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.
Quote:” has been so STATED argued to court and court and court and no court has come within a mile of agreeing” End of Quote
Will you kindly answer the below question? Thank you
Quote: “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 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
With Barron’s forthcoming Lawsuit it doesn’t matter what Ackman has said.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Not paying attention:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171376046
Ha,
"Why in the world" would you WANT to convert to commons, if you think they are worthless?”
Chessmaster, I don’t think anyone answered your question.
Anyone?
Quote: “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 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? Its all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Barron asked,
(SPSPA) link provided below in reference to his statement.
Quote: “The warrants, and the liquidation preference are defined as an “Initial commitment fee” an illegal charge attached to the purchase of 1000 shares of equity securities by an agency of the United States Government to access the 200 billion commitment. This charge is expressly forbidden by the Charter Act.” End of Quote
Quote: “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 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? Its all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
September 7, 2008, between the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (“Purchaser”) and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
PURCHASE OF SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT;
Quote: “FEES 3.1. Initial Commitment Fee. In consideration of the Commitment, and for no additional consideration, on the Effective Date (or as soon thereafter as is practicable) Seller shall sell and issue to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller, (a) one million (1,000,000) shares of Senior Preferred Stock, with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share ($1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) liquidation preference in the aggregate), and (b) the Warrant. 3.2. Periodic Commitment Fee. (a) Commencing March 31, 2010, Seller shall pay to Purchaser quarterly, on the last day of March, June, September and December of each calendar year (each a “Periodic Fee Date”), a periodic commitment fee (the “Periodic Commitment Fee”). The Periodic Commitment Fee shall accrue from January 1, 2010.” End of Quote. Page 5-6
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.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
Edited, hope this meets guidelines.
This whole charade reminds me of the abused concubine mentioned in the closing out of the book of judges. In type the GSEs were used and abused by the Treasury with the Fed. Only game in town, ha. They ran it through!
Evidence
The Toxic Waste seems to have been funneled through Fannie 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: "In secondary mortgage markets, securitization of mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has fallen in recent months, and gross issuance of GSE-backed MBS has lately just out paced maturing issues so that levels outstanding have only inched up since the summer." End of Quote
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
Barron,
Per discussion of the emergency funding,
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171545520
If the Treasury claims this as cause for conservatorship all the dirt leading up to and into the take down of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be exposed.
(If) Treasury claims the SPSPA on subsection (g).
Under this subsection the Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized. And the Treasury (as defendants) would open the door for the Plaintiffs to bring the evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
NOT ONLY THE EVIDENCE OF EXCEEDING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS.
ALSO, ALL THE DIRT LEADING UP TO AND THE TAKE DOWN OF THE ENTERPRISES.
I recommend incorporating the below information in the presentation to the Jury.
The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Premeditated Eaton Park
Counterfeiting
The Take Down
Deferred Tax Assets
Paulson, statement to UNITED STATES SENATE
(GSEs remain adequately capitalized)
The subject of the 'Deferred Tax Assets' should be explained in simplicity, so simple that a Juror with no knowledge of finance could easily understand.
COUNTERFEITING
INFORMATION FROM: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission web site.
The counterfeiting of U.S. assets. Theft from pension funds, State employee retirement accounts, and U.S. Citizens. The counterfeiting of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Where are our regulators and who are they protecting?
Quote: “Without the counterfeiting of the GSEs shares and the concerted effort to manipulate the stock prices, the GSEs potential to raise significant capital would have been much greater and it is unlikely that the U.S. Taxpayers would be the conservators of these companies at this time. This report shows why this is true and that illegal sellers of the shares of the two GSEs made a vast sum of money taking down these companies to the detriment of the U.S. Citizens. This report names who the key market participants are in the trading of the GSEs.” End of Quote.
Link: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf#:~:text=Fannie%20Mae%20and%20Freddie%20Mac%20are%20publicly%20traded,was%20occurring%20in%20the%20trading%20of%20the%20GSEs
THE TAKE DOWN
The Market-Makers Naked Short of Fannie Mae stock into oblivion, created the sense the company was bankrupt too big to fail and would destroy the U.S. Economy if something was not done. Afterwards, forced the company into a takeover (nationalization) making the company write off the deferred tax assets creating a huge loss to further the appearance the company to be bankrupt in an attempt to never ever allow Fannie Mae to return to profitability ever.
