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.
Senior Preferred Stock is a product by definition.
FHEFSSA as amended by HERA
Prior Approval Authority for Products
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173385867
Definition with example
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
Accounts & Products
https://www.schwab.com/
Below all categories are investment products.
Mutual Funds
ETFs
Index Funds
Stocks
Options
Bonds, CDs & Fixed Income
Money Market Funds
Cash Solutions & Rates
Cryptocurrency
More Investment Products
4541 Prior Approval Authority for Products
Page 1607
https://www.fhfa.gov/Government/Documents/Federal-Housing-Enterprises-Financial-Safety-and-Soundness-Act.pdf
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!
Information for anyone new to this board. The people pushing the cram-down are trying to wipeout the common shareholders.
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.
Quote: “Where is the evidence for Rodney's claim?” End of Quote
The cram down will make the counterfeit shares disappear. Why is this person pushing so hard to wipeout the common shareholders? Working for the market maker? The people pushing the cram down are using the term wipeout the legacy common. Can’t deny the fact the counterfeit shares outstanding.
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
Your super secret separate account plan by design was to confiscate all the money from the companies by theft. And it’s no secret.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's regulatory guidelines would have prohibited the companies from paying dividends to the Treasury while severely under-capitalized, but the FHFA suspended those guidelines because the regulator wanted the companies to have to draw more senior preferred stock from the Treasury to pay the annual dividends in cash, ballooning their outstanding senior preferred stock and increase their required annual dividends. 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. It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.
Explicit and Implicit
Explicit: The Treasury was authorized by Congress a limit of $2.25 billion to purchase obligations. The $2.25 billion was the explicit obligation. NOTE: to purchase obligations NOT A $200 billion line of credit.
The amount was increased by Congress in the Charter Act that was amended by HERA to purchase obligations but only under emergency conditions, no emergency existed. The amount today $200 billion as of December 24, 2009, expired on December 31, 2009: and no more. The $200 billion commitment was forced on the GSEs by the FHFA / Treasury by the illegal contract the SPSPA. The GSEs never needed a capital infusion, both Fannie and Freddie were adequately capitalized.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASURY; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
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.
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
"The U.S. Government does not guarantee, directly or indirectly, our securities or other obligations." ... (Implicit is not worth the paper it WAS NOT WRITTEN ON).
The United States was not obligated after 1968 to back any debt of Fannie Mae. The United States Taxpayers became obligated when the government took over the two companies.
Originally, Fannie Mae had an explicit guarantee from the United States government; if the entity got into financial trouble the government promised to bail it out. This changed in 1968. Fannie Mae became a private stockholder owned company. 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. (Other than a limit of $2.25 billion by the Charter Act).
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.
Information from: Fannie Mae form 10K Dec 31, 2007
part I, page 1, item 1.
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2007/form10k_022708.pdf
With the passage of HERA Legislation: (purchase obligations increased with an expiration date of December 31, 2009).
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
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) up to the point in time of ‘‘(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.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Quote:” The UST never bears losses. It buys obligations SPS (Equity) upon capital deficiency (negative Net Worth), which have to be paid back. Just what has happened.” End of Quote
THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
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.
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Treasury took it upon themselves and authorized a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity illegal and unconstitutional.
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference). More importantly the actions of Treasury to appropriate 200 billion in taxpayer debt, take non regulatory control of the companies through the SPSPA (require Treasury permission at least 10 separate times) and ownership of more than 50% of the companies requires them under the GAO act and the CFO act to consolidate the GSEs onto the nations balance sheet. The fact that that hasn't happened means the Treasury has violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution by repudiating the 5 trillion plus in debt the Treasury has acquired through their actions since 2008. Their actions have resulted in a takings of the entire enterprise value of the formerly private companies. These actions have necessarily turned the GSEs back into agencies of the executive branch as they were originally created. This is the definition of a major question and also a separation of powers problem since Congress did not authorize the actions Treasury took and continues to take.
