Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Achilles deFlandres]

Thanks for a great analysis. It seems that #4 has an issue within statements made in court.

I think it was David Thompson who said in closing arguments that which should be obvious: Liquidation Preference has value. The current "cash" retention scheme is simply a purchase of liquidation preference by UST.

Secondly: I truly enjoy all of the legal and Constitutional discussions here. Over the years, I have been forced to read that which I never would have read otherwise. This has been a tremendous educational experience for me, but it has become increasingly apparent that the reasonable interpretation of the Constitution along with the law do not matter here. I will stick to my conviction, sadly so, that the Courts will not thwart the Bureaucracy in any material way. They are happy to "clarify" that Watt actually serving at the pleasure of POTUS. They have been happy to unclearly explain that the GSEs effectively belong to Uncle Sam. I have been of this opinion for many years since the Perry appeal failed. I had always believed a takings compensation would be the King Solomon decision to allow the unfettered growth and authority of the Bureaucracy while giving the shareholders a fair shake. Apparently, a fair shake isn't in the cards.