Not helpful?? What gives you the right to tell Barron to keep quiet? Go back to your seeking garbage and print more on how the common shareholders will be forever wiped out. You’re a hypocrite.

Barron is the one who brought it to the attention of this board. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, and Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

Name any lawyer who brought before any court in connection with Fannie and Freddie

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008 RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS.

As plain as day!

It’s bad faith and unfair dealing when the Regulator is authorized to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock and sent the Net Worth without the pay down option. The FHFA Director doesn’t need the Treasury approval to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock the Director has the authority from Congress written in HERA:

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008

RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS.— page 2731
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A regulated entity shall make no capital distribution if, after making the distribution, the regulated entity would be undercapitalized. The exception.

Quote: “Page 2732

EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.

NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...

WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.

Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf

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 Treasury did not take a Perpetual Equity Investment in the enterprises, the Treasury stated a temporary investment period!

This is my understanding of what took place at the SCOTUS. The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. The federal statutes ( THE LAW ) was not mentioned at all before the SCOTUS.

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, and Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Well, looks like big money people who hired and paid the lawyers were that stupid THE LAW was not mentioned. Not only at the SCOTUS but I’m thinking every lawsuit that has been brought. Can anyone name one that actually referenced the Federal Statutes governing the GSE’s ??

You’re wrong I don’t defend the SPS LP increased for free. And I don’t support the Treasury confiscation of over $301 billion eluding to keep it in their coffer!

The separate account plan you are advocating the Treasury returns the money confiscated returns it back to the shareholders?? And will you kindly tell us the date this will happen??

Freddie bagholder, thanks ... That's crazy. 8-0 verdict.

And so called wiseman thinks the gov. is somehow dealing fairly with the shareholders.

Yes, always capital requirements. That’s not the point. the shortfall to adjusted capital requirements totaled $243 billion, with the Company reporting negative regulatory capital ratios given deficit for each tier of capital. Because of the Senior Preferred Stock. And somehow you suggest the government is okay with the stranglehold. The Liquidation Preference continues to increase. And this is okay?

No, I did not suggest that, because there are no capital requirements, FnF aren't required to build capital.

How are you mr wiseman fixing this? You continue to make excuses that somehow what the government is doing is legal and a secret plan is in the making to undo the stranglehold on the shareholders.

EXPLAIN THIS AWAY!

While Fannie Mae had a GAAP positive net worth of $78 billion at YE23, the ERCF excludes the stated value of the senior preferred stock ($120.8 billion), as well as a portion of deferred tax assets, resulting in the Company being significantly undercapitalized. Indeed, at YE23, the shortfall to adjusted capital requirements totaled $243 billion, with the Company reporting negative regulatory capital ratios given deficit for each tier of capital.

I’m not playing a fool mr rude man. I have not seen any document where Sandra filed a motion. I must have missed it. Can you or anyone on this board provide a link to such document?

No, I did not see where Sandra filed a motion to throw away Jury verdict and throw away Lamberth verdict in Lamberth court.

Link to the defendant's motion to appeal? Will you kindly share it. Thanks

You mentioned critical capital levels and somehow you believe everything the government has done is legal. What will happen? Will the government reverse the stranglehold on the company?

Although Fannie Mae is gradually rebuilding its capital base, capital levels remains substantially below regulatory requirements. Fannie Mae is subject to the enterprise regulatory capital framework (ERCF), though capital requirements have been waived during conservatorship. While Fannie Mae had a GAAP positive net worth of $78 billion at YE23, the ERCF excludes the stated value of the senior preferred stock ($120.8 billion), as well as a portion of deferred tax assets, resulting in the Company being significantly undercapitalized. Indeed, at YE23, the shortfall to adjusted capital requirements totaled $243 billion, with the Company reporting negative regulatory capital ratios given deficit for each tier of capital. Given covenants under the PA, Fannie Mae also does not have access to equity funding except through draws from the U.S. Treasury (and only when total liabilities exceed total assets).

Yes, you’re right debt has value. It’s not like Fannie and Freddie are credit card companies. The risk is minimal when holding Real Property as collateral. That’s what l don’t understand Cat Man setting the capital standards way above necessary. Sounds like he’s any enemy of the shareholders.

Quote: “This is a 4.28 Trillion Dollar company by Ent Value. If you sold all of its assets and gave it to its outstanding shareholders including the warrants in that total that's a whopping 3,784 USD per share of common stock.” End of Quote.

