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.
***BOOM*** All the actions taken either by a Director or Acting Director will be declared null and void.
The case of a Director was unanimous among the Justices, as he has a clear protection from removal with the "for cause" clause.
The debate was about the removal of an Acting Director. It's the key because he's the one that approved the third amendment (NWS).
But the case is clear: he's protected from removal because, even if he's removed at will, POTUS can only choose an Acting Dtr among the Deputy Directors that the Acting Director appointed. But the thing is that an FHFA Acting Director can't be removed at will in the first place, because it would break the "independent agency" status.
Subsequently, all their actions will be declared null and void:
Director: 2008 SPSPA
Acting Director: 1st, 2nd & 3rd amendments
Director: 4th & 5th amendments.
The Treasury will reimburse all the payments made by FnF, netted out with the principal amount of the obligations SPS.
The outcome is $110 billion Capital Reserve in the FnF's balance-sheets.
The WSJ Editorial Board is beaten-up.
.@WSJ "EDDY" BOARD IS THE EPITOME OF FINANCIAL ILLITERACY
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) December 9, 2020
It ignores "explicit UST backstop"and
-Fees PROHIBITED(exception)
-The Warrant authorized to(iii)protect the taxpayer(SPS collateral)or barred
-UST never suffers losses. It just buys obligations.#Fanniegate @TheJusticeDept https://t.co/UdFSVehy8H pic.twitter.com/BFIJVnYfq0
Who will argue on behalf of the Govt before Scotus?
There are rumors that it's not the Acting Solicitor General.
***BOOM***The shareholders issue a warning to the DOJ's Solicitor General.
The DOJ's question presented at Scotus about the anti-injunction or anti-judicial review, was already answered in the ruling of the 5th Circuit Court hearing en-banc: "It's inapplicable when the conservator acts beyond its powers, which is the NWS case." Besides, when he's asked by the Justices what remedies the UST and the FHFA approved after the ruling mentioned, the Solicitor General can't say that, with the 5th amendment to the purchase agreement of September 2019, FnF are retaining Capital, because that's false. There's an offset pending to be recorded in the balance sheet in the form of REDUCTION of the Retained Earnings account, once it's posted the true amount of SPS corresponding to the SPS increase each quarter since the 5th amendment, because, currently, it's posted a wrong amount.
The Solicitor General could face charges of abuse of Court process and perjury.
Mnuchin is defended by the DOJ, that in Scotus is the Solicitor General. Don't play dumb now.
What are you talking about? The Scotus-appointed Amicus is a third party and he's amicus of the FHFA, because the FHFA can't defend itself. The professor filed his amicus brief as requested by the court.
There's a reply filed by the DOJ on October 23 that I have mentioned, but you reply repeating that Mnuchin declined to file a brief.
You have to explain why.
The shareholders respond to the DOJ's omnibus reply filed with Scotus on October 23. In this board, Guido has repeatedly stated that Mnuchin didn't file a reply, and he has to explain why.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1335676713402060800.html
From the #Fanniegate hashtag. Daily in-depth analysis.
Thanks for asking.
***THE ORAL ARGUMENTS AT SCOTUS WILL BE SUSPENDED***
Didn't you read the rumor posted in the PlusOneCoin top post?
There's a simple reason: the attorneys and professor Nielson can't lie before the 9 Justices.
And they go there with the task of lying like crazy.
BOMBSHELL! THE FUNDING COMMITMENT IS A FARCE: SECURITIES FRAUD AND BREACH OF THE CONGRESS' INTENT.
It's based on a TEMPORARY authority of Treasury to PURCHASE unlimited yield obligations.
The temporary authority expired in December 2009. To override this deadline, the UST hasn't PURCHASED even one SPS. The UST got 1mll SPS valued at $1,000ps ($1 billion) in each GSE, for free and no reason, on day one of conservatorship, and since then, the SPS liquidation value increases. That's SECURITIES FRAUD because any obligation is unique and you can't increase the amount outstanding, but you have to issue new obligations, forcing the UST to purchase them.
