning in the 1990s muddled the missions of Fannie and Freddie. On this, there is some common ground in our perspectives. As I warned in my 2001 paper, “Housing in the New Millennium: A Home Without Equity Is Just a Rental with Debt,” and also pointed out in a recent paper, the savings and loans crisis of the late 1980s prompted the creation of a split-regulatory framework and dual mission for the GSEs. The situation was compounded when international regulatory changes brought more capital and more leveraged risk into the mortgage marketplace through changes in treatment of private label mortgage-backed securities. By 2007, a murky mission for the GSEs and their exposure to private-market arbitrage did indeed put them on unsteady footing. However, the conclusion one should draw from this chain of events is that Fannie and Freddie reflected a breakdown in the system but did not cause the breakdown. This, by the way, was the conclusion of the National Commission on Causes of Financial and Economic Crisis, on which Wallison served. “We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis,” the majority of bipartisan commissioners wrote. Granted, Wallison dissented so he deserves some credit for consistency. However, subsequent developments raise new concerns that should cause anyone to rethink what to do going forward.

The Big Short and the Bigger Myth About Fannie and Freddie

http://www.insidesources.com/the-big-short-and-the-bigger-myth-about-fannie-and-freddie/

The two federally chartered but privately owned GSEs, which guarantee 80 percent of American mortgages, were created because Washington wanted to engineer -- what could go wrong? -- more homeownership than market forces would produce. What could go wrong did, and in 2008 the two GSEs floundered. In September 2008, the government rescued them with $187.5 billion and placed them in conservatorship, which is supposed to be temporary and rehabilitative. A conserved entity should be returned to normal business in private ownership.

Fannie and Freddie have recuperated profitably. They also have been nationalized.

The government’s original rescue terms were for Fannie and Freddie to pay a stiff dividend on the bailout funds -- 10 percent, amounting to $4.7 billion per quarter. Then, however, the Treasury Department was told of the GSEs’ strong recoveries. According to documents recently unsealed, on Aug. 9, 2012, Treasury was told that the GSEs’ prospects were for strong profitability, requiring no further government assistance. Eight days later, Treasury negotiated with the GSEs’ conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), for an astounding revision (called “the third amendment”) of policy: Instead of the agreed-upon dividend, and already enjoying a right to 80 percent of the GSEs’ profits, the government would get 100 percent forever, far exceeding the size of the original bailout.

So, the government (Treasury) negotiated with itself (FHFA) to achieve a windfall for itself. And the conservator abandoned its duty to safeguard the assets of the entities in conservatorship.
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/05/03/misadventures-fannie-and-freddie/83876844/

Fannie and Freddie shares, which had been trading at about $1.50, started trading as high as $3 based on rumors that the documents revealed inconsistencies in government officials’ statements. The hedge funds are asking for the return of as much as $100 billion in profits and an end to the Treasury-imposed profit sweep. In her comments, Sweeney has shown sympathy with their argument that the government can’t hold them indefinitely in a legal limbo in which they have no claims to assets of the company they ostensibly own.

When these cases were filed, many legal observers thought they were a long shot, even frivolous. But from their procedural rulings and comments from the bench, said David Zaring, a professor of legal studies at the Wharton School of Business, both judges have indicated they are at least open to the plaintiffs’ legal theories and willing to hold the government accountable for what it did during the financial crisis.

“I think people’s views have changed,” Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said of the AIG case. Greenberg’s lawyers, he said, “were able to present evidence and persuade the judge that there were some serious issues here. It’s possible the judge could rule in their favor in some way.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/we-bailed-you-out-and-now-you-want-what/2015/06/05/95ba1be0-0a27-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

The Unconstitutional Takeover of Fannie and Freddie

http://www.redstate.com/tex_whitley/2013/12/05/the-unconstitutional-takeover-of-fannie-and-freddie/

Freddie and Fannie: Unconstitutional

Bailouts of the failing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are not only unwarranted and unwise – but the existence of both these quasi-government/private organizations is unconstitutional from the very beginning.

When looking at the constitutionality of government programs, it’s not necessary to be a law student, or an “expert” of any kind. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in plain English – so that ordinary people would be able to understand the law…that governs the government.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/07/15/freddie-and-fannie-unconstitutional/

Plaintiffs allege that prior to the 2008 takeover, the government adjusted the companies’ lending standards and capital restraints to encourage the companies to purchase a greater number of risky subprime securities. While this ultimately led to significant weaknesses in the companies’ portfolios, Plaintiffs contend that the companies nonetheless remained adequately capitalized and financially sound, and did not need the conservatorships. According to Plaintiffs, the government improperly bullied the companies’ boards into acquiescing in the takeover.

Plaintiffs also claim that the government took control of the mortgage companies not because of their financial condition, but in order to pump liquidity into the nation’s mortgage market and to force the companies to hold the nation’s toxic debt. They also claim that the government destroyed shareholder value through stock agreements through which the Treasury Department would receive from each mortgage company: $1 billion in senior preferred stock, preferences for the senior preferred stock, warrants to acquire 79.9% of each company’s common stock for $0.00001 per share, and 100% of the companies’ quarterly profits, starting January 2013.

Plaintiffs contend that the government takeover was, in fact, “beneficial to the economic welfare of the nation.” However, they claim that the government’s public policy goals were not sufficient grounds to divest the companies’ shareholders of their shareholder rights or render their stock worthless. Thus, the suit claims, the takeover was a misappropriation of private property in violation of the Constitution’s due process and takings clauses.

http://blogs.orrick.com/securities-litigation/2013/06/18/fannie-and-freddie-shareholders-to-us-2008-government-takeover-of-mortgage-giants-good-for-the-country-not-so-much-for-us/