Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

What the Supreme Court authorized is a Separate Account plan in the FHFA's best interest of misleading the world, because it MUST "rehabilitate FnF" at the same time, and "not in the best interests of FnF" on paper (Balance Sheets), as seen in their horrible ERCF tables, as justice Alito pointed out, paraphrasing the prior ruling over the same case and the same provision, the Incidental Power of the conservator, by judge Willett (5th Circuit Court) with: "Any action within the enumerated powers" (Source), which basically relates to the main Rehab power: put FnF in a sound and solvent condition.
Scroll down to learn what soundness and in solvent condition mean in a financial company.

Complying with the etymological definition of Incidental Power that the plotters want us to forget: without an express grant of authority, they are actions that help to fulfill the main Power.
And also, that the best interests of a regulatory Agency, with regard to the private corporations it oversees, it's related to activities: CSS, UMBS, commingled securities, etc.. It can't be monetary benefit, regardless that the rogue justice Alito, switched "best interests" for "beneficial to the Agency" to play the hedge funds' game of "Govt theft story" for stock price manipulation. Let alone the add-on "and the public it serves" remark that isn't written anywhere, but, in truth, it just allows Congress to keep the $15 billion owed to FnF in the MHA program, and FHFA can continue with the utilization of FnF for government policies: sale of loans to women- and minority-owned businesses, etc. Good for you! At some point it will have to stop.

When soundness in a financial company is related to capital levels, not the "rehab" made up by the CEO of Fannie Mae.


A laughable remark, because FnF today should be declared Critically Undercapitalized with a combined $-194 billion Core Capital, had the Critical Capital level been posted in the ERCF tables in light of the Capital Rule, because the FHFA is omitting this statutory capital requirement. HERA only allowed the FHFA to come out with a new Risk-Based Capital requirement, change the weights in the Minimum (Leverage) Capital requirement and add new capital metrics CET1 and Tier 1 Capital, but nothing about the Critical Capital level that remains as is.
So much for "rehabilitation".

An enterprise shall be classified as critically undercapitalized if—
(ii) does not maintain an amount of core capital that is equal to or exceeds the critical capital level for the enterprise;
12 U.S. Code §4614(a)(4)

Finally, you keep on peddling the lie contending that the general Restriction on Capital Distributions (12 U.S. Code § 4614 (e)) is when FnF are classified Undercapitalized, when it states undercapitalized and IN GENERAL, like today: Sandra Thompson: "FnF remain undercapitalized...".

Classified Undercapitalized is only in the specific restriction on the 4.2 bps sent to the UST/HUD's 2 Affordable Housing Trusts in their specific FHEFSSA provision, and the reason why Mel Watt lifted the suspension in December 2014.
No reason for suspension of the 4.2 bps was satisfied at that precise moment:
1- Not classified Undercapitalized, as Capital Classifications were suspended.
2- No formal Capital Restoration Plan in place.
3- It didn't contribute to the financial stability. Evidence of Separate Account plan because December 2014 is when it was estimated that the laggard Fannie Mae finished off reducing the SPS outstanding (Freddie Mac one year earlier. Watch my signature image below) using the exception to the aforementioned general Restriction on Capital Distributions (Exception: reduce the SPS), taking also into account that no actual dividend was ever distributed, out of an Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings account. So, they were assessments sent to UST under the guise of dividends, thanks to its Incidental Power mentioned above, similar to the 1989 Separate Account provision in the FHLBanks, with Sandra Thompson (FDIC) and DeMarco (GAO acting as accounting firm after recommending the expulsion of PwC to save resources, and at the UST) messing around.

Therefore, Mel Watt might have declared FnF "in solvent condition" that relates to debentures (SPS, a debenture with the taxpayer -obligations in respect of Capital Stock- that must be paid back asap), under the Separate Account plan, pursuant to its Rehab Power, and he lifted the restriction on the 4.2 bps. Otherwise, it should have remained restricted through today.

Mr. Mooppan, is that you?

Now you are on "ignore". You've repeated the "Classified Undercapitalized" slogan, after being called out in my reply 22 hours earlier.
Get a grip.