EVIDENCE
Mr. Howard Quote, “Convincing evidence exists that the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were planned well in advance, and that they were intended to remove the companies permanently from private ownership.” End of Quote
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
Treasury, however, lacked authority to put the two companies into conservatorship; only the new regulator, FHFA, could do that. And Treasury had kept neither the old OFHEO nor the new FHFA apprised of its nationalization intentions. 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 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’ CEOs 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. This fact has been stated in the Washington Federal Lawsuit filed against the government.
Page 30-31 Twelve Conditions
Link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUYhg0cYUOTbkZYVVJkaGtoS1E/edit?resourcekey=0-gU6I5hW3ndG5E3uY2VEyGA
Deferred Tax Assets
The deferred tax assets, Treasury forced the companies to write down and record these non-cash expenses making the companies appear bankrupted. Keep in mind deferred tax ‘ASSETS’...
Mr. Howard
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
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008
STATEMENT OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Quote: “Fannie and Freddie play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Our proposal was not prompted by any sudden deterioration in conditions at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. OFHEO has reaffirmed that both GSEs remain adequately capitalized.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed capital backstop. If either of these authorities is used, it would be done so only at Treasury's discretion, under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury and the GSE.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises. Our plan addresses current market challenges by ensuring, on a temporary basis, access to both liquidity and capital, while also ensuring that the GSEs can fulfill their mission--a mission that remains critical to homeowners and homebuyers across the country, especially during this housing correction.” End of Quote Page 7
Link: https://ypfsresourcelibrary.blob.core.windows.net/fcic/YPFS/Senate-110-1008_2008.pdf
I encourage this board, Barron is in the process of filing suit, we should do what we can to help. Best Regards
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
As Barron said, “The key to unwinding this whole charade is to focus on the appropriations acts, and debt clause of the 14th amendment. We have to use the violations of charter act, FHE act, and FSAB to change the focus of the conversation to the acts of Treasury.”
Thank you, Guido,
Quote: "The SPSPA is NOT the law." End of Quote
The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Quote: “FHFA/UST used subsection (g)” End of Quote.
That's great if the Treasury claims the SPSPA on subsection (g).
Under this subsection the Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized. And the Treasury (as defendants) would open the door for the Plaintiffs to bring the evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
The FHFA did not have Congressional Approval to enter into contract with Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
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 Charter Act the Law of the Land.
SUBSECTION
(g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.—
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE.—
EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The JPS Lawyers should put the Charter Act in their pipe and smoke it !
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
Congressional Budget Office
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
The Congressional Budget Office publication states, “Federal Government effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
The Enterprises have been Nationalized by the Government according to the CBO: The liabilities have not been added to the National Debt nor have the Shareholders been compensated by U.S. Law of the 5th Amendment.
Congressional Budget Office
From: Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2023
Page 1, Foot Note 1.
Quote: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in federal conservatorship since September 2008. CBO treats the two GSEs as government entities in its budget estimates because, under the terms of the conservatorships, the federal government retains operational control and effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For more discussion, see Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Recapitalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Through Administrative Actions (August 2020), www.cbo.gov/publication/56496; and Congressional Budget Office, The Effects of Increasing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Capital (October 2016), www.cbo.gov/ publication/52089” End of Quote
Link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58031-Federal-Credit-Programs.pdf
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c)
Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
No wonder the JPS Lawyers are losing in every court case. These Lawyers have been wrestling in court over an illegal contract. STUPID
The Individuals and Institutions that paid these Lawyers should demand a refund.
The FHFA did not have Congressional Approval to enter into contract with Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA. GET IT ??
By Public Law the whole contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
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).
Quote: “ The commitment fee was never assessed nor collected.
They knew it's barred in the Charter.” end of Quote
Where did the billions sent to treasury go ??
“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.”