Therefore, that provision that Pelosi's HERA incorporated into their Charters, doesn't allow an indefinite funding commitment.
It's only allowed in the original low cost UST backstop.
Yes, there are two UST backstops in the charter, one with unlimited yield for the Secret Plan, and the original low cost backstop.
More detail here.
RUMOR HAS IT THAT THE DEC9th ORAL ARGUMENTS AT SCOTUS WILL BE SUSPENDED.
Fact: FnF are not building up a Capital Reserve as contemplated first in the 4th amendment to the PA in Dec 2017, and later, in the 5th amendment in Sept 2019.
Their Capital Reserve is $0 since the end of 2017. This is because every time that FnF post a Comprehensive Income (Retained Earnings), the SPS are increased in the same amount, and that reduces the Retained Earnings account as an offset.
The 5th Circuit Court ruled that the FHFA exceeded its powers transferring all the Net Worth to the Treasury and we now know that this transfer of Net Worth continued in the form of payment-in-kind (SPS)
Thus, the Solicitor General can't claim the official version contending that FnF are building a Capital Reserve of $35 billion, when the Capital Reserve is $0 and the $35 billion of Net Worth is solely SPS.
The Solicitor General can't lie before the 9 Supreme Court Justices and, more importantly, there's a breach of the ruling in the case that is being reviewed by the Justices.
The Appellants' attorney, D.Thompson, can't lie either. He has omitted numerous statutory provisions. For instance, the Charter's "special borrowing rights from UST" (a low cost UST backstop) that the other participant in the Oral Arguments, the Scotus-appointed FHFA-amicus, Professor Nielson, outlines in his Amicus-brief.
Now, it's the turn of Professor Nielson. He also can't lie before the Scotus Justices when he omitted in his brief, that the FHFA, as regulator, has a "coercive power" that gives it Limitless Power outlined in its duty "(v) make sure that the activities of FnF are consistent with the Public Interest", that is, the coercive power to use FnF for Public Policy, not contemplated in the Charter, and it's the reason that he claims in his brief that would make FHFA unconstitutional, due to the Separation of Powers and non-delegation doctrine.
3 outright liars before the 9 Scotus Justices is unacceptable.
I expect a final resolution before the Oral Arguments, both about Fanniegate and the dissolution of the FHFA.
***BOMBSHELL*** THE FHFA's DIRECTOR TO BE FIRED FOR CAUSE.
The roadmap in HERA states that the Capital Distributions (like dividends) are restricted, with the EXCEPTION: to reduce the financial obligations with respect to ownership interest. That is, to reduce the SPS.
In a July 2011 Final Rule that aimed at clarifying this restriction in HERA, it made clear that the dividends to the shareholders (Equity holders) are suspended until FnF are Adequately Capitalized.
But surprisingly, we can read a changed behavior in the report of the Capital rule published yesterday, explaining that it thinks that it can waive the application of this restriction because it suspended the Capital Classifications in 2008, since this restriction appears inside the section in HERA: Capital Classifications.
But a Federal Agency isn't empowered to waive the application of statutory provisions.
The fact that in the 2011 Final Rule it approved another exception to allow the capital distributions (1) to recapitalize FnF, is the evidence that there's a Secret Plan of fast repayment of the obligations SPS and recapitalization, under the guise of dividend payments to the Treasury.
Full explanation.
Pelosi's former chief of staff and a member of Pelosi Team since 2007, currently is a lobbyist (sponsor) for Dominion Voting Systems, the company center of the fraud in the elections. Several whistleblowers from this company have come forward. It's worth noting that Pelosi was also the sole sponsor of 2008 HERA, a law meant to override existing rights in the charters of FnF, like the UST low cost backstop and the Fee Limitation that prohibits the United States from assessing or levying a fee or charge using the securities issued by FnF, other than the low rate mentioned. Pelosi set up a criminal enterprise and everything is melting down.
It's breaking news on Fannie. The evidence of a criminal enterprise will speed up the resolution according to Law. The announcement is imminent.
