Freddie Mac (FMCC)

[Rodney5]

Ace Trader,
I appreciate your attitude. Really like your suggestion.

Quote: "Best thing we could do is find a young keen lawyer fresh out of law school hungry to make a name for him or herself." End of Quote.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171611458

Also, I like what Barron had to say...

Barron4664
Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255
Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM
A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171193506