Our Friend Barron is in the process of filing suit. We should do what we can to help. Best Regards
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171376046
FOFreddie
Quote:” GWB pushed for the enactment of HERA which gave the GWB Admin the authority to put the GSEs into Conservatorship as they had predicted in March.” End of Quote
Yes, HERA gave the authority to place the GSEs into conservatorship: But not under the ‘Terms of The SPSPA.’
By Public Law the whole contract is illegal. No court case did any lawyer mention the Charter Act, the Treasury in violation of the Charter Act, and the Contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises?
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
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal. In which case did any lawyer mention the Charter Act, the Treasury in violation of the Charter Act, and the Contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises?
These JPS lawyers have made it about lost dividends, cram-down, and SPS conversion.
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).
Quote: “So, I’m not gonna talk about private conversations,” she replied. “But what I will say is I made it very clear as publicly as humanly possible that I didn’t think that he should be reconfirmed as chair of the Fed. And I think he’s doing a really terrible job.”
Tapper asked the senator if she thinks the U.S. is headed for a recession.
“I think that that is where Jerome Powell is trying to drive it,” Warren responded.
“You think he’s purposely trying to drive it to a recession?” said Tapper, taken aback.
“Well, what he’s trying to do is get two million people laid off,” she answered. “And one of the things that we need to understand, he wants to raise the unemployment rate by more than a point within a single 12-month period. We have done that before in this country. In fact, we have done it 12 times before. And out of all 12 times. How many times has it resulted in a recession? The answer is 12.”
She finished her response by calling Powell “a dangerous man to have in this job.” End of Quote
Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trying-to-get-two-million-people-laid-off-elizabeth-warren-calls-for-jerome-powell-s-ouster-for-trying-to-cause-a-recession/ar-AA18Xvbm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=93ef22259fe94709a1cdbabf322ebfd5&ei=19
Senator Hagerty and Secretary Yellen
Discussion of blanket insurance guarantees of all deposits above the $250 Thousand FDIC: Requires Congressional Approval. It seems the Treasury, Federal Reserve and the Biden Administration were definitely planning for it. Senator Hagerty asks the all-important question,
Are you going to bypass Congress?
No different than the FHFA bypassing Congressional Approval entering into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars). The difference back then was,
'No one asked the question.'
If the Lawyers would focus on the Charter Act and get off the lost dividends, cram-down, and SPS Conversion.
Our friend Robert posted the senate subcommittee discussion:
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171513548
How to win with the Charter Act
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
Yes, the powers that be think they can create money freely give it out without Congressional Approval.
Same as FHFA 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). Do it anyway.
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
The Treasury is in violation of the 14th amendment.
"Due Process": This refers to basic rights for citizens whenever the government attempts to place burdens on the person or their private property.
Other constitutional laws: The 14th amendment also covers issues like public debt, and various other constitutional law concepts.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Congressional Budget Office
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
The Congressional Budget Office publication states, “Federal Government effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
The Enterprises have been Nationalized by the Government according to the CBO: The liabilities have not been added to the National Debt nor have the Shareholders been compensated by U.S. Law of the 5th Amendment.
Congressional Budget Office
From: Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2023
Page 1, Foot Note 1.
Quote: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in federal conservatorship since September 2008. CBO treats the two GSEs as government entities in its budget estimates because, under the terms of the conservatorships, the federal government retains operational control and effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For more discussion, see Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Recapitalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Through Administrative Actions (August 2020), www.cbo.gov/publication/56496; and Congressional Budget Office, The Effects of Increasing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Capital (October 2016), www.cbo.gov/ publication/52089” End of Quote
Link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58031-Federal-Credit-Programs.pdf
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c)
Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Instead of these Lawyers focusing on lost dividends and losing every lawsuit, the attention should be on Treasury violations of the Charter Act.
Again,
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c)
Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
More violations of the Charter Act,
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
The United States Congress did not give to Acting Director Edward DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by conservatorship into perpetuity, by Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA. The United States Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting into HERA to do whatever the FHFA feels is in its best interests.
Prior Approval:
THE LAW
‘‘SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.“
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall require each enterprise to obtain the approval of the Director for any product of the enter- prise before initially offering the product.
‘‘(b) STANDARD FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) in the case of a product of the Federal National Mort- gage Association, the product is authorized under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 302(b) or section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b), 1719);
‘‘(4) the product is consistent with the safety and soundness of the enterprise or the mortgage finance system.