A Consent Decree is a backdoor Conservatorship. Another scheme to override the charter, which is the ONLY law where their activities are set forth.
What we require is a final resolution according to Law and FnF to resume independent operations.
BOOM! PELOSI WITHHOLDS A FANNIEGATE RESOLUTION TO LEVER UP HER LOCAL AND STATE GOVT BAILOUT NEGOTIATION.
https://twitter.com/CarlosVignote/status/1326035892193079296?s=19
In a press conference that took place one week before the elections, she stressed that "the fiscal soundness of the state and local govts is important", when fiscal soundness doesn't exist, but fiscal consolidation, fiscal discipline or balanced budget.
It's obvious that she was briefed by Mnuchin about FnF and the conservator's power: "put FnF in a sound and solvent condition", and she wants the same cheap bailout written in their Charters for the local and state govts.
***THE TWITTER THREAD THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR***
Pelosi will concede. We need the Congress to revoke the Charter as part of a broad revamp of the Housing Finance System through the FnF's Common Securitization Platform.
The announcement of the ultimate resolution is imminent.
THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE OPPOSED TO ANY NEW AMENDMENT OR CONSENT DECREE.
What we are witnessing is a regulatory taking.
In companies with a charter, the designation is the charter itself.
Besides, FnF aren't utilities but insurers.
Never trust a guy like HoldenWalker99 that doesn't tell us his name and who he works for.
BOMBSHELL! SHEILA BAIR TOOK THE DECISION OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP.
A WSJ's article in 2008 explained that "a top banking official" was among those officials involved in the obscure process that ended up in the decision of conservatorship, using a report by Morgan Stanley that claimed that "FnF were in need of $50 billion", that was the based to justify the conservatorship under the provision (G) LOSSES: likely to incur losses that deplete capital. They formed a conclave. What today is the FSOC.
🚨@SheilaBair2013 TOOK THE DECISION OF CONSERVATORSHIP
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) November 8, 2020
The thread cited is an excerpt from a 2008 WSJ's article explaining how the decision was made using a $MS's report:"FnF in need of $50b".
"A top banking official" and I can only think of the FDIC chair.#Fanniegate @WhiteHouse https://t.co/PVeTzKTOtY pic.twitter.com/oF2pJdmIIZ
.@SheilaBair2013 WAS FDIC CHAIR WHEN INDYMAC WAS SOLD TO A✡️CONSORTIUM HEADED BY #MNUCHIN/J.PAULSON
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) November 8, 2020
The same accounting rule that placed FnF in Consvtrshp, made them millionaires thanks to a loss-sharing deal w/ FDIC(a rebate for each foreclosure w/o loan modification)#Fanniegate https://t.co/fzfM47spxF
THE NEGOTIATION OF A RESOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON #FANNIEGATE.
🚨@USTreasury INCREASES THE PROFIT DURING CONSERVATORSHIP TO $50B
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) November 7, 2020
$1.1b 3Q TCCA fees added.
With the Secret Plan +2 g-fees accounting change➡️$0 refund
Otherwise SP +$0 profit +$160b refund,applying what is written.
Requirements:
Mngmt/BOD reshuffle
$18b Moral Damages.#Fanniegate https://t.co/RVba1lCZxH
NO CONSENT DECREE! We need a final resolution that reimburses the amount owed by the Treasury.
A consent decree is a backdoor conservatorship. FnF are governed by their charters, not consent decrees.
THE CROOKED ANALYST BOVE MAKES UP THE U.S.HISTORY. He claims that the 1968 law of FNMA Privatization and in 1970, the charter of FMCC, came as a response to the period of riots on the streets, wars and social unrest at the time. This is a big lie because the law came as a response to the fact that the 1949 Housing Goals about the construction and rehabilitation of housing units was very difficult to achieve, and set a new target of 26 million of houses in 10 years. FMCC was chartered to compete with FNMA. There wasn't a problem of mortgage financing as FNMA was well funded by the mortgage servicers that were mandated to purchase JPS as a percentage of business sold to FNMA. He wants to link the current situation of social unrest to that period, in order to reinforce FnF, when what is needed is the opposite, revoke the charter so that new competitors can step in using their Common Securitization Platform.
