Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation.

You act as if this makes some sort of point, but it doesn't. Of course none of the 12 conditions had been met at that point: the boards couldn't have consented before that meeting because they hadn't yet been asked and none of the other 11 conditions ever applied.

ADMITTED HE TOOK THE COMPANIES OVER BY THREAT

Threat defined: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

What specifically did Paulson threaten them with? The boards didn't have anything personally to fear due to 12 USC 4617(a)(6):

(6) Directors not liable for acquiescing in appointment of conservator or receiver

The members of the board of directors of a regulated entity shall not be liable to the shareholders or creditors of the regulated entity for acquiescing in or consenting in good faith to the appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver for that regulated entity.

Let's say you are right and Paulson really did threaten the boards and they caved and consented to conservatorship. So what? Is that a reason to celebrate while the commons trade at 36 cents and the juniors at single digit percentages of par? Would it un-dismiss Washington Federal?