‘‘(c) PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) SUBMISSION OF REQUEST.—An enterprise shall submit to the Director a written request for approval of a product that describes the product in such form as prescribed by order or regulation of the Director.
‘‘(2) REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.—Immediately upon receipt of a request for approval of a product, as required under paragraph (1), the Director shall publish notice of such request and of the period for public comment pursuant to paragraph (3) regarding the product, and a description of the product proposed by the request. The Director shall give interested parties the opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed product.
‘‘(3) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.—During the 30-day period beginning on the date of publication pursuant to paragraph (2) of a request for approval of a product, the Director shall receive public comments regarding the proposed product.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Instead of expending energy on Calabria lets help Barron develop his lawsuit...
Quote: “I am laying the groundwork for just such a claim focusing on the Charter Act and SPSA, bringing together the MQD, Separation of Powers structural violation, violations of the Charter Act, HERA, GAO act and CFO act. All of these violations by Treasury result in violations of the 14th amendment and of course the 5th amendment.” End of Quote.
Quote: “In no way does any of the SPSPA agreement language square with the charter act prohibition of a fee by treasury or any other agency or department of the Gov. In no way is the liquidation preference “equity”. It is an illegal commitment fee.” End of Quote.
Again,
I am asking the board,
Question, am I reading this correct?
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprise.
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
Barron,
Question, am I reading this correct?
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprise.
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
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c)
Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
More violations of the Charter Act,
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
The United States Congress did not give to Acting Director Edward DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by conservatorship into perpetuity, by Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA. The United States Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting into HERA to do whatever the FHFA feels is in its best interests.
Prior Approval:
THE LAW
‘‘SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.“
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall require each enterprise to obtain the approval of the Director for any product of the enter- prise before initially offering the product.
‘‘(b) STANDARD FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) in the case of a product of the Federal National Mort- gage Association, the product is authorized under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 302(b) or section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b), 1719);
‘‘(4) the product is consistent with the safety and soundness of the enterprise or the mortgage finance system.
‘‘(c) PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) SUBMISSION OF REQUEST.—An enterprise shall submit to the Director a written request for approval of a product that describes the product in such form as prescribed by order or regulation of the Director.
‘‘(2) REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.—Immediately upon receipt of a request for approval of a product, as required under paragraph (1), the Director shall publish notice of such request and of the period for public comment pursuant to paragraph (3) regarding the product, and a description of the product proposed by the request. The Director shall give interested parties the opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed product.
‘‘(3) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.—During the 30-day period beginning on the date of publication pursuant to paragraph (2) of a request for approval of a product, the Director shall receive public comments regarding the proposed product.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(e)
Quote: “The corporation shall insert appropriate language in all of its obligations issued under this subsection clearly indicating that such obli-gations, together with the interest thereon, are not guaranteed by the United States and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or of any agency or instrumentality thereof other than the corporation.” End of Quote
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052219000385/fanniemaecharteractex31.htm
Privately owned corporation contractor for the U.S. Gov. to provide liquidity in the secondary mortgage market and Mr. Layton seems to think Fannie and Freddie shouldn't make money for the Shareholders. Mr. Layton was an appointed CEO of Freddie Mac by the FHFA. (Appointed, get it?).
Mr. Layton, wrote in his article, “The main privilege so exploited was the “implied guarantee,” …
We all understand the argument “implied"...
Link: https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/current-gse-guarantee-fees-are-too-low-to-be-consistent-with-regulatory-capital-does-this-mean-a-large-increase-is-coming
From our friend Donotunderstand.
Quote: “an implicit guarantee is worth the paper it is not written on.” End of Quote
Quote: “Then it went private with no statement on guarantee but with its legacy (Guarantee) and huge monster size - people assumed it was guaranteed. The so called Implicit guarantee.