You stated, “ TEMPORARY authority of Treasury to purchase (high yield) SPS" inserted by HERA in the Charter Act” End of Quote
The facts are the Treasury’s Senior Preferred Stock is in violation of the law. The FHFA failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act. Our Friend Barron brought this to our attention.
The Senior Preferred Stock, with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates is a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA.
Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the new products sold to Treasury. The FHFA did not follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market.
The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years.
Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; Conservator Lockhart is required by law to file notice to himself as Regulator.
The Safety and Soundness Act required Director Lockhart as regulator not conservator to approve a new product issued by Director Lockhart acting as conservator FHFA-C (SPS with variable liquidation Preference) to Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA for the purpose of carrying out the secondary mortgage market. He was required as regulator to file notice in the federal register, seek public comment and issue federal regulations for the new product we call the Senior Preferred shares sold to Treasury.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Page 2689
SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Barron makes an excellent argument, how to win… The mistake of the current lawsuits the attorneys are going after the conservator! The lawyers failed to mention Federal Law.
Barron said, “ I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. 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 current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge 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. all have failed to this point.”
Anyone on this board interested should read through our Friend Barron’s post.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.aspx?user=414159
Pay the Common Shareholders fair value and pay the JPS par anything less is stealing.
Fannie Mae Reports Net Income $20 billion per year… Price to Earnings Ratio of 12 x $20 billion = $240 billion Intrinsic Value of the Earnings Power of the business.
$240 billion net / common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567 = $207 per share
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
Whomarjb, The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the liquidation preference can be paid down and the Senior Preferred Stock redeemed under the terms of the law of HERA. The money kept by the Treasury by the NWS should be applied to principle and 10% interest and over payment should be returned to the companies. $301 billion is more than enough to pay the liquidation preference and redeem the Senior Preferred Stock.
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’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!
Provided link to the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock, apply the law written in the HERA legislation passed by Congress.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has be paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
Why would the Treasury convert its liquidation preference into common stock? What gives the cram-down pushers the assurance the Treasury will not demand payment in full on its liquidation preference and both common and JPS are wiped out. In essence the Treasury could own both companies.
The theft encouraged on this board the cram-down transaction would cause the legacy common stock to vanish along with any short positions, naked short positions as well as any counterfeit common stock outstanding, in addition the JPS receive nothing wiped out.
I agree Fannie Heyyyyy, I’m just tired of hearing the cram down people complaining about common existing. Just pointing out the fact if the Treasury wipes out the common the JPS are wiped out too.
If the Treasury demands payment in full on the Liquidation Preference this will wipe out both JPS / Common: The Treasury at the same point in time could sell the companies in the open market with no worries of adding the liabilities on to the national debt. YES, ITS STEALING.
The cram-down people pushing to wipeout the common, it may BACKFIRE in your face. Instead of arguing about JPS vs Common start publishing the truth violations by the FHFA / Treasury violations of the Charter Act, the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness act of 1992 (FHEFSSA); Both as amended by the HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008, (HERA).
The Charter Acts are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's enabling statutes. FHEFSSA and HERA are regulatory statutes, governing the companies' regulators. All are laws passed by Congress.
The cram-down people pushing to wipeout the common, it may BACKFIRE in their face.
Treasury restructuring explained below in two different ways, but not limited to the two.
The Treasury can choose to declare the Liquidation Preference paid in full and cancel the Senior Preferred Stock.
Or
What makes the JPS so sure the Treasury will not demand payment in full on the Liquidation Preference wiping out both JPS / Common in receivership?
The Treasury’s LP continues to grow the regulator is authorized or required to place the companies into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Money received by the Treasury pays off the LP by confiscation of our companies. Leaving nothing for JPS or Common.
As we speak the value of the LP is greater than the entire business operation of Fannie and Freddie.