More detail here.
Gaby Heffesse is D.Thompson's spokesperson(Berkowitz's and Collins' attorney)
ACG Analytics just outlines the wishful thinking of the JPS holders, with consent decrees as a backdoor conservatorship (Utility Model), Stock Offerings for the hedge-funds, agree with the 10% dividend to Treasury, call for a settlement of the flawed lawsuits, etc.
Gaby is followed by the JPS holders. The shareholders follow the #Fanniegate hashtag on Twitter.
Dick "dick" Bove is a crooked analyst, that's why he was chosen as the only analyst that covers FnF and why he works for an unknown brokerage firm.
His opinions now appear in multiple news outlets to pretend that he's an expert on GSE matters, so that some day the Administration might hear his views, when the truth is that he knows nothing.
He is just securing for himself a good retirement plan provided by the hedge-funds.
Never mention Bradford or Howard as heroes. Both want to harm the common shareholders' economic interests, agreeing with the 10% dividend, the Treasury's warrant, a swap JPS for common stocks and Howard adds a Govt Explicit Guarantee on their MBSs plus a Communist Housing Finance System, where FnF compete with the Local Govts that turn into mortgage guarantors.
Howard was hired for the legal team of Berkowitz.
We only coincide in a resolution of Fanniegate and stop the NWS dividend.
The same occurs with Gaby Heffesse.
Not anyone that bashes the administration is our hero.
***BREAKING NEWS*** A shareholder writes an Amicus Curiae brief for the Supreme Court, in support of the Court-appointed Amicus, professor Nielson.
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE @Scotus-APPOINTED AMICUShttps://t.co/4KhWewJHmF
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) October 25, 2020
(*)It wasn't sent to a Law Firm for its submission before the deadline Oct 30,as planned,after learning that it costs $15,000.I sent an email to Prof.Nielson & @TheJusticeDept.#Fanniegate $FNMA
RECAP PLAN *ALERT* RECAP PLAN *ALERT* RECAP PLAN *ALERT*
Assuming that the unamortized premiums with a balance worth $52 billion in the case of FMCC and $32 billion for FNMA, are amortized today as part of a recapitalization plan, after paying the corporate tax, the outcome is a Net Income of $67 billion, deemed retained earnings and Core Capital.
$17.6 billion of additional tax revenue that the battered Govt would raise, needed for the payment of Moral Damages to the Equity holders, according to the average gap to the fair value of each class of stock, had The Secret Plan of repayment of the SPS (warrant cancelled if it was a collateral, otherwise illegal right away in the Charter's Fee Prohibition clause) and recapitalization in a escrow account at the Treasury Department, been made public.
There are other amounts deemed Capital:
$28b current Net Worth
$20b Loan Loss Reserve if deemed TIER2 Capital.
$159b owed by the U.S. Treasury (SPS overpayment; Corporate Tax on settlements; TCCA fee; interests on the escrow account; the expenses for the MHA, foreclosure moratorium and forbearance programs)
Total Capital= $274 billion as of end of June, 2020.
***THE ANNOUNCEMENT IS IMMINENT***
UNAMORTIZED PREMIUMS. FMCC=$52B; FNMA=$32B.June 30,2020. NO BRAINER.
A comment about the unamortized premiums, that stand at $52 billion in the case of FMCC, was first posted on #Fanniegate in 2018. Your source of information and daily in-depth analysis. Full explanation about this upfront g-fee.
A COMMENTATOR IN THE @FHFA's CAPITAL RULE SUGGESTS THAT THE UPFRONT G-FEE INCOME BE CONSIDERED TIER 1 CAPITAL
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) September 7, 2020
I already talked about this income hidden in their MBS trusts.