Note - as a broker-advisor - when I sold FNMA paper to clients it was required that I note that it did not have a guarantee from the GOV or even an executive branch guarantee (which is less than Treasury) . It did have a super private sector rating agency rating !!” End of Quote
From Mind the Gap
comments section Mr. Howard
Quote: “Layton also unhelpfully repeats the fiction that “It took nearly $200 billion of taxpayer money to bail them out.” No. That “nearly $200 billion” was paper losses put on the companies’ books by FHFA between June of 2008 and December of 2011, virtually all of which was subsequently reversed, at which point FHFA and Treasury agreed to a net worth sweep that returned all of that money, and $150 billion more, to the “taxpayer,” making this not a bailout by the government but a huge moneymaker for it.” End of Quote.
Link: https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2022/08/08/mind-the-gap/
Again,
Does not guarantee, DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY…
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.
Above Information from: Fannie Mae form 10K Dec 31, 2007
part I, page 1, item 1.
The United States Government’s obligation started when former Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson ‘Nationalized’ both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2007/form10k_022708.pdf
Championed CRTs
Cost Fannie and Freddie far more in interest payments
Quote: “Layton was the CEO of Freddie Mac from May 2012 until June 2019, where he championed the development of Credit Risk Transfers, one of the most significant reforms to the housing finance system in decades.” End of Quote
Link: bottom of the page- https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/current-gse-guarantee-fees-are-too-low-to-be-consistent-with-regulatory-capital-does-this-mean-a-large-increase-is-coming
From Mind the Gap
comments section Mr. Howard
Quote:” Layton- "and also claims that Fannie and Freddie were “fixed” while he was caretaker CEO of Freddie by getting them out of the portfolio business and getting them to issue credit-risk transfer securities (whatever you think about their portfolio businesses, they were duration-matched at the time of the mortgage meltdown and making huge amounts of money that offset some of their credit losses, and Layton doesn’t seem to have noticed that with home prices flat to falling the spreads on existing CRTs have soared and the issuance of new CRTs has ceased, making clear what should have been obvious without these developments—investors buy CRTs when they have little chance of transferring credit losses and back away from them when they’re most needed by the issuers, so that they cost Fannie and Freddie far more in interest payments than the companies can ever hope to see in loss reimbursements).” End of Quote
Link: https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2022/08/08/mind-the-gap/
Director Calabria didn't take advantage of Section 4 of the Contract. In addition, the NWS was never stopped by sweeping the net worth increasing the liquidation preference dollar for dollar.
Section 4, of the senior preferred stock certificate in essence allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full. The mechanism is there as clear as day in the stock certificates and the repurchase option set out is fully consistent with the view that the government advances were, if possible, only a short-term backstop that Fannie and Freddie could refinance at any time with private capital.
does not guarantee, DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY…
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.
Above Information from: Fannie Mae form 10K Dec 31, 2007
part I, page 1, item 1.
The United States Government’s obligation started when former Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson ‘Nationalized’ both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2007/form10k_022708.pdf
Quote:” My legal thesis is concerned with violations of Financial Soundness Act of 1992 and the Charter Act as you have been correctly pointing out for years.”End of Quote
It’s the truth, what has the JPS lawyers done? Absolutely nothing, Carlos has be pointing it out for years the violation of the Charter Act and he is right. Some of the stuff he has posted is absolutely nonsense, but you will have to admit the violation of the Charter Act is spot on!
Quote: “Yes they are all asking for LP to go away via conversion to common or writedown.” End of Quote
All asking for??
I don’t remember Thompson asking for a LP conversion to common. I’m not saying he didn’t.
This is what he said…
SCOTUS Quote:
“MR. THOMPSON: Number 1, we're seeking prospective relief so that in your hypothetical the Senate confirmed director would be enjoined from making any future sweep dividend, approving any future sweep dividend payment; and, number 2, we're asking to go back and have the overpayments, over and above the $18.9 billion, to be treated as a pay down of principal. And that would essentially deem the government paid back.
We calculate
those overpayments to be 124 billion dollars,
and each one of those overpayments was an
implementation of the Net Worth Sweep.
So, if there had not been a Net Worth
Sweep, there would be 124 billion dollars of
capital on the balance sheet today.
