Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

The 2 Extended Versions of the Income Statements include "Changes in Equity". Then, only one of these "Changes in Equity" is shown in Equity (Balance Sheet).
The idea that Trump wanted to end the Conservatorships, written in a Presidential Memorandum, is laughable, because he was just continuing with the same Separate Account plan adding the 3rd phase, otherwise every action is unlawful and a also a breach of the FHFA-C's Rehab power: restore soundness (build capital) and solvency (build capital and reduce the SPS).

The Trump Administration is behind the scheme: SPS increased for free as compensation to UST, that began with a one-time $3B in December 2017 with Mel Watt, after being warned in a tweet by a shareholder that the SPSPA is void as of 2018 ($0 NW target in the 3rd PA amendment, a breach of the Charter Act that requires a minimum).
He wanted to meet the capital requirements increasing the SPS LP every quarter while posting $0 EPS,


when it's precisely this $0 Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders, the Common Equity (plus the OCI that I will talk about next) that should have been posted on the Net Worth of the Balance Sheet (fixed picture of a company at a determined date), because this information appears in a separate extended version II of the Income Statements created, precisely, for these Changes in Equity, that is shown below the original Income Statement "result of operations" (revenues and expenses during a period).

You can't post "Changes in Equity" on the Income Statement version II, and later you are reluctant to post the actual "Changes in Equity" on Equity (Net Worth), that is, on the Balance Sheet (all the SPS LP increased for free is missing, because it carries an offset with reduction of Retained Earnings account, and shows that FnF are not building regulatory capital but SPS LP)

This accounting rule exposes the plotters' Financial Statement fraud.
There is also an extended version I of the Income Statements, where the "result of operations" (revenues and expenses) should stop on the Net Income line item, but the companies add another line item: Other Comprehensive Income (OCI: fair value changes in AFS securities when a company has the intent to keep those securities to maturity and thus, avoid the volatility in Net Income and Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders for the EPS. Thus, the HTM portfolio is BS), that is another "Changes in Equity" that shouldn't have been posted on the Income Statement if it's an Equity transaction shown on the Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) of the Balance Sheet (Equity), but, the same accounting rule (reflect accurately what really was earned by the shareholders) compels the companies to post it here and thus, they don't post just an Income Statement (result of operations) but the Comprehensive Income (adding up changes in Equity).

This is why it's been created this adjusted table: We see how the $2,741 mll in Comprehensive Income (Net Income + OCI) is swept to UST (as seen in the Income Statement too), the very moment that it's substituted for SPS LP worth $2,741.
The shareholders have earned $0 ($0 Common Equity built), as correctly seen on the Income Statements.



It's important to see it because, necessarily, this Common Equity is held in escrow, as the capital distributions (SPS LP increased for free) are restricted, and we use the exceptions to this restriction to legalize them. In this case, the CFR 1237.12 tells us, either in the exception 1, 2, 3 and 4 because it supplements and shall not replace or affect the restriction in the statute USC 4614(c) meant for the recapitalization, that it has to recapitalize FnF ("to meet the minimum capital level and risk-based capital requirement").

It also uncovers that it occurred the same with the prior capital distribution restricted, both the 10% and the NWS dividends. The exceptions are activated to legalize these payments:
-To reduce the SPS (obligations in respect of Capital Stock -SPSPA-)
-For their recapitalization: July 20, 2011 CFR 1237.12, in time for the moment that the SPS were fully paid off (Dec 2013/2014, resp.). It was needed another exception to apply the dividend towards (assessments sent to UST in the form of capital distributions, not actual dividends), knowing that the coming NWS dividend (2012) was going to repay them fast (fastest speed possible, as the 10% dividend prompted the losses and more SPS increased)
The FHFA-C's Incidental Power "any action", allows this plan of deception.

The capital requirements aren't met with the Net Worth, otherwise you would see low profile officials handing out SPS LP for free every quarter, equal to the NW increase, which coincides with the Common Equity increase.
Therefore, these people want to meet the capital requirements piling up SPS.
These people later want good deals from the administration in the sale of securities on the market later on. They can throw in Making Home Affordable programs to sweeten the deal and draw more politicians into their plan. Another Public-Private Partnership with secured deals for investors (Chamber investors), that began with the 1989 FHLBank scheme, that saddled the taxpayer with $30B in losses (The principal of the 40-year RefCorp obligation remained outstanding, as the bailout was renamed "obligation to pay interests" by the FHFA. Thus, considering it "satisfied". Good. But you have only paid the 40 years in interests, not the principal of a RefCorp obligation that only paid interests. Oops!), recovered in full recently with the seizure of $SVB after being leveraged to the max with FHLB's advances (loans) and the ongoing Fed's HTM portfolio scam (the eligible assets for Liquidity in their Contingency Porfolios aren't recorded at fair value).

Under accounting rules and, in order to give a more accurate information about what really has happened during the quarter and what the shareholders have really earned (the Preferred Shareholders are "the others", because they have "other ownership interest" -upon Liquidation-, as stated for instance, in the FHEFSSA definition of capital distribution), there is this separate extended version II, below the original one that ends with the Net Income and below the extended version I with OCI.

In this double Income Statements don't appear the compensations to the shareholders, because the objective is to know what they really earned in the quarter (without showing the volatility with OCI, commented before), not to show the compensation to themselves as the shareholders. That is, they own all the remaining Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders, regardless that later it's distributed to them as dividend, or kept by the company as Retained Earnings.

The compensation with dividends and others like the SPS LP increased for free, are distribution of Earnings are "Changes in Equity", not items "result of operations".