Bradford, a conservator has fiduciary duties other than act in the best interests of the Equity holders, which, by the way, doesn't mean to act against us.
FHFA is acting on our behalf when our Rights and Powers were transferred in the Succession Provision (momentarily) and necessary to carry out its statutory goals. Fiduciary duties emerge and they are owed to us, as always that someone acts on behalf of other.
Judge Sweeney said "fiduciary duty", when it's in plural form "duties", because there are others: loyalty, duty of care, etc.
For instance, Duty of Care might well be set forth in the FHFA-C's Incidental Power, when it states that any action must be "authorized by this section" (certified mail sent to judge Sweeney). These 4 words were omitted by judge Sweeney, a former DOJ employee.
We are dealing with Federal Agencies owned by the banks and hedge funds.
A Conservatorship isn't a temporary Receivership.
Glen Bradford also asserts firmly (fallacies):
1- "spspa conversion", intead of SPS, to pass the 4th SPS certificate amendment off as the 4th SPSPA amendment, in order to get involved secretary Yellen in the flawed January 14th, 2021 SPSPA amendment: "Capital Reserve End Date", 12 days before she was sworn in. Etc.
2- "Anti-dilution protection" in the Non-Convertible JPS, when it's only in the Convertible FNMFO and it isn't anti-loss protection. Besides, he doesn't get that the JPS would be wiped out with the current Balance Sheet (only $118B Net Worth, but $310B SPS outstanding). He wants to apply the "Mnuchin Rule": conversion of SPS and JPS with the same haircut, Mnuchin said so according to Calabria's book. So, we don't even have evidence that he said so.
3- "SPS LP increased for free, are off-balance sheet". False, these gifted SPS LP and its offset (reduction of Retained Earnings account) must show up on the balance sheet. Financial Statement fraud.
4- "SCOTUS said that FHFA can do whatever the hell it wants", when, in reality, it put the premise of "rehabilitation of FnF" that, in a financial company, it's related to Basel framework and also, pursuant to the FHEFSSA capital requirements, a 1992 law enacted exclusively for the soundness of FnF (capital adequacy matters) still in force.
5- "FnF continue to build capital", when the regulatory capital built is wiped out with the offset mentioned. Zero regulatory capital built. FnF build SPS (capital stock).
6- "Capital Reserve = $118 billion", when it's $0 adjusted for the offset when the SPS LP was increased for free (without getting the corresponding cash) in $118B. An invalid capital metric both in the FHEFSSA and under the Basel framework FnF are bound to (Capital Rule effective February 16, 2021), besides the 2011 UST Privatized Housing Finance System revamp, UST chose for the release from Conservatorship, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law.
The last three points, also mentioned by Bill Ackman (for the first point, implying that SCOTUS said FHFA has absolute discretion, in the Pershing slides)
Which makes me wonder, do you happen to know him? Are you being instructed by him as to what to say on Twitter, SA and Ihub?
Is he attempting to negotiate on our behalf, repeating the same lies that you are posting here daily?
Is he another "Fanniegate hero" as you self-proclaim?
The shareholders are being conned.
