Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Accounting changes can mitigate impact on a total takings.

The gses are private entities because the federal government wanted it that way in '68 for Fannie Mae and '72 for Freddie Mac, primarily to keep their liabilities off the federal governments balance sheet.

If a federal court rules that in fact the federal government has taken the private shareholders property, that shareholder compensation is zero, wouldn't the federal government be the proud owner of $7T+ in federal government balance sheet liabilities?

How specifically would, "Accounting changes mitigate" the impact on a total Takings?

What was the remedy for the physical taking? What was the actual loss to the owners? Was it just really a declaratory victory with no real compensable harm? If there was a physical occupation of personal property by govt sanctioned actors how much did the property owner lose?

In Cedar Point Nursery, both parties agreed to a stipulated court order that California would no longer engage in the unconstitutional action. But the SCOTUS said on remand that damages were in fact due to the aggreived Plaintiffs and Cedar Point Nursery was entitled to a trial on damages for the temporary taking by the state government of their real property rights but agreed to the stipulated order instead.

The Net Worth Sweep is one of the most egregious forms of government overreach in US history and if it is ruled a temporary taking of private shareholder property, I think damages could be substantial.