Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Quit asking for

"fair treatment for all GSE JPS and Common shareholders".

In the financial markets, only the stocks trade, not the shareholders.
This is the reason why every quarter, the Financial Statements are adjusted for the Separate Account plan in accordance with the law, and we are requesting the Fair Value for the stocks. Each share class trading according to its fundamentals and specifications in their prospectus (contract) in the case of JPS, not like during conservatorship, with the stocks discounting the Machiavellian plan of deception, beginning with the issuance of a Warrant to purchase 79.9% of FnF at $0.00001 per stock, dividends in undercapitalized enterprises, SPS LP increased for free in the same amount as the Common Equity increase in the quarter, Calabria's CET1> 3% of Total Assets for the release, way above the prior MANDATORY release with T1 or Core Captial > (updated) 2.5% of Total Assets, struck, precisely, by Calabria (What was he thinking of?). With CET1= 2.5% of ATA is enough (fetched as of September 30, 2023), as it allows the redemption of JPS at fair value (coinciding with par value) and compliance with T1 > 2.5% of ATA (ERCF) afterwards.

Then, there are several stock valuation methods:
-In the case of a Taking by the Treasury, the BVPS or Common Equity per stock.
-In a takeover or "as is" scenarios, an effective PER 14 times, because a PER 14 is added up the Deferred Income, net, assuming an Accounting Standard change (amount later recovered through a dividend payment, when the Deferred Income is amortized into earnings in one fell swoop and the PER drops to 14x. Regardless that they may choose to keep the Retained Earnings instead.)

What I've written was endorsed by Calabria when he said this:


By "take' em" (Net Worth = Common Equity + JPS), he is referring to stock valuation at Book Value, as the actual amount of Common Equity stays in the companies in the case of acquisition of our stocks. Unlike the JPS that do take FnF's money away, like occurs with any other obligation or bond (MTNs) when it's redeemed by FnF (not part of a Taking/takeover).

What you want is a random lawmaker to "treat the stocks" in a negotiation GOP-Dems. That is, you want to give them what they aren't entitled to. A theme peddled by Pagliara & Co: "Thanks for sharing", "Everyone must win", etc. We all win when the Rule of Law is upheld, and I remind you that it includes accountability.
This is what lies behind the "I defer to Congress" (the decision of release) by the Goldman Sachs alumni, Sandra Thompson, instead of "work with Congress" pointed out by all other FHFA directors and secretaries of the Treasury, because what is left is to choose one of the 3 options laid out by the Treasury for the release from Conservatorship in 2011.

The whole purpose of the current misrepresentation of their financial condition, is to buy FnF on the cheap:
- Charter-barred CRTs (both in the Credit Enhancement clause and, if that's the case, in the Fee Limitation of the U.S.),
- Separate Account, and
- The settlement of the PLMBS lawsuit absent from the Balance Sheets).

This is why:
- Regulatory Risk, with the capital requirements ballooned, pointed out in the 2011 UST Privatized Housing Finance System revamp, chosen for the release from conservatorship, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law. For instance, the FHEFSSA Minimum (Leverage) Capital requirement for the MBS Trusts: Core Capital > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets vs 0.45% before.
This threshold is the prior MANDATORY release Undercapitalized in the FHEFSSA, struck by Calabria/Pelosi's HERA.
Therefore, the extended conservatorship is always related to this Regulatory Risk, not an abusive conservator Brindney Spears-style, slavery pointed out by the plotter Guido; a POTUS portrayed as a tyrant by the conspirators, after the attorney Hamish Hume hired the attorney Rebecca Musarra, a household name of Human Rights advocacy, primarily because President Biden has no say in a Fanniegate resolution, and
- Stock valuation, with the adjusted figures, regardless of the ultimate Housing Finance System revamp,

are non-negotiable.