The CFPB is OFF-TOPIC.
It's been explained a thousand times that the FHFA oversees congressionally-chartered private corporations and thus, it has very limited powers.
For instance, this is the reason why we are requesting a refund of the CRT expenses, net (turned into Retained Earnings), without second-guessing. The CRT operations are barred in the Credit Enhancement clause of the Charter Act and its powers as conservator don't allow it to break the law at its will, creating a parallel Charter Act, with the objective to tailor good deals to crony investors and chamber investors, like JPM, BLK, BX, MS, etc. Remember their CRT symposiums attended by former MS and BLK Craig Phillips, BLK, among others? A telltale sign of a scam, later followed by the Bitcoin symposiums.
Let alone that it's barred in the Fee Limitation clause as well, in the case that it's money syphoned off to UST under the Mnuchin's slogan of "the taxpayer be appropriately compensated" or the "to protect the taxpayer" of the other Goldman Sachs alumni, Sandra Thompson, because this is also a lie: the taxpayer doesn't bear credit risk in FnF, the purchase of SPS isn't a loss to the taxpayer (UBS's Hensarling, former House representative). Not even as holder of obligations (compromise of repayment) SPS. The way that FnF are protected is, precisely, with the opposite: building capital that absorbs future (unexpected) losses, basically with their Retained Earnings accounts (CET1). Not with capital stock, by the way, which is tasked only with offsetting a negative Retained Earnings account like nowadays in the phony Balance Sheets, or in the adjusted Balance Sheet shown in my signature image below, in early conservatorship.
That's why the capital ratios, Basel framework, g-fee hikes, soundness, Table 8: Payout ratio, Restriction on Capital Distributions, etc. Does it ring a bell?