The enterprise value includes the debt. Fannie reported $77.6 billion in total equity, Form 10K page 68. I don’t understand how you’re calculating $3,784 USD per share. Sell the assets give all the money to the shareholders forget the debt owed??

I don’t know why the FHFA would require more capital the Real Property would stand as collateral.

Freddie said it plans to keep a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio at less than 80% when
looking at both first and second-lien mortgages on a home, keeping an equity cushion in place in times of stress.

What’s the holdup with the Lamberth 8-0 verdict? You said appeal, I must have missed it. What’s the criminals doing now to delay? Link? Thanks

I think you’re right.

“ Just like the day of getting put into conservatorship came out of nowhere... the exit will come out of nowhere.”

Looking at the trading patterns of both common and preferred the stocks are under accumulation.

Nothing on page 14 / 10k puts the company in receivership. The person posting nonsense is a fear monger sowing discord! Fannie’s net profit $18 plus billion per year is not in danger of receivership.

Fannie Mae has not requested a draw on Treasury funds since 2012!

Who is paying this basher to print nonsense?

Whalen Quote: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could never survive as private issuers." End of Quote

The answer is you don’t know! What you quoted is a guess. The firm that published what you quoted is a guesstimate. And you don’t know the number of common shares the firm used in their guesstimate.

The unknown is how many common shares will be outstanding when we finally get out of prison.

How did Keefe Bruyette & Woods determine the number of Common Shares outstanding?
And what was the number of shares used to come up with their calculated price per share?

It has been stated numerous times on this board,

Quote: "You know that the SPS can't be paid back, because it's equity, not debt.” End of Quote…. WRONG

First off, the Senior Preferred Stock is illegal and unconstitutional, and IF THE FHFA / TREASURY are allowed to continue with the illegal contract and the SPSPA agreement is allowed to stand the FHFA Breach of Contract Bad faith and Unfair Dealings actions of the government AND It is bad faith and unfair dealing when the Regulator is authorized to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock and sent the Net Worth without the pay down option. The FHFA Director doesn’t need the Treasury approval to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock the Director has the authority from Congress written in HERA:

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008

RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS.— page 2731
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A regulated entity shall make no capital distribution if, after making the distribution, the regulated entity would be undercapitalized. The exception.

Quote: “Page 2732

EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.

NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...

WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.

Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf

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 Treasury did not take a Perpetual Equity Investment in the enterprises, the Treasury stated a temporary investment period!

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract between the FHFA and The Treasury Department.

Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:

When will the written law apply? The government is not in the business to make money.

Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION

Fee Limitation

Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16

Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)

Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29


Link:

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019

link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf

2Four, Quote:”Therefore the FHFA director has the equivalent power of congress. In the event congress actually passes a bill that counters the FHFA director” End of Quote

Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law. THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS.

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

Quote: “ as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case.” End of Quote

The SCOTUS did not rule anything. The court voted a no contest.

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. The federal statutes ( THE LAW ) was not mentioned at all before the SCOTUS.

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, and Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

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. AND Now we have an 8-0 jury verdict.

KT, you must have opened up another short position in the common stock. Bombarding the board again. It’s not working we see right through the smoke and mirrors. So sad the investors who sold their common shares just before the latest advancement in price by reason of your cram-down posting. You freely admitted short selling the common stock of Fannie Mae, while bashing the common shares. AND bragged about it. What do short sellers do?? They preach a cram-down forever doing away with the Common Shareholders.

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173604551

Fannie Mae is not earning $18.8 billion per quarter. The unknown is how many common shares will be outstanding when we finally get out of prison.

The calculated intrinsic value is based on property, plant and equipment but most importantly ‘Earnings Power’… So, the question is what’s the Intrinsic Value of Fannie and Freddie? After we know the estimated calculated value then we divide this value among each equity holder.

Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO.

The companies are 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

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE CALCULATED VALUE PAY THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESSES:

The Value calculation should start with the number $436.1 billion. This is the Intrinsic Value of both companies businesses including the JPS, the estimated value of Fannie and Freddie.

$402.9 billion earnings power plus $33.2 billion JPS = $436.1 billion.

