Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

SPS, JPS and Cs are NOT products of FnF.
A product is a merchandise put up for sale as part of a business activity.
FnF aren't in the business of selling these securities.
This is why I made clear that a product is linked to an activity.

A SPS is a security, not a product (activity)

For instance, their MBS are a product, because it's linked to the activity of packaging and guaranteeing the underlying mortgages.
For the brokerage firm that you mention, the Cs, JPS, etc are products because its business is to sell these securities to the public.
Secondly, I highlighted activity, because the legislation that you mention with the requirements of Comment period, authorization by FHFA, etc., is related to new activities and their corresponding security now turned into a product that is sold to the public. For instance, the single-family social bond policy and program design that the FHFA director came up with recently, as part of the FHFA's ESG agenda that includes Climate Change. Source.
There aren't requirements in the law when the new activity isn't a product (that is, without a security attached sold to the public)
Then, the SPS are a simple security authorized in the law subsection (g) obligations with unlimited yield, although the deadline expired on December 2009 and the subsection FUNDING isn't related to the Funding Commitment as they made us to believe when the PA was amended a few days before this deadline, but how the UST funds the purchases with Public Debt.
The reason why the SPS are increased instead of issued and purchased: evade this deadline.
More reasons to insist that the prevailing subsection and ultimate rate on the SPS is the subsection (c) the original and permanent cheap UST backup of FnF, about redeemable obligations, subsection (b). The SPSPA approved pursuant to subsection (g) was useful to update the obsolete $2.25B in the original UST backup, that Congress should have done directly instead.

Therefore, a security needs to be attached to a new activity to be considered a product sold to the public, otherwise it's a simple security duly authorized.
You called the SPS "product" to claim that the FHFA broke the prerequisites in the law for new activities and products, because you are here to mislead us and make noise with flawed analysis, pro se plaintiff. This way, you attempt to discredit other people that do post comprehensive analyses, like me.
You and your more than 30 different IDs on this board: HappyAlways, Barron, EternalPatience, stockanalyze, stvupdate, Vancmike, Fannie Heyyyyyy, etc.