I'm trying to connect the dots and don't know if the following is true, complete, or if it really maters. Any thoughts?
(1) The President of the United States has unilateral control of two Fortune 50, private, shareholder owned companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Through the executive branch both the Director of the FHFA and Secretary of the Treasury serves at the will of the president. As conservator and regulator, FHFA has the powers of the management, boards, and shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through HERA and amendments, the United States Treasury has gained, or can gain 79.9% control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's shares and dominant share structure through PSPA's. Through the legislative branch, recent events have shown that a rule passed by the FHFA director can only be countered by an act of congress through legislation. Therefore the FHFA director has the equivalent power of congress. In the event congress actually passes a bill that counters the FHFA director then congress must do so in a manner that the president cannot veto. Finally, FHFA has nearly unlimited power through HERA as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case. Therefore, the president of the United States has, in all accounts, unilateral control (all three constitutional branches) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(2) Fitch ratings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are correctly linked to the sovereign. To be accurate in the next earnings reports both companies need to end referencing FHFA and start noting authority to the sovereign (President of the United States).
(3) Everything in HERA and the amendments need to reviewed and edited to show the sovereign as having control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(4) If the Federal Government can openly, blatantly, and boldly combine all three branches of the United States Government to take over two of the most powerful companies in the world, what can be imposed on a single citizen.
