Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

FHFA is an independent agency of the Federal Government.


As conservator, FHFA is even more independent:


FHFA has limited powers, as it's still subject to the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. The reason why we request a refund of the CRT expenses, net (deductible expenses, now they pay income tax), illegal in the Credit Enhancement clause.

The Supreme Court didn't say

FHFA has nearly unlimited power through HERA as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case.

You are repeating the take of Bradford and his boss, Bill Ackman, eager to give FHFA superpowers.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the FHFA-C's Incidental Power, like judge Willett in the prior ruling over the same case, stressed as prerequisite: "Rehabilitate FnF", which, in a financial company, it's related to capital levels (soundness), captured in the FHFA-C's Power: Put FnF in a sound and solvent condition". Justice Alito was just legalizing the Separate Account plan "in a way, not in the interest of FnF (awful ERCF tables) but in the best interests of the FHFA", and adding something on his own not written anywhere: "...and the public it serves", for the extortion of the enteprises and give good deals to the investment banks and hedge funds in the sale of NPL and RPL at fire sale prices, REO inventory, etc, that we are witnessing.
Good! But, at some point, it'll be unwound, because in this world, the financial rehabilitation must be seen on the Balance Sheets, not in "External Positions" used by the allies (in fraud): the Bundesbank with the ECB's Payment System Target2, etc.

The president has no say on the conservatorships of FnF. He is only required to give his take about the release, just because the UST recommended a Privatized Housing Finance System revamp for the release, in a 2011 Report to Congress, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law.
Then, about the 3-option plan it came up with. Which is it?
Or about HUD and the FHA's MMIF;
Whether FnF will be taken over by bigger players in housing directly, through a Taking by UST at the stocks' fair value of Book Value and subsequent resale using the PER method for stock valuation this time;
Whether the FHFA will be dissolved or it will be given Chartering authority as it has requested numerous times;
Whether the Charter of FnF will be revoked but the existng shareholder will remain instead.
Etc.

the president of the United States has, in all accounts, unilateral control (all three constitutional branches) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The "link to the sovereign" is captured through the Charter Act, as a consequence of the UST backup of FnF at rates similar to Treasuries, to fund their operations (purchases of either Equity or Debt) as a last resort. That's what makes FnF get funds on the market a few basis points over Treasuries, and not due to some crackpot Govt "implicit" guarantee peddled by the scammers.
Anyway, this is when FnF charged only 28 bps g-fee. Nowadays 62 bps and subject to Basel framework for capital requirements, bound for the aforementioned Privatized Housing Finance System. Therefore, the endgame is that the Charter Act will be revoked because this UST backup is no longer necessary with a Tier 1 Capital > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets (achieved even when the JPS are redeemed, thanks to a CET1 > 2.5% of ATA), and FnF no longer subsidize the g-fee as mandated in the Charter Act (section Purposes).

Let me guess, you are one of the 30+ aliases from the rebel pro se plaintiff.