Fannie Mae
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$263 Billion Intrinsic Value

Freddie Mac
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$139.9 Billion Intrinsic Value

Fannie Mae JPS $19.1 billion par value
Freddie Mac JPS $14.1 billion par value

The amount of $402.9 billion is the calculated Intrinsic Value of the Earnings Power of both businesses combined using a Price to Earnings Ratio of 14.

EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS

With the WARRANTS: Fannie Mae’s common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567 diluted by the warrants at 79.9 percent adds a total of 5,761,629,686 shares outstanding…

5,761,629,686 / $18.8 billion net = $3.06 per share of earnings,

PE Ratio of 14 x $3.06 = $42.84per share intrinsic value.

I was thinking the same Fannie common stock do not get a cent. The recent run up in price has nothing to do with the settlement. Yesterday’s sell off day traders are in competition with one another trying to get in and out before the other and profit taking caused panic selling.

The drop in price per share was not caused by short selling. The percentage of short volume was 19% March 28, low compared to the previous 7 trading days calculated at a mean average 46% short volume. The common stock closed down 15%. Why?

https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/FNMA

The Intrinsic Value of Fannie Mae’s business hasn’t changed. I think the day traders are in competition with one another trying to get in and out before the other. Lots of profit on the table for anyone who has owned common stock over the last 9 months.

"Lemming" is a disparaging term for an investor who exhibits herd mentality and invests without doing their own research, which often leads to losses. According to urban legend, lemmings are small rodents known for possessing instincts that cause them to, periodically, charge en masse off cliffs, with the end result being their death.

To keep from becoming a lemming investor, one has to keep their emotions under control.

Benjamin Graham

Mr. Market is an obliging fellow who turns up every day at the shareholder's door offering to buy or sell his shares at a different price. Often, the price quoted by Mr. Market seems plausible, but sometimes it is ridiculous. The investor is free to either agree with his quoted price and trade with him, or ignore him completely. Mr. Market doesn't mind this, and will be back the following day to quote another price.
The point of this anecdote is that the investor should not regard the whims of Mr. Market as a determining factor in the value of the shares the investor owns. He should profit from market folly rather than participate in it. A common fallacy in the market is that investors are reasonable and homogenous, but Mr. Market serves to show that this is not the case. The investor is advised to concentrate on the real life performance of his companies and receiving dividends, rather than be too concerned with Mr. Market's often irrational behavior.

I do not know why the Plaintiffs did not use the Law. Our Friend Barron stated this...

"The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. Lamberth told the lawyers that they were bringing the wrong case. Had the Plaintiffs challenged the Net Worth Sweep based on violating the laws, most likely would have won back in 2013."

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Again, 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 possibly will not work; the above statement is of record.

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

Whoever published the chart must think the Treasury will buy out the shareholders. The information mentioned an IPO which would be a new offering. Maybe the person who published the chart is talking about a RE-IPO, if that is the case Common Shareholders are getting the shaft! I see no reason to celebrate with your Choo Choo, Sir.

The facts, Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO. The companies are 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

Skeptic7
Quote: “NWS validated by highest court in the land” End of Quote

My understanding the SCOTUS did not validate the Net Worth Sweep. The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment or act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA, So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court and the suit was dismissed. NOW we have an 8-0 Jury that has validated the NWS is illegal.

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

The lawsuit challenged the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA, it failed. AGAIN, The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit...

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 possibly will not work; the above statement is of record.

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

Ace, good to hear from you. That’s the million dollar question. How much equity will each class of stock receive when this prison sentence ends. You mentioned IPO, if that’s the case Treasury would either had bought the existing shareholders out or wiped the existing shareholders out; an IPO would be a new offering.

Now, if you’re talking about a RE-IPO the amount of dividends received will depend on how much the existing shareholders get diluted, in other words what’s the number of shares outstanding after the RE-IPO. I don’t think any large institutions would be willing to invest without dividends.

The facts are Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO.

The companies are 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

Quote “How did you come up with $5?”


Fannie Mae
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$18 billion per year net income.

Fannie Mae’s common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567

$18 billion / 1,158,087,567 = $15.54 net income per share annually. The earnings power of Fannie Mae’s business could easily pay out dividends at $5 per share annually. On condition the Treasury’s liquidation preference is cancelled, the SPS redeemed and the warrants are not exercised.

