Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Saying "Receivership is off the table" is off the table, with 15 years into Conservatorship, yet we have the usual suspects like Bradford and his partner, Navycmdr, saying yesterday that Receivership is off the table.
They belong to the same gang that wants to downplay expectations for the common stocks, thinking that, in the meantime, the JPS will get a better deal out of pity and with frivolous lawsuits, than otherwise would be with a normal conservatorship and what lies behind, a Transition Period to build capital (Regulatory Risk), pursuant to the UST's "recommendations on ending the Conservatorships", at the request of the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. That is, Basel framework for capital requirements endgame.
What the litigants are doing in court is called "stock price manipulation", for which they have to pay us Punitive Damages. So, nice going.
Only the ambitious Calabria has mentioned Receivership twice before, during Conservatorship:
FIRST.

Another one with the "Back to the future" stance, disregarding the fact of a conservatorship status since 2008, like the hedge funds in court that has led to a capital shortfall similar to the one in 2008: now there are 16 years left to become Adequately Capitalized again and resume the dividend payments (Illegal. In the absence of Separate Acct), versus 14 years in 2008 (Separate Acct plan)
A Receivership is when there aren't prospects of financial recovery, which it has been proven that it wasn't the case of FnF in 2008. So, Receivership was off the table in 2008.
If you induce a bankruptcy, which is what Calabria would like to see, with a series of schemes to misrepresent their financial condition, like recently the SPS LP increased for free out of the blue, in the same amount as the Net Worth increase in the quarter, it's not that FnF need a Receivership, the thing is that you are a crook. The Separate Account plan comes to solve this issue, as it legalizes every action whether they want it or not, and puts FnF in a sound and solvent condition in accordance with the law. In the prior example: For the recapitalization of FnF and pursuant to the CFR 1237.12, these gifted SPS are a joke (capital distribution, restricted) thanks to the FHFA-C's Incidental Power ("in the best interests of FHFA"), that is, in truth, it's holding the Common Equity in escrow (recapitalization, an exception to the restriction), through the offset attached, pending unwinding this operation at some point down the road (operation concealed when these gifted SPS and the offset, are absent from the balance sheets. A Financial Statement fraud that needs to be settled with an all-in settlement or Punitive Damages)

SECOND. Enacting a Final Rule in 2021, precisely, for a Receivership, under the nickname "Resolution Planning Rule", to mimic their failed scheme of 1989, Resolution Trust Corp (RTC), managed by the FDIC, where the UST lost $48.8 billion in Public-Private Partnerships with Wall Street, that no one can say they didn't see it coming. $30 billion invested through the purchase of the RefCorp bond issued by the FHLBanks, that is still outstanding, and $18.8 billion the UST invested directly in RTC required by law.
This is why these people are happy when they see the shareholders calling for "resolution of Fanniegate", thinking that resolution means Receivership, when resolution means also "solution to a problem".
There is nothing wrong with enacting rulemaking for a Receivership. The problem comes with the timing (during a conservatorship), under a Separate Account plan and with a regiment of paid shills in court and on social media that want to harm the economic interests of the shareholders, in favor of the JPS holders, and, last but not least, colluding with the DOJ to that end (share the booty approach)