Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

The FHFA is thru their statue obligated to preserve and conserve the assets of FnF, however they are not doing it, and the FHFA needs to put the agencies in sound and solvent condition, they’re not doing that either

Yes. However, courts have held that it is only the NWS that violates this.

(according to government officials prior to conservatorship) no there is no mutual assent, then what were they thinking?

Consent is the official reason given.

so for logic reason we must conclude now it is a takeover by the government and shareholders need to be compensated because the government took private property for public use right?(“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") No, the government thinks it is not a taking and does want to compensate shareholders, so what it is what they want?, what we have seen is clearly a taking, right?

Derivative claims against the NWS were allowed to proceed in the Fairholme case. Direct claims weren't. That means that potential compensation is owed to FnF, not directly to shareholders.

Now if you're asking about events from 2008, as opposed to just the NWS, we will have to see how Sweeney rules in Washington Federal.

But you are jumping to conclusions, asserting without proof or reasoning that the boards were coerced into accepting conservatorship in 2008 and that the entire SPSPAs are unconstitutional. What matters here is how Sweeney rules in Washington Federal.

In 2008 they entered into conservatorship and one might logically think this would take 6 months or even a couple of years, and they would be on their feed again, right? No, just before they became immense profitable for the foreseeable future (according to document from discovery) they implemented the net worth sweep (NWS), which takes all profit in perpetually

What explanation do you have for FnF remaining in conservatorship for nearly 4 years before the NWS was implemented? One would think that if FnF could have been rehabilitated as quickly as 6 months, it would have happened well before 2012.

but in 2008 when it was implemented people thought this was a super duper idea, to strip the company in profits forever

The profit stripping didn't happen until 2012. There were almost no profits to strip between 2008 and 2012 anyway: of the 15 quarters betwee Q3 2008 and Q1 2012 (inclusive), Fannie reported a quarterly loss (and drew from Treasury) in 13 of those quarters and Freddie did the same in 11.

Now of course there is the contract (SPSPA) But what and how could one possibly think this is a contract that helps a financial distressed company?

Believe it or not, the SPSPAs really did help FnF to continue existing. The SPSPAs stopped FnF from having to declare mandatory receivership due to FnF being balance-sheet insolvent for 60 consecutive days because FnF could always draw enough money to get to zero net worth.

that are now the issues currently in front of us, now thinking back to the government stepping into FnF, what have they done to help, what was the relief, and what will be the compensation for shareholders after the decade old takeover?

Again, this will be addressed in the Washington Federal case. And only that case; no other case challenges anything before the NWS.

If Washington Federal ends up getting dismissed, then we will all just have to face up to the reality that the SPSPAs, other than the NWS amendment, will stand.

The takeover was it legitimate, NO
The facts presented do proof the takeover was necessary, NO
The SPSPA, was it an honest contract, NO
The 3th amendment was it fair, NO
Can the government take over a company without compensation, NO
Can the Treasury in the SPSPA do whatever it wants, NO
Can FHFA do whatever it wants, NO
Can we stay in Limbo, NO

These will have to be addressed one by one.

1) The takeover was it legitimate
Maybe. Sweeney is in charge of looking into this, and awarding damages if so.
2) The facts presented do proof the takeover was necessary
Do you have all the facts in front of you? There is a reason that your opinions do not carry the weight of law.
3) The SPSPA, was it an honest contract
Again, only an opinion. And one that Sweeney will rule on shortly.
4) The 3th amendment was it fair
I agree with you here. But since when does "fair" matter? Your opinion as to the definition of that word, and mine for that matter, is meaningless when it comes to court cases.
5) Can the government take over a company without compensation
HERA specifically allows for FHFA to take FnF over by placement into conservatorship or receivership without compensation.
6) Can the Treasury in the SPSPA do whatever it wants
What does Treasury have to do with this?
7) Can FHFA do whatever it wants
This one is important. Judge Sweeney ruled that the NWS is a valid act of a conservator. So while the answer to this question is still no, if FHFA has the legal authority to implement the NWS, its power is quite broad indeed.
8) Can we stay in Limbo
I agree here too, and so do Mnuchin and Calabria, to our benefit.

but in order to settle the lawsuit claims there must be a return equally or higher than the market return of the last decade, plus punitive damages for the individual shareholder in and out of the lawsuits

All I can do is disagree here. Settling the lawsuits depends on the desires of the plaintiffs, since none of them have been certified as class actions. I think that enough cash can get all the plaintiffs to go away.

So all in all the government does have authority to enter into conservatorship with any company they want

No. FHFA is only conservator of FnF, and only because of the authority that HERA grants. "Government" cannot place any company it wants into conservatorship.

Sweeney thinks the ethics surrounding the conservatorship are not cricket

Please provide the exact quote from her that leads you to this statement.

that not only means the 3th amendment has to be voided but the SPSPA needs to be voided too, there is just no reason to keep it in place and will become the basis of other legal battlegrounds in the future, this is not something you might want to live with as government, chickens come home to roost

You have this part wrong. In order for FnF to be released, the SPSPAs, minus the NWS, must stay in place. The presidential memo called for any government backstop to be paid for, and the only way to do that without Congress is to keep the funding commitment in the SPSPAs intact. That means leaving the rest of the agreement intact; Treasury's seniors and warrants were paid for by this funding commitment. Without that commitment, Mnuchin will not agree to release FnF because the MBS market would be shaken up.