And if you do the math, the government's been paid back in toto plus 10 percent interest and there's 29.5 billion dollars left over.” End of Quote
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
Quote: “ A taking by itself if not illegal but it requires compensation to us - the owners ” End of Quote. Exactly,
Again:
“Optional Pay Down of Liquidation Preference”
It cannot be argued, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never provided with a mechanism to emerge from conservatorship. The SCOTUS ruled the Net Worth Sweep was legal. The SCOTUS did not rule the Optional Pay Down of Liquidation Preference as being void. No, it is not void, the court did not say it was void.
So why go through the charade of asking Fannie and Freddie raise additional capital to pay off the senior preferred in full when it has already been paid.
The mechanism is there as clear as day in the stock certificates and the repurchase option set out is fully consistent with the view that the government advances were, if possible, only a short-term backstop that Fannie and Freddie could refinance at any time with private capital.
NO MONEY LEFT TO PAYDOWN THE LP AND REDEEM THE SPS WHEN THE TREASURY SWEEPS THE ENTIRE NET WORTH. AND BY SWEEPING THE NET WORTH THE COMMITMENT CANNOT BE TERMINATED.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-Fourth-Amended-Restated-Certificate-04-13-21.pdf
With the right Lawyer, yes, this can be won in a court of law.
Again, Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!
The central fundamental MISTAKE with the JPS Holders lawsuit.
THE SHAREHOLDERS DIVIDENDS ARE JEOPARDIZED. Wrong
The focus point should have been,
The Shareholders have lost both companies to the Treasury. ALL THE CASH THAT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF THE BUSINESS DURING ITS REMAINING LIFE.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win! AND the Plaintiffs focus is on LOSS DIVIDENDS.
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
Checkmate!
That’s a great find Barron! DeMarco didn’t follow the Law of HERA. SEC 1321
Our Friend Robert ask a few questions, I answered,
Quote: “Did the US Congress give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA?”
Absolutely not, this unelected bureaucratic has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.
“Wouldn't the US Congress have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do "whatever it feels is in its best interests"?”
Yes, “ End of Quote
‘‘SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.“
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall require each enterprise to obtain the approval of the Director for any product of the enter- prise before initially offering the product.
‘‘(b) STANDARD FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) in the case of a product of the Federal National Mort- gage Association, the product is authorized under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 302(b) or section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b), 1719);
‘‘(4) the product is consistent with the safety and soundness of the enterprise or the mortgage finance system.
‘‘(c) PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL.—
‘‘(1) SUBMISSION OF REQUEST.—An enterprise shall submit to the Director a written request for approval of a product that describes the product in such form as prescribed by order or regulation of the Director.
‘‘(2) REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.—Immediately upon receipt of a request for approval of a product, as required under paragraph (1), the Director shall publish notice of such request and of the period for public comment pursuant to paragraph (3) regarding the product, and a description of the product proposed by the request. The Director shall give interested parties the opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed product.
‘‘(3) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.—During the 30-day period beginning on the date of publication pursuant to paragraph (2) of a request for approval of a product, the Director shall receive public comments regarding the proposed product.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Barron, I’m not able to PM… Will help you anyway I can. Regards
Treasury asking for passage of HERA before the Senate. Beyond any shadow of doubt intentions were to nationalize Fannie and Freddie. The secretary is on record freely admitting the companies were nationalized to be used (as the only game in town) to help the Treasury and the Federal Reserve prop up the housing market.
NOTE: The secretary said, “ temporary basis”… Today 15 years and counting.
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008
STATEMENT OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Quote: “Fannie and Freddie play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Our proposal was not prompted by any sudden deterioration in conditions at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. OFHEO has reaffirmed that both GSEs remain adequately capitalized.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed capital backstop. If either of these authorities is used, it would be done so only at Treasury's discretion, under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury and the GSE.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises. Our plan addresses current market challenges by ensuring, on a temporary basis, access to both liquidity and capital, while also ensuring that the GSEs can fulfill their mission--a mission that remains critical to homeowners and homebuyers across the country, especially during this housing correction.” End of Quote Page 7
Link: https://ypfsresourcelibrary.blob.core.windows.net/fcic/YPFS/Senate-110-1008_2008.pdf
The above to THE UNITED STATES SENATE
” Yet he had a very different private message for Wall Street insiders."
