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.
Barron Quote: "This is why there is language in the agreement to be able to nullify and wind back the entire agreement if a court finds any part of the agreement to be illegal."
Page 14
6.12. Non-Severability. Each of the provisions of this Agreement is integrated with and integral to the whole and shall not be severable from the remainder of the Agreement. In the event that any provision of this Agreement, the Senior Preferred Stock or the Warrant is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, then Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and automatically terminate.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
I understand, was thinking the company had to retain $70 billion before a RE-IPO could take place under the 4th amendment.
Thanks, but you don't have to be a smart A$$ about it.
$195.2 billion - $73.7 billion = $121.5 billion
$121.5 billion Minus 70B is how much capital they're allowed to raise to pay off the Treasury = remaining $51.5 billion, is this the so-called haircut you keep referring to?
Is this what you are looking for,
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Question for the Board,
We all know the SPSPA is an illegal contract, and we all know that no court has ruled such. If the Treasury is allowed to get away with this theft my question is concerning the fourth amendment;
Number 4: Mandatory Pay Down of Liquidation Preference Upon Issuance of Capital Stock
This amount was set at $70 billion: the company has $73.7 billion now, is this the reason for the up tick in share price of the common stock and if so, seems to me the market is voting the common stock will survive the cram-down our JPS friends are pushing?
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-Fourth-Amended-Restated-Certificate-04-13-21.pdf
73.7 billion page 63
Total stockholders’ equity (See Note 1: Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement and Senior
Preferred Stock for information on the related dividend obligation and liquidation preference)
Note 1: page 69
The dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock permit us to retain increases in our net worth until our net worth exceeds the amount of adjusted total capital necessary for us to meet the capital requirements and buffers under the enterprise regulatory capital framework established by FHFA.
The aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock increased to $190.5 billion as of September 30, 2023 from $185.5 billion as of June 30, 2023, due to the $5.0 billion increase in our net worth in the second quarter of 2023.
The aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock will further increase to $195.2 billion as of December 31, 2023, due to the $4.7 billion increase in our net worth in the third quarter of 2023.
Page 63 https://www.fanniemae.com/media/49481/display
Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO.
The company is fully capitalized by the payment of the liquidation preference the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
THE TREASURY HAS COLLECTED ENOUGH.
NOW WE HAVE 8-0 JURY verdict.
Link to the calculation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
It’s an illegal contract between two government agencies that answer to the executive branch. You’re blowing smoke using mirrors. The companies did not have a choice, their heads hit the floor! REMEMBER??
Before the take down of the companies Treasury Secretary Paulson was unaware that the FHFA Regulator had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told FHFA Director Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEO's and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship.
When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat.
I never knew about this happy hour. I’ll visit you in jail, if I can, pms… Do they serve you drinks at happy hour? Ha
Ace, are you able to forward this information? Thanks
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173578903
Yes, sounds good. I don’t have private messages either. Maybe, a board administrator could forward to me?
“They were supposed to just purchase 191 billion of GSE obligations, MBS, or equities. That is what HERA authorized.”
That’s true but only on condition of emergency. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the FHFA no emergency existed and the FHFA had no authority granted by Congress to take over the companies, no authority written in the Charter Act that gave the FHFA right to take down the companies.
Charter Act: SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection no emergency existed.
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
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.
I appreciate you Ace, you’re like me tired of the charade pretense of the actions of our government. It’s not right we all know it.
THE MISTAKE
"This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008.”
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23
Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252.30.0.pdf
Ace, you asked Quote: “ A jury of common law abiding citizens found the Government acted in bad faith. So why didn’t SCOTUS ???” End of Quote
Our Friend Barron explained it for us.
Barron4664
09/20/23 9:36 AM
Post #768746 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results. Had they brought before Lamberth in 2013 any statutory claim involving the actual statutes with regard to the GSEs, then this probably would have ended a long time ago. It almost seems that the plaintiff attorneys have operated as some type of controlled opposition to run the statute of limitations out. A conspiracy. How can 15 years go by and nobody filed a court case based on the charter act. It is like Ray Epps, after 2.5 years, now he gets indicted for 1 count misdemeaner. With GSEs, we get a little victory for Hamish Hume. Look how great the attorneys are, they are fighting hard for us.” End of Quote
THE ATTORNEYS DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSERVATORSHIP! THE ATTORNEYS ASKED THE COURTS TO RULE ON THE ILLEGAL CONTRACT, SPSPA: JUSTICE BREYER TOLD THEM HOW TO WIN!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
The link may not work anymore, the above statement was made and recorded in the transcript.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
Thank you jeddiemack,
As you stated “ theft of personal property”
Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference).