Guido, dividends at $5 per share I can see that happening; On condition the Treasury’s liquidation preference is cancelled, the SPS redeemed and the warrants are not exercised. The earnings power of Fannie Mae’s business could easily pay out dividends at $5 per share annually.

Advice to Common Shareholders to sell their shares at the absolute bottom 9 months ago just before a 386% return. Continues to give out advice!

Quote: JOoa0ky Monday, June 12, 2023,

"Commons are going to sink... Sell out now while you still can..."

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172114484

Viking61, I appreciate your enthusiasm with the resent price appreciation of our common stock. Just a reminder, quoted price per share has absolutely nothing to do with the Intrinsic Value.

The calculated intrinsic value is based on property, plant and equipment but most importantly ‘Earnings Power’… So, the question is what’s the Intrinsic Value of Fannie and Freddie? After we know the estimated calculated value then we divide this value among each equity holder.

Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO.

The companies are 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

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE CALCULATED VALUE PAY THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESSES:

The Value calculation should start with the number $436.1 billion. This is the Intrinsic Value of both companies businesses including the JPS, the estimated value of Fannie and Freddie.

$402.9 billion earnings power plus $33.2 billion JPS = $436.1 billion.

Fannie Mae
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$263 Billion Intrinsic Value

Freddie Mac
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$139.9 Billion Intrinsic Value

Fannie Mae JPS $19.1 billion par value
Freddie Mac JPS $14.1 billion par value

The amount of $402.9 billion is the calculated Intrinsic Value of the Earnings Power of both businesses combined using a Price to Earnings Ratio of 14.

Then the Cram-Down People come along.
Transfer of Ownership Cram-Down

Explained,

Legacy Shareholders means, collectively, each person that owns common stock of the Company immediately prior to the closing of the Transaction (cram-down) which in no event shall include any of the Investors; or very few will remain afterwards maybe 1% or less.

A cram-down deal refers to a situation where an investor or creditor is forced into accepting undesirable terms in a transaction or bankruptcy proceedings.

In the case with Fannie Mae the Treasury's holding of senor preferred stock in the amount of $120.8 billion, with a liquidation preference of $190 billion. Page 63

https://www.fanniemae.com/media/49481/display

If the Treasury converts this amount of SPS into common stock the Treasury in essence will own 99.9% of all the common stock outstanding. The number of shares outstanding depends on price per share at the time converted. The amount of shares outstanding after the cram-down does not matter at all, it's the percent ownership, a transfer of ownership from the legacy common shareholders to the Treasury. This transaction will cause the legacy common stock to vanish along with any short positions, naked short positions as well as any counterfeit common stock outstanding. Afterwards, the Treasury can do a reverse split reducing the amount in number of the new common stock outstanding.

Strong possibility the powers that be turned a blind eye to the counterfeiting of the shares of both Fannie and Freddie for the purpose of driving the stock market value to zero! In addition, the Treasury told us the reason for the warrants, their intention was never to take ownership.

Quote: “Furthermore, by design, the warrants were issued not to take ownership but rather to devalue the common stock.” End of Quote

Quote: "Mr. Werfel then explained that it is important to understand the government’s intention. The intention was not to eliminate the ownership interests but to prevent current shareholder speculation resulting in speculators taking advantage of government intervention at the expense of others. Driving the stock market value to zero prevents this manipulation from happening. " End of Quote page 24


Link to page 24
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173695132

You mention short positions? Let's talk about the COUNTERFEIT SHARES.

Dated September 17, 2008.

As I have stated numerous times, I believe the person / persons that have consistently pushed for the destruction of the common shareholders possibly are working for the market makers. When the common holders of Freddie do receive the settlement and the holders of the shares find out their shares do not exist what do you think will happen? I will tell you what will happen...

THE COUNTERFEIT SHARES OUTSTANDING WILL COME TO LIGHT.

The cram down makes the counterfeit shares disappear.

TRADING FLOOR OF THE MARKET-MAKER:

The primary market-makers in these GSE's are Goldman Sachs (Fannie Mae) and LaBranche & Co. (Freddie Mac). These are the specialists on the NYSE where the GSE's are listed, thus all trades executed on the NYSE in the GSE's must flow through these market-makers.

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.

https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf

Nonsense?? There’s nothing nonsense in what the man said !!

Bashes the common stock while shorting all at the same time. We are not deceived.

Read it for yourself.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173486743