A one-time up-front payment but amortized into earnings when the MBS is extinguised.#Fanniegate @WhiteHouse https://t.co/DDKks13hhf pic.twitter.com/J1XJdBQKBe
I'm not your secretary, YanksGhost.
I've pointed out the laws and briefs (the FHEFSSA or HERA, the Charter, CFR1237.12 and the SPSPA)
The name of the provisions:
-Restriction on Capital Distributions, inside the section Capital Classifications
-The conservator's power
-The SPSPA covenant 5.3.
-The FEE LIMITATION or FEE PROHIBITION in the Charter, that bars the 10%/NWS dividend on the SPS and the Warrant.
-Etc
And their content.
Now you want me to find an internet link? You just have to use your favorite search engine, download the laws, regulations or SPSPA that I've signaled and use the Search tool in the pdf file.
ROFL.
Just the opposite.I'm the only one that has laid out a plan that is based on the statutes. You simply cry out that there's not Secret Plan, but you don't refute any of the provisions I've pointed out.
And, more importantly, we are talking about the Govt, which means that it can't continue on the loose with tortuous interpretations of the law and playing the card of the Statute of Limitations. The multiple racketeering actions are well-documented:
-Covenant 5.3 in the SPSPA: they agreed to not uphold the FHEFSSA. C'mon!
-Financial Statement Fraud
-Securities Fraud
-Takings case
-Etc
False.The Restriction On Capital Distributions is set forth in the FHEFSSA, amended by HERA, inside the section CAPITAL CLASSIFICATIONS, and not in the Charter.
So, now you have to start reading the FHEFSSA, something I did 10 years ago.
The only exception for the distribution of Capital, is "to reduce the obligations with respect to ownership interest", that is, the SPS.
The conservator can't authorize a capital distribution because it would be illegal and it also contravenes his Power: put FnF in a sound and solvent condition, as soundness means recapitalization and solvent condition is related to reduce the obligations with the Treasury.
And the backstop is mandatory as long as it's an authorization of Treasury to do it and as part of the Charter that directs FnF to carry out a Public Mission.
I guess you have read in the Charter the FEE PROHIBITION with the only exception the low-rate redeemable obligations, which means that the FHFA and the UST are carrying out The Secret Plan under the guise of outstanding dividend payments to the Treasury. It's the law and they can't continue on the loose like outlaws, but they must surrender their weapons and return the money voluntarily.
Don't expect to read in a statute something that begins with "compulsory Treasury backstop of the enterprises". It's written as an Authority of Treasury to Purchase Obligations.
A MBS is guaranteed by FnF. I've written an excerpt from the prospectus.
What are you talking about receivership?
You are mixing up govt gtees with fnf gtees, govt gtees with the Treasury backstop, conservatorship with receivership,... Lol
No. Authority is a MANDATE, because the Treasury can't refuse to do it and it's in exchange for a Public Mission, where FnF take on huge credit risk, charging a very small g-fee prior 2009.
This is legislative wording. There are many examples. For instance, the FHEFSSA in the conservatorship section, prior being struck by HERA, stated with regard to the conservator:
AUTHORITY: take the same actions laid out in the section of Substantially Undercap and Undercap.
FnF issue guaranteed MBSs. I would have to read the charter again to see if it's stipulated in the charter.
The MBS prospectus reads as follows:
Guaranty: we guarantee that ....we will supplement amounts received...to permit payments on the related certificates (the MBSs are divided into certificates, not shares) in an amount equal to :
1 month's interests...
The aggregate amount of principal payments.
The "Authority of Treasury to Purchase Obligations" is a provision set forth in the Charter and it's the so called "Govt backstop of FnF".
There are no Govt guarantees in their securities, outlined in the Charter.
So, just a backstop.
The SPSPA wouldn't exist if it wasn't authorized by this provision. The SPSPA is just a document to implement the statutory provisions because the relationship of FnF and the Treasury isn't established in contracts, but in the Charter.
FnF don't need any Govt guarantee in their securities and don't want it. FnF's securities are backed up by the enterprises themselves, and charge a g-fee.