Let’s keep it simple:
FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities and can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee; no authorization given to the FHFA to make a capital distribution while under capitalized. It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.
(2) The Corporation may not make any capital distribution that would decrease the total capital of the Corporation (as such term is defined in section 1303 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992) to an amount less than the risk-based capital level for the Corporation established under section 1361 of such Act or that would decrease the core capital of the Corporation (as such term is defined in section 1303 of such Act) to an amount less than the minimum capital level for the Corporation established under section 1362 of such Act, without prior written approval of the distribution by the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page 12
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The fourth branch of gov.
IF THE FHFA / TREASURY are allowed to continue with the violations the illegal contract the SPSPA agreement is allowed to stand the companies money will be extracted for the pet projects of their choice.
ANYONE: What appropriation was afforded the Regulator to give a capital distribution??
What law gave the Regulator the authority to give away the companies' money while the enterprises are undercapitalized??
How did FHFA under Calabria "Distribute" $1.09 Billion to the
Affordable Housing TRUST FUND from UNDER Capitalized GSEs?
And FHFA acting director Sandra L. Thompson announced that the
Housing Trust Fund and Capital Magnet Fund will receive a total of
$1.138 billion for affordable housing initiatives from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Robert, I appreciate your contributions to our cause. Question, "EXACTLY, under HERA, the FHFA can set ANY Extraction Amount from the GSES so long as it's 'reasonable'."
Where is it recorded in HERA the FHFA can extract any amount of money?
No law, not HERA or the Charter Act or any other appropriations bill authorized the Treasury to provide a $200 billion taxpayer debt commitment fund for FNMA to draw from, it is all illegal. The FHFA / Treasury SPSPA is an illegal contract, Therefore Fannie Mae is not obligated to fund any amount of money to the FHFA.
I have a ton of respect for Mr Howard, I personally believe he is wrong pushing the exercise of the warrants. What gives anyone the right to give away our companies?
Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States: and this fee limitation includes the warrants.
The Law actually exists!
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Another example,
Mr Tim Howard Quote: “I honestly don’t see any issue where a new claim, brought by a plaintiff with standing and the wherewithal to finance the suit, and that is not time-barred by the statute of limitations, has a realistic chance of being successful.” End of Quote WRONG
The above is one example of many that explains the problem that has lasted 15 years. Will the so called experts ever apply the law?
Violations of the Charter Act and the Federal Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness act of 1992 both as amended by HERA.
Barron Quote: "Statute of limitations would rely on DOJ guidance for recurring claims due to material changes introduced in the letter agreements. For example the new increase of liquidation preference for free introduced within the last 6-years." End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172340943
The FHFA / Treasury continue to change the contract, letter agreement dated January 14, 2021, So, the Statute of Limitations are not up. PAGE 6 Liquidation Preference increases dollar for dollar for all the retained earnings of the enterprises.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Executed-Letter-Agreement-for-Fannie-Mae.pdf
dropt101, you're asking the legal outcomes? That's the million-dollar question: There is absolutely no argument that Fannie Mae is a cash generator; the unknown is what amount of equity ownership each equity holder will retain?
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
CALCULATED VALUE $240 billon
A multiple of 12 is not unreasonable.
Price to Earnings Ratio of 12 x $20 billion net per year = $240 billion
Investor has to give consideration to the choke hold by the Treasury.
Mr. Howard Quote: "Combined, Fannie and Freddie were short of this “release point” by a staggering $382 billion at June 30, 2023, because their tier 1 capital was a negative $133 billion due to the net worth sweep, and 3.0 percent of their adjusted total assets ($249 billion) is far higher than warranted by the risk of the mortgages they finance. The net worth sweep and Treasury’s liquidation preference also block the companies’ access to the capital markets, and even at $25 billion per annum, filling a $382 billion capital shortfall with retained earnings alone would leave them in conservatorship for another 15 years." End of Quote
https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/
73.7 billion page 63
Total stockholders’ equity (See Note 1: Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement and Senior
Preferred Stock for information on the related dividend obligation and liquidation preference)
Note 1: page 69
The dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock permit us to retain increases in our net worth until our net worth exceeds the amount of adjusted total capital necessary for us to meet the capital requirements and buffers under the enterprise regulatory capital framework established by FHFA.
The aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock increased to $190.5 billion as of September 30, 2023 from $185.5 billion as of June 30, 2023, due to the $5.0 billion increase in our net worth in the second quarter of 2023.
The aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock will further increase to $195.2 billion as of December 31, 2023, due to the $4.7 billion increase in our net worth in the third quarter of 2023.
Page 63 https://www.fanniemae.com/media/49481/display
Our friend KT admitted it was stealing.
Kthomp Quote: "Yes, the companies were adequately capitalized when they were put into conservatorship. Shortly thereafter, when Lockhart stuffed FnF full of non-cash accounting losses, they went balance sheet insolvent. None of that has made a bit of difference in court so far." End of Quote
Note: "so far"
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173554089
CNorris, anyone that wants the Treasury to exercise the warrants is advocating theft from the Common Shareholders. PERIOD
It's Stealing...
Extinguish the warrants issued to the Treasury and the liquidation preferences
attached to the SPS. Neither financial instrument is necessary for nor beneficial to the
recapitalization of the two companies; and unwinding the NWS will have adequately
demonstrated that the Government has been fully compensated for its efforts.
Posted about the destruction of the common stock 7 years going on the 8th.
Posts 6,468
starting with,
kthomp19 12/05/16 1:57 PM
Post #367958 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
It seems to me that Congress would have to go out of its way to punish preferred shareholders, and I don't see an incentive for them to do that. Diluting commons heavily is much easier, especially since the warrants already exist.
If the Democrats were in control I could see punishment being its own motivation.
It's Stealing...
Instead of naming book "On the Brink" should have named it,
'In your Face America' ... Brazen bragging about it!
I robbed you and your politicians did nothing about it. HA
“Treasury Secretary at the time of the takeover, Henry Paulson, revealed in his later book On the Brink that the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was essentially a corporate decapitation (“the first thing they’ll hear is the sound of their heads hitting the floor”), the imagery of an assassination resonated with anyone who had been at Fannie Mae in 2008. Employees felt blindsided. Mr. Paulson’s description of the takeover as an “ambush” is spot on. The “bailout”/takeover was unrequested, unexpected, and wildly unpopular.”
The intended effect was to drown the GSEs in debt that they never needed—a “concrete life-preserver”.
“I'm a straightforward person. I like to be direct with people. But I knew that we had to ambush Fannie and Freddie. We could give them no room to maneuver.” Quoted from On the Brink.
How long has the wait been on Lamberth to certify 8-0 UNANIMOUS Jury VERDICT against the CORRUPT FHFA? Why the wait?
I'm not a lawyer nor a CPA, would seem to me the SPSPA contract was never consummated, the Treasury paid nothing for the SPS.
We discussed this
Rodney5
Re: None
Monday, 04/17/2023 9:10:47 PM
I have a question, when the SPSPA took place did any money change hands from the Treasury Department on to the balance sheet of the companies? Recorded in the amount of $1 billion?
Page 5
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Bryndon
04/17/23 9:34 PM
#753030 RE: Rodney5 #753028
I'm pretty sure it was a non-cash activity.
Fannie Mae's December 31, 2008 10-K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=171709055
Good morning Barron, will you kindly show us where the company reported on their financial statement where Treasury paid $1,000,000,000 for the Seniors?
I’m under the impression the Senior Preferred Stock was Issued for free. When the SPSPA took place no money changed hands from the Treasury Department on to the balance sheet of the company, amount should have been $1 billion each for both Fannie and Freddie. Regards
Excellent question Donotunderstand,
Senior Preferred Stock Issued for free.
When the SPSPA took place no money changed hands from the Treasury Department on to the balance sheet of the companies. The amount should have been $1 billion each…
1 million shares x $1,000 per share.
Page 5
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
I'm pretty sure it was a non-cash activity.
Fannie Mae's December 31, 2008 10-K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304;
Now the money the companies were forced to draw on the line of credit, I don’t know this for sure, but I’m thinking the draws in funds were just a notation on the balance sheet and no money actually ever changed hands from the Treasury to the companies. Either way $301 billion has been claimed by the Treasury. If this is true the argument could have been at the SCOTUS
Let's simplify this...
