Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

The NYSE does not "forcefully delist" companies that are not in compliance with listing rules.

The phrase "suspension and delisting procedures will commence" in your link seems pretty forceful to me.

What is the definition of forcefully? - https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/forcefully

Sure, there are procedures and rules to follow, but the NYSE will eventually take action.

Yes, the NYSE takes action. Taking action, and in this case, delisting, is not related to forcefully, an adverb describing the manner in which action is taken. Taking action, delisting, does not equal "forcefully."

If taking action or delisting means forcefully, please explain how taking regulatory action, conducted in an interactive, gradual manner with notices, correspondence, press releases, SEC filings, responses times, cure periods, press releases, etc. as clearly described in the NYSE Listed Company Manual is equivalent to "forcefully" or "forcefully delisting"

It is not odd since the NYSE sent a price non-compliance notice to Fannie Mae on November 12, 2008. The FHFA responded that it will try to reach compliance by May 11, 2009.

This, combined with FHFA's voluntary (?) delisting statement in June of 2010, is what I see as odd. 13 months after May 11, 2009, the NYSE still had not started suspension and delisting procedures. What were they waiting for?

Yes, what was odd was "that FHFA used the 30-day closing price argument in June of 2010, when it was first true 18 months prior."

That period would be, per stated starting date, 12/1/2008 to 6/1/2010.

From November 12, 2008 to May 11, 2009. NYSE, FHFA (GSEs) were in communication on non-compliance with a 6 month cure period that was in effect and expiring on May 11, 2009. So there is a 13 months, 2 day period before the NYSE sent a non-compliance notice again on 11/15/2010.

How is it that another notice was not sent earlier than 11/15/2010?

During those 13 months and 2 days, there were 62 days consecutive trading days below $1.00 (5/12/2009-8/7/2009). From 8/8/2009 and after, there were no 30 consecutive day periods where the share price was below $1.00. See: https://yhoo.it/2MpKmMN

So, an account needs to be made only for the 62 days without a non-compliance notice.

The first 30 consecutive trading days or more out of the 62 would be counted by the NYSE as material evidence showing price non-compliance.

From the time the 30 or more consecutive trading days below $1.00 were first noticed by NYSE personnel, the NYSE personnel had 30 business days or less to prepare and process a delisting, an official Fannie Mae record, notice, file review, approvals, letter production and other red tape.

So it can be asked: How is it that the NYSE did not send a non-compliance notice 30 consecutive trading days after May 11, 2009, that is, on or after June 23, 2009, and before Fannie began trading above $1.00 starting August 10, 2009 till May 17, 2010?

So it is not 13 months after May 11, 2009.

It is 30 or less days that need examination.

What happened in the thirty or less business days after Fannie Mae was out of compliance?

Could it be bureaucratic tardiness, delisting file processing, administrative review, a grace period, a reversal of a non-compliance decision since Fannie Mae started trading again above $1.00 and before a non-compliance decision or letter was reviewed, approved and finalized?

They only reason I can see to have waited that long is that they were giving FnF (via FHFA) 18 months from the date of the first notice on November 12 2008.

The explanation given above is, perhaps, more substantial.

I suppose that, according to the letter of the rule, FHFA's voluntary delisting occurred right around the time that the NYSE would have done so anyway.

Actually, Fannie Mae was only 19 consecutive days out of price compliance from the date of the NYSE notice (5/18/2010-6/14/2010). This can be considered odd.

In the end it's hard to argue against the delisting given that the common stock price really was below $1 for much of the period between the start of conservatorship and FHFA's voluntary delisting. It was going to happen one way or another.

NYSE moved to have Fannie Mae delisted (not Freddie Mac) according to its rules. FHFA and Fannie Mae under James Lockhart as FHFA Director made an initial attempt to be in price compliance and, at least, promoted and allowed some ideas to boost share price (i.e. reverse split) in November 2008.

However, Edward DeMarco, unlike, James Lockhart, was less inclined to have the GSEs develop and was more into winding up the GSEs and preparing them for legislators to reform or dissolve them.