Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

I thought that the rogue kthomp19 was "kthaput19" after being called out for attempting to mislead this board, stating that the statutory Restriction on Capital Distributions doesn't apply, because it says that it's for enterprises "classified Undercapitalized", when it states "undercapitalized" in general, and it starts with: "IN GENERAL". Source.
First of all, this rogue attorney doesn't understand that this restriction is a Prompt Corrective Action to rehabilitate a financial company. That is, to build capital. A financial concept. It was explained by the FHFA in the famous Final Rule of July 20, 2011 in relation to a response to the payment of Securities Litigation judgements, now in the Lamberth court, but it can be extended as an explanation of all the Conservatorship. Source.
Section in HERA that amended the FHEFSSA in question:


Unlike a different FHEFSSA restriction on capital distribution (an expense unrelated to the normal business of FnF) with the 4.2 bps sent to UST/HUD's Affordable Housing trusts, where it states "classified undercapitalized" (Source) and now, there aren't Capital Classifications. The reason why FHFA's Mel Watt lifted the suspension in December 2014, presumably when he declared FnF in solvent condition, complying with one of his statutory goals as conservator (Put FnF in a sound -capital- and solvent -debenture SPS- condition), and also, it's assumed that it was satisfied another specific exception to its restriction: "it wouldn't contribute to the financial instability of FnF", at a time when it's estimated that the laggard Fannie Mae ended the reduction of the SPS in full, in turn, pursuant to the exception (reduce the SPS) the different general Restriction on Capital Distributions mentioned before (Dividends, today's SPS LP increased for free and the Lamberth rebate)
It's estimated that Freddie Mac repaid its SPS one year earlier (watch my signature image below).

Therefore, the rogue attorney Kthomp19 lied about this general Restriction on Capital Distributions, mixing it up with the specific one on the 4.2bps.
The one in question is for undercapitalized enterprises, like today that "FnF remain undercapitalized" (Sandra Thompson). The grounds for a Separate Account.

Let alone his: "The SCOTUS authorized the NWS dividend" (knowing that the 2nd UST backup of FnF authorizes an infinite dividend rate on SPS), without pointing out that it also stated that it must "rehabilitate FnF", which means that, in reality, it authorized a Separate Account plan for the extortion of the enterprises in the meantime, that is what is rehabilitating FnF for real (Regulatory and statutory capital metrics; On the balance sheet, not "off-balance sheet" which, if any -MBS Trusts-, is consolidated on the balance sheet).

Yet on Wednesday, he started the "legacy shareholders" diatribe, a concept that doesn't exist, neither as financial term nor as legal term, the reason why all the members of the gang repeated it yesterday, at least ten times, seeking the "treat the stocks" peddled by Pagliara & Co: "Thanks for sharing", "Everyone must win", etc.. That is, all made up in a cattle market-style negotiation with the government.
Everyone will get what is entitled to according to the specifications of the security they bought. That is, stock valuation.
It's always "existing shareholders" in any event.

Plotters' invalid term "legacy shareholders" aims to pitch an invalid idea of stocks treated🆚stock valuation,OK'd w/ ST:"I defer to Congress"🆚prior "work w/ Congress".
It's "existing shareholder", awaiting the return of Powers/Rights in use by FHFA-C as I write this.#Fanniegate pic.twitter.com/CxJrd5vBvb

— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) February 1, 2024