Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

When will the conservatorship end?

The conservator has authority to extend the conservatorship all it wants "in the best interests of the FHFA" (Related to activities and preceded by "authorized by this section". Incidental Power), since HERA struck the prior MANDATORY release Undercapitalized (Core Capital > Minimum Leverage Capital requirement) in the FHEFSSA.
Currently, an adjusted CET1 > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets. So, that threshold has been long passed.
The new threshold, allegedly, allows the redemption of the JPS (AT1 Capital). Thus, it seems that we are in the scenario of getting rid of the unwanted Equity holders, like the FHFA with the FHLBank membership in a 2016 rule, proposed in 2010.

That's the end point. It's supposed that, in a Democracy (which is what the Rule of Law is also about: values,... Not just to uphold the law), the House financial services committee and the Housing and Banking committee in the Senate, along with the White House, are on it and won't permit this rogue Federal Agency to overstep without any reasoning behind to back it up. Primarily because, although the dividend has been impeccably suspended, the Non-Cumulative dividend JPS has a contract, unlike the common stocks, and there is no way back, an attempt to undo what's already been done, which is what it looks like now, using the courts and Congress to bless it with a stroke of a pen.

We just know the endgame: 3-option Privatized Housing Finance System revamp, established in the 2011 Report to Congress, submitted by the UST at the request of the Dodd-Frank Law of 2010, with regard to "recommendations on ending the conservatorships, no later than January 31, 2011": Treasury recommends increasing the guarantee fees, Basel framework for capital requirements, 3 options,...

The "FHFA will work with Congress for the release" by Watt and Calabria knowing where we were headed to, was switched for "I defer to Congress" by Sandra Thompson in a clear sign of attempting to undo what's already been done, commented before.

So, the Congress is still working on the 3 options laid out in 2011 (Option 3: Govt Catastrophic-Loss Reinsurace, unrelated to a Govt Explict Guarantee)
The 4th option is a government Explicit guarantee on MBSs by Trump and China in the 2019 Housing Reform plan, recovered by Mike Bloomberg in his 2020 electoral manifesto that I already posted on Ihub (along with CRTs, currently Charter-barred in FnF. Breach of the Credit Enhancement clause. Coincidence?)
The UST officials are still with flash-trips to China, we learned two Fridays ago. Like senator Shelby in August 2011.

The 4th option is just fine. We just have to reassess the stock valuation.
Because the important thing is that, in the meantime, the dividend is still suspended and the Common Equity keeps on growing in accordance with the law, like occurs in any other private corporation in the world, including in their conservatorships that preserve their status. A Common Equity that we later use for the stock valuation based on fundamentals, updated with the quarterly earnings reports. It doesn't mean that the existing shareholder take their capital away. It's just stock valuation. The Common Equity built stays in the companies.
The "I defer to Congress" isn't about messing around and a Solomon-type decision. What Pagliara and the rest of plotters refer to with: "how to treat the stocks". That isn't serious.
Let alone the "I defer to the courts", as another way to approve a different outcome. The Lamberth rebate and a booty for the crooked attorneys that are acting more like mercenaries, covering up the basic concepts, making the judge claim that:

No genuine dispute remains on the fact of harm on the theory of plaintiffs were denied dividends that they otherwise were reasonably certain to receive.

Everybody wants a dividend, in undercapitalized enterprises.
This is more related to trickery and an attempt to con the shareholders.
It's all about Regulatory Risk and stock valuation.
Non negotiable.