EVIDENCE
Convincing evidence exists that the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were planned well in advance, and that they were intended to remove the companies permanently from private ownership.
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
Treasury, however, lacked authority to put the two companies into conservatorship; only the new regulator, FHFA, could do that. And Treasury had kept neither the old OFHEO nor the new FHFA apprised of its nationalization intentions. 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 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’ CEOs 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. This fact has been stated in the Washington Federal Lawsuit filed against the government.
Page 30-31 Twelve Conditions
Link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUYhg0cYUOTbkZYVVJkaGtoS1E/edit?resourcekey=0-gU6I5hW3ndG5E3uY2VEyGA
Question To Anyone
Did the FHFA have authority 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. (2.5 billion).
Did Congress have intention, with the passage of the HERA legislation, to grant the Treasury department permission to spend $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars) ?
Written in the Charter Act: Quote:The Secretary of the Treasury shall not at any time purchase any obligations under this subsection if such purchase would increase the aggregate principal amount of the Secretary’s then outstanding holdings of such obligations under this subsection to an amount greater than $2,250,000,000. End of Quote
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c) PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASURY; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.- The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized in the Secretary’s discretion to purchase any obligations issued pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, as now or hereafter in force, and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds of the sale of any securities hereafter issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include such purchases. The Secretary of the Treasury shall not at any time purchase any obligations under this subsection if such purchase would increase the aggregate principal amount of the Secretary’s then outstanding holdings of such obligations under this subsection to an amount greater than $2,250,000,000. Each purchase of obligations by the Secretary of the Treasury under this subsection shall be upon such terms and conditions as to yield a return at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the last day of the month preceding the making of such purchase. The Secretary of the Treasury may, at any time, sell, upon such terms and conditions and at such price or prices as the Secretary shall determine, any of the obligations acquired by the Secretary under this subsection. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection shall be treated as public debt transactions of the United States.
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052219000385/fanniemaecharteractex31.htm
AGAIN
The second amendment to the SPSPA dated December 24, 2009, was 7 days before December 31, 2009, which was the termination date, ending date, that permitted the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise Fannie Mae: This second amendment has been recorded 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: Did the FHFA have authority to enter into contract under these terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA?
Congress did not authorize the FHFA the authority to change any portion of the Charter Act through the HERA legislation. The FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They cannot make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. For a complete list of all changes that Congress made to the Fannie search through the following document for “charter act”.
Below is a thread to one of the changes in the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act made by HERA. Section 304 Charter Act amended.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (Highlighted below) …
DIVISION A—HOUSING FINANCE REFORM
SEC. 1002. DEFINITIONS.
‘‘(3) AUTHORIZING STATUTES.—The term ‘authorizing statutes’ means— ‘‘(A) the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act; ‘‘(B) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act; and ‘‘(C) the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.
TITLE I—REFORM OF REGULATION OF ENTERPRISES
FHFA: SEC. 1101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY.
‘‘Subtitle B—Required Capital Levels for Regulated Entities, Special Enforcement Powers, and Reviews of Assets and Liabilities’’;
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
(a) FANNIE MAE.—Section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
; CONDITIONS.—
‘‘(1) AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE.—
‘‘(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—
‘‘(B) EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED.—
‘‘(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—
‘‘(v) The need to maintain the corporation’s status as a private shareholder-owned company.
‘‘(D) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—
‘‘(2) RIGHTS; SALE OF OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES.—
‘‘(3) FUNDING.—
‘‘(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009.
Paragraphs (2) and (3) Allows the Treasury to sale obligations and securities purchased from the time the Enterprises were taken over to the end of the purchase period December 31, 2009.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095012309074293/w76743exv4w1.htm
Barron, It can be argued that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over (Nationalized) to help the Treasury Dept. with the Federal Reserve prop up the housing market. And both companies were adequately capitalized when taken over and placed in conservatorship and did not need a so called bailout.
Evidence
The Toxic Waste seems to have been funneled through Fannie 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: "In secondary mortgage markets, securitization of mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has fallen in recent months, and gross issuance of GSE-backed MBS has lately just out paced maturing issues so that levels outstanding have only inched up since the summer." End of Quote
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