Company’s Financial Statement
Risk Factors Summary
GSE and Conservatorship Risk
Quote: "Our business activities are significantly affected by the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Amounts recovered by our receiver may not be sufficient to pay claims outstanding against us, repay the liquidation preference of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders." End of Quote Page 33
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/media/46276/display
"In the event the assets legally available for distribution to stockholders are insufficient to pay the liquidation preference of all Preferred Stock in full, the assets available for distribution will be divided among all holders of Preferred Stock on a pro rata basis, based on the value of the liquidation preference of each series of Preferred Stock." Page 5
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052220000121/descriptionofsecuritie.htm
Information for anyone new on this board concerning the ‘Cram-Down’ argument.
There are certain people that are encouraging theft, these people want the Treasury Department to wiped out the Common Shareholders, referred to as Legacy Common Shareholders. Not only do these people want the Owners of Common Stock destroyed but take great links in rejoicing of the destruction of the Common Shareholders and consistently for many years have advocated this theft.
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 senior preferred stock in the amount of $120.8 billion, with a liquidation preference of $190.5 billion.
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 to any amount outstanding the Treasury decides.
Serious, you have to ask the question - why is that bad?
BECAUSE IT IS STEALING!
I didn't ask for your opinion.
122 STAT. 2731 and 122 STAT. 2732
Ace, the page number is in the post you just replied too. Regards
I want to thank our friend Barron and numerous others that contributed to the information shared on this board. The below link is self explanatory. Kindly, take time to read. Regards
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172987595
Let's explain it again, read it real slow.
The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the liquidation preference can be paid down, and the Senior Preferred Stock redeemed under the terms of the law of HERA. The SCOTUS stated the FHFA has the right to Sweep the Net Worth, the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE FHFA / TREASURY TO KEEP THE NET WORTH THAT HAS BEEN SWEPT.
Now if the Lawyers will apply the LAW written in HERA
The Treasury has confiscated over $301 billion from Fannie and Fredde!
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!
The calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has been paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
I'm thinking the so-called Wiseman is allowed only 3 post per day and the rest of the time this self-proclaimed negotiator hands out sheet emoji's.
Mr. Bryndon, gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference . Now if the Lawyers will apply the LAW written in HERA. The link is also included in the last post, give it to you again so you do not miss it. Kindly, take time and read. Regards
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has been paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
Let's explain it again to our friend Donotunerstand.
The Treasury has confiscated over $301 billion from Fannie and Fredde!
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!
The calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has been paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
Donotunderstand you asked, "? pay down. how on earth is there enough money?"
Please don't play stupid, you have posted on this board for years? The Treasury has collected over $301 billion.
skeptic your statement is not completely correct.
The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the liquidation preference can be paid down, and the Senior Preferred Stock redeemed under the terms of the law of HERA. The SCOTUS stated the FHFA has the right to Sweep the Net Worth, the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE FHFA / TREASURY TO KEEP THE NET WORTH THAT HAS BEEN SWEPT.
AS PLAIN AS DAY!
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!
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.
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.
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Treasury took it upon themselves and authorized a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity illegal and unconstitutional.
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The FHFA is not authorized by Congress to release the companies by a consent decree. Yes, the FHFA can release the companies without Congressional approval but NOT BY CONSENT DECREE. Read the Law!
What Congress approved with the passing of HERA.
The Treasury was authorized by Congress a limit of $2.25 billion FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS. This amount was increased by Congress in the Charter Act that was amended by HERA. The amount today $200 billion as of December 24, 2009, expired on December 31, 2009: AND NO MORE.
Sandra Thompson CANNOT release pursuant a consent decree without congressional approval. LAW: Congress will have to approve a consent decree. Administrative means to provide financial support by ongoing fee is not authorized by Congress. A consent decree is a line of credit, NOT PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS, two different products.
With the passage of HERA Legislation: (purchase obligations increased with an expiration date of December 31, 2009).