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Quote: "I just want to make sure that I get the gist of your argument, and I think I have it right. I know you and the shareholders disagree on whether this deal had a reasonable cause, but let's posit a deal that didn't. For no rational base -- reason, the FHFA sold all of Fannie and Freddie's assets in exchange for one dollar to itself. It did exactly what Justice Breyer said. It nationalized things. It nationalized the company. Your position is that there is no court review of a decision by the FFH as conservator that could give shareholders the right to challenge their action?” End of Quote
No Your Honor, the illegal contract was never consummated, the Treasury paid us nothing.
Excellent post Robert…
If I may add a few more words.
Deferred Tax Assets fabricated losses...
Concrete Life Preserver
“Treasury Secretary at the time of the takeover, Henry Paulson, revealed in his later book On the Brink that the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was essentially a corporate decapitation (“the first thing they’ll hear is the sound of their heads hitting the floor”), the imagery of an assassination resonated with anyone who had been at Fannie Mae in 2008. Employees felt blindsided. Mr. Paulson’s description of the takeover as an “ambush” is spot on. The “bailout”/takeover was unrequested, unexpected, and wildly unpopular.”
The intended effect was to drown the GSEs in debt that they never needed—a “concrete life-preserver”.
“I'm a straightforward person. I like to be direct with people. But I knew that we had to ambush Fannie and Freddie. We could give them no room to maneuver.” Quoted from On the Brink.
Deferred Tax Assets fabricated losses...
FHFA and Treasury engineered these large and early losses deliberately. But without these engineered losses, Fannie Mae would never have run out of capital, and would have survived the financial crisis stronger than ever.
Fannie Mae
Form 10K For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
Quote: “The aggregate liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock will be $76.2 billion, which will require an annualized dividend of approximately $7.6 billion. This amount exceeds our reported annual net income for all but one of the last eight years, in most cases by a significant margin. Our senior preferred stock dividend obligation, combined with potentially substantial commitment fees payable to Treasury starting in 2011 (the amounts of which have not yet been determined) and our effective inability to pay down draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, will have a significant adverse impact on our future financial position and net worth.” End of Quote Page 7
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2009/form10k_022610.pdf
Guido, I’m with you keep claiming $301 billion.
HOW TO WIN !
Barron Quote: “I posit that the variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and all amendments are an illegal commitment fee/charge attached to the purchase of the senior preferred shares. Prohibited by the Charter Act. The warrants are also a fee in consideration for access to the commitment. Prohibited by the Charter Act.
I posit that the senior preferred shares with their variable liquidation preference as outlined in the SPSPA constitute a new product for the purpose of the secondary mortgage market outlined in the charter act at sec 1719.
I posit that under the safety and soundness act as modified by HERA, the sale of SPS with a variable liquidation preference to Treasury under authority of sec 1719(g) of the Charter Act required notice in the federal register, opportunity for public comment, and official rule making by the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
I posit that the above statutory violations necessarily violate the warranties on behalf of the FHFA-C contained in the SPSPA.
301 Billion to be returned to the corporation. LP and warrants canceled. Future of 191 billion of taxpayer debt illegally given to corps to be determined.” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172470841
Following the execution of the Third Amendment, Fannie Mae earned record profits.
For anyone new on the board. Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference had the NWS not happened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has been paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
Happy new year 🎆
A person doesn’t have to have a law degree to understand we have been robbed. Smoke and mirrors. We’re not stupid!
Government-to-Government Contract
FHFA / Treasury are both government agencies acting under the authority of the same Congress; one department acting loan officer the other department conservator both answer to the president. The Treasury has a connection under the same boss; the Treasury is just as guilty as the FHFA. It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.
HappyAlways Quote: “Agree. A conservator is confirmed to be “not in good faith” to sign a government-to-government contract to give away all shareholders’s net worth to just one shareholder perpetually. Can FHFA still qualified as a conservator to the GSEs ? I wonder. Time to make the change, please.” End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173495233
Hey Lady, we didn’t ask for your opinion, HappyAlways has pointed out the GSE’s are VICTIMS, and everyone knows it!!
“Many think that Fannie and Freddie will pay for it (and they have ear-marked some funds). In law, there is simply no such arrangement between FHFA and the GSEs. The GSEs are victims.”
By memory it was delayed for maybe a year. It was the talk on the board when it happened. It’s not speculation that it was delayed.
GSE Stress Test Results Put Capital Rule in Doubt…
Industry insiders are speculating whether former FHFA Director Mark Calabria delayed the release of the 2020 stress tests results because they contradicted his proposed capital rule.
https://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/articles/222407-gse-stress-test-results-put-capital-rule-in-doubt?v=preview