Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

posted this a few days ago...

The Attorneys gave us the numbers, in chart format too. Link below
NOTE: rather than paying the incredibly expensive 10% dividend any good conservator would have turned to the market and refinanced the SPS removing the Treasury from ownership. AND YES THE COMPANIES HAS THIS RIGHT WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT. Professor Epstein pointed it out in his writing.

Quote
“In the Supreme Court of the United States On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

This cannot be squared with the Takings Clause. This Court must therefore grant certiorari to ensure that the Takings Clause still exists for shareholders in regulated financial institutions.

Of the $379 billion Treasury has received, it received approximately $324.2 billion since the Net Worth Sweep. This amount is roughly $150 billion larger than the maximum amount Treasury would have received under the original 10% senior preferred dividend (and even that number assumes the GSEs would not have been permitted to repay Treasury rather than paying the incredibly expensive 10% dividend ad infinitum). Under the original terms of the PSPA, if Treasury had wanted to take the maximum value it could from the GSEs, it could have received close to 80% of that $150 billion: but it would have had to pay some of that amount to the private preferred and common shareholders. Treasury was unwilling to do so; it wanted 100%, and it took 100%.

Taking property on such a scale should not be permitted without review by this Court. Moreover, as discussed in Section II, below, the drastic nature of the Federal Circuit’s decision is compounded by its holding that the derivative Takings claim also had to be dismissed. According to the Federal Circuit, once the Government has regulatory authority to put an enterprise into conservatorship, it has the power to take 100% of its net worth for the financial benefit of the Government without triggering the Takings Clause. App.52a–53a. No prior case supports that holding, and this Court should not allow it to stand.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-98/230704/20220722162334690_Petition%20for%20Writ%20Of%20Certiorari.pdf