Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

Abuse and oppression of the vulnerable by the powerful Treasury is sadly prevalent against the Shareholders which is well documented throughout the years in this conservatorship.

It appears to be the underlying driver is the need to find some recognized level of power. These people in this powerful position are anxious about their power and the acquisition of power is a never-ending process and as for those who achieve any level of power quickly become accustomed to it. It becomes the status quo and the need for power can be fulfilled only by acquiring more. Obviously, it is not about the money the Treasury has the power to create as much money as desired.

For the abuser, the belief that they have an inherent right to power and the threat of the potential loss of their personal power fuels their hate towards the Shareholders. The abuser typically views themselves as on top and is constantly trying to secure their position. It is not enough to settle for a mere 79.9% of the Common Stock. This is why the abuser is controlling, easily angered, critical if questioned about their not so rightful ownership of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The conservatorship can be settled were each holder of equity in the companies come out to some degree satisfied. Neither the Junior Preferred or the Common Shareholders would be wiped out. The conservatorship has lasted 15 years and the common and JPS both have continued to trade. And the Treasury decides to take us out??

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%.

JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf