Fannie Mae Preferred S (FNMAS)

[rosen62]

5bagger, here is the written testimony fwiw. Yes, it is open to interpretation what exactly he meant. Sure could be read as "it just happened, we weren't planning on that".

19. These changes in structure [enactment of the 3rd Amendment] did not change the underlying economics of the PSPAs. It was my belief at this time, given the size and importance of the Treasury commitment, that through the liquidation preference, fixed dividends, and the market value of the PCF, Treasury would receive as much from the Enterprises under the Second Amendment as it would under the Third Amendment. Thus, the intention of the Third Amendment was not to increase compensation to the Treasury -- the Amendment would not do that -- but to protect the Enterprises from the erosion of the Treasury commitment that was threatened by the fixed dividend. The Third Amendment was therefore consistent with the intent of the original PSPAs to (1) fully compensate Treasury for the value of its financial support, without which the Enterprises would have been forced into receivership and (2) protect the Enterprises and the national housing market.

Still... if the 3rd amendment unintentionally increased that compensation, where was the remedy for that? This is an interesting omission in their planning and thinking process. He is absolutely saying that "through the liquidation preference, fixed dividends, and the market value of the PCF," Treasury would receive enough!