Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Our negotiator slams the WSJ's Ackerman.
When talking about false rhetorics peddled by the plotters that want to keep the control over the enterprises, commented on Tuesday:

"Government implicit guarantee on MBSs"
"Wind down FnF by raising their guarantee fees"
"A NWS dividend is a typical renegotiation of obligations. Thus, within the FHFA-C's power."
"Conservatorship is being very profitable for the taxpayer"

the WSJ is one of their tools:

"A rule requiring FnF to hold more capital than the $35 billion currently allowed to hold"

, when, first, the $35 billion was Net Worth, not regulatory capital and, secondly, the conservator cannot switch on/off when a conservatee can retain capital and syphon it off to the government instead.

"The firms were taken over by the government in 2008".

As in a "takeover"?
By calling the release from Conservatorship:

"privatization".

Also,

"The ongoing support from US Treasury is necessary for their business model".

False. Only when they subsidized their g-fee that made them hold a thin capital ratio, which isn't the case now, both regarding g-fees and the Basel framework for capital requirements, under the Separate Account plan.

Lately, Ackerman repeats that the mortgages of FnF are

"backed by the government"

, which was first initiated by Pelosi and Mnuchin, known for meeting together in a room alone, sat at a table to negotiate multi-trillion-dollar plans and the Federal Budget, hand-in-hand at the stroke of a pen. It occurred in the CARES Act, in which Mnuchin has said openly that he participated, which refers to "Federally-backed mortgages" to the ones acquired by FnF. At least, misleading, because it implies "guaranteed" and the Charter states otherwise:

It'd be better to say "government-sponsored mortgages", if any, but that doesn't authorize the Congress to mess around with the mortgages of private corporations for the lawmakers' PR campaign, with activities that aren't contemplated in the Charter Act. At least, without paying for it, as it was Ginnie Mae the one that kept the Special Assistance function when it was spun off from Fannie Mae in its privatization of 1968. A PR campaign also for the FHFA, that is another reason for the lengthy Conservatorship. The FHFA Director even wrote a book about it later.
And, while they are at it, explaining the theme of "sponsored", they can also explain the UST backup of FnF in the Charter dynamics, as seen with more detail in the SPSPA.

1st,Govt Implicit Gtee on MBS→Loan govt gteed→Now, loan govt backed.
Better "sponsored" if you wish, as the only "backing" is the UST backup of FnF as a last resort,purchasing SPS upon neg Net Worth(Capital Deficiency in the PA)
Pointless today under Basel framework.#Fanniegate https://t.co/RaYR6s5N0S

— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) November 29, 2023