SEC. 1117. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS OF REGULATED ENTITIES BY SECRETARY OF TREASURY.
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) up to the point in time of ‘‘(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.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
South Korea Stocks Jump as Nation Reimposes Ban on Short-Selling
Story by Youkyung Lee • 1h
illegal naked short-selling by global investment banks” and other illegal practices for disrupting the markets. It said it will seek to make improvements to create a level playing field for retail investors and seek stronger punishments for traders who break the rules.
Same sheet happens here!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/south-korea-stocks-jump-as-nation-reimposes-ban-on-short-selling/ar-AA1jqRxi
Make the Treasury return the stolen money and there would be no need for a capital raise. It’s theft from the shareholders and everyone knows it.
Quote: “ Commons would go up in price, reducing dilution. Which would mean less $$$ for the Biden admin from the recap/release "deal". End of Quote
Kindly, explain to me how the common stock going up in price would reduce dilution and less money?
The strike price of the warrants if exercised has absolutely nothing to do with the value of Fannie Mae’s business. The SPS conversion to common stock at whatever price has absolutely nothing to do with the value of Fannie Mae’s business.
Stock price has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the earnings power of the business.
Please explain to me your reasoning
Quote” Has anyone here ever considered that a decline in commons' stock price is in the government's best interest? “ End of Quote
The Cram-Down people on this board are preaching the Common Stockholders of Freddie Mac will be destroyed by the Treasury after the FHFA Breach of Contract Bad faith and Unfair Dealings actions of the government in litigation took place in Judge Lamberth's Court, it took 8 random DC Jurors only 10 hours of deliberations to see right through the Government's false narratives.
The FHFA will payout a settlement to the common shareholders and the Treasury will turn around and wipe them out with a SPS conversion?? That makes absolutely no sense! Pay a settlement and then destroy them.
I’m hopeful Barron encouraging the Kelly Attorneys to file a brand new claim will be successful. It’s not a sure thing the government theft is a done deal as you seem to claim.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173085669
The capital distribution will have to take place after the companies are capitalized, if not the FHFA will violate yet another law. Come on Man! You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this.
As I have stated numerous times I believe the person that has consistently pushed for the destruction of the common shareholders possibly is 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. Makes me ask, 'Who do the cram down people work for, and why are they pushing the cram down so hard?' I have a good idea!
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
You didn’t answer the question, What law gives the Judge the authority to give away the companies' money while the enterprises are undercapitalized?
Oh yeah? Answer this question!
In the court case before Judge Lamberth what appropriation was afforded the Judge to give a capital distribution while in conservatorship? What law gives the Judge the authority to give away the companies' money while the enterprises are undercapitalized? NONE! The capital distribution will have to take place after the companies are capitalized, if not the FHFA will violate yet another law.
Code of Federal Regulation
1237.12 Capital distributions while in conservatorship.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship.
Donotunderstand, said Quote: “ WTS was to provide enhanced value to the "investor - here viewed as public". End of Quote
Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States: ?
The SPSPA agreement is an illegal contract, stop encouraging theft it will not help our cause. Thank you
The point I was trying to explain, Fannie Mae's Business is worth at a calculated estimate of $240 billion; this is the Intrinsic Value of the Earnings Power of the business. The amount of outstanding common shares does not in any way change this value. 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… And no, I do not hope the Treasury gets away with this theft by exercising the warrants; that would be stealing.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173076656
In the court case before Judge Lamberth what appropriation was afforded the Judge to give a capital distribution while in conservatorship? What law gives the Judge the authority to give away the companies' money while the enterprises are undercapitalized? NONE! The capital distribution will have to take place after the companies are capitalized, if not the FHFA will violate yet another law.
Code of Federal Regulation
1237.12 Capital distributions while in conservatorship.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship.
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. Makes me ask, 'Who do the cram down people work for, and why are they pushing the cram down so hard?' I have a good idea!
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