The UST backstop is fantastic, if implemented correctly: THE SECRET PLAN.
Otherwise, revoke the Charter.
THE TREASURY BACKSTOP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSERVATORSHIP OR THE SPSPA.
It's the part in the Charter that says PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY THE TREASURY. CONDITIONS, (redeemable obligations, interest rate similar to Treasuries, etc). It enabled the SPSPA.
The UST backstop was enacted in exchange for their Public Mission. So, both are linked and you can't scrap the Treasury backstop, signaling like Calabria that it was a "perception" by the market participants.
You said:
So, please Mr. Calabria, don't do anything to end conservatorship because there is safety in the Treasury backstop which is some form of government guarantee.
The FHFA has no say.It's been relieved of its powers, charged with dereliction of power: put FnF in a sound and solvent condition. Cover-up of provisions in the law, like the Restriction On Capital Distributions, fiduciary duty breach, etc.
This is why the Congress will step in. Notice that the current law FHEFSSA's CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS, state that the enterprises "pose low financial risk of insolvency" and also that "the regulator should have autonomy from special interest groups", which isn't the case with a FHFA under the orders of Moelis, John Paulson, Blackstone, Morgan Stanley and their new puppet, ACG Analytics.
Of course, if you force any enterprise to write down its DTA and you change the accounting standards for the previous Incurred Loss accounting that ballooned the losses with provisions for future losses that never came true, it falls undercapitalized, but it only proves that it was a regulator-led insolvency. ALL FAKE.
***BREAKING NEWS***THE FHFA TO WITHDRAW THE PROPOSED CAPITAL RULE AFTER THE FMCC CFO's COMMENT.
He attacks the core of the Capital rule:
1-The risk weights for the Risk-Based Capital requirement. If it fails in the risk weights for the risk-weighted assets, better do another job.
2-The Leverage Capital or Minimum Capital: the FHFA proposes a whopping 4% of total Assets whereas the CFO proposes 4% of on-balance sheet assets and 1.5% of the guarantee portfolio (MBSs). The current law in force establishes 2.5% of on-balance sheet assets and 0.45% of the g-portfolio.
The FHFA has lost all sense of reality because it has another agenda: increased capital needs for CRT expenses and follow-on stock offerings that enrich the investment bankers.
What is left in the Capital rule is the CRT scam, ill-conceived for insurers and a scam, and the Affordable Housing role, a myth because now FnF are charging the same guarantee-fee that the fully private sector would charge, 59bp for taking on the risk of only 80% LTV of a 100% LTV mortgage, because the borrower pays for the remainder. Or lower LTV at origination if the borrower puts money down to save the insurance payment PMI. Congress to step in.
I'm quoting my complaint filed with the SEC, because it's a big lie and I've laid out the explanation.
The idea that FnF are retaining earnings is illusion, since there's an offset pending to be recorded in the form of REDUCTION OF RETAINED EARNINGS (in the absence of Additional Paid-In Capital account) caused by the increase in the SPS liquidation preference for free.
Once FnF record the actual SPS amount, because now the actual SPS and the amount in the balance sheet don't match, they have to post the offset.
In this world, you can't hand out stocks for free. It has an offset and it comes from the shareholders' pocket (Additional Paid-In Capital)
The UST Plan is wrong, the WSJ is wrong and FnF are wrong.
That's why I filed a complaint with the SEC against Freddie Mac and a second complaint, against Fannie Mae in its 1Q2020 report, because it posts a charge on the Income Statement when FNMA reported a decrease in the Net Worth and thus, no SPS were required to be increased, accused of Financial Statement Fraud.
There was no 20% further obligation. The press release says that with the interest on the bonds, the debt was satisfied, which is the same FnF are doing with the dividend on the SPS.
There was no escrow account, like with FnF. That's why it's called THE SECRET PLAN.
But both are the same scheme of repayment of the taxpayer's assistance and build a retained earnings account.
FACTS MATTER.