Replies to post #210733 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[jarenawer]

Thanks for your 8 msgs in the board to show the true

jajajajajajajaja

[brandemarcus]

You are confusing conservatorship and recievership. These arguments were already dismissed by Richard Epstein in his 2 hour presentation at Nyu. One of the panelists used your same argument that the favorable terms in 2008 justify 2012. The taxpayers got 80% plus payback plus 10% interest. They get far more than any other bailout.

[feralcomprehension]

Partial truths and ad hominem attacks make for an intellectually weak case.

Don't like the stock? Don't buy it, but don't come here and expect us to swallow your bullshit.

[kabanch]

Born the other day to bash. LOL FNF :-}}}

[jeddiemack]

This is not is it should be ...

Conservatorship is a fiction based play to "conserve" ... Conserve for who?

For my aunt sally? For Tiger Woods? For maybe Oprah Winfrey?...

Conserve for who?


Maybe the shareholders?


Who do you think the board works for, who do you think the employees work for, who do you think management works for?

Its not undifferent as to ATT or Fannie Mae.


Maybe the shareholders?

[Dollars1]

Who do you think masterminded this great idea of conservatorship to take care of all the mistakes? We know the FHFA agency was created and the director declared conservatorship in September 2008. Who really was behind the whole grand plan, and what was their exit strategy?

[crawford2012]

Chamillionaire, first of all welcome to the board, it is clear that you are new on here and I am sure you are here to learn, share, discuss and of course help other members by contributing information based on facts and not statements that are true per say as a headline, but totally deceiving when proper dd and facts are brought to the surface....right? I hope this is what you are planning to do on this board.

Let's us touch on a few points in your post so we can get our self's upto speed including you as like I said you are new here and probably to the MTG industry as a whole. (P.S- I just want to give you the benefit of the doubt and trying to help you)

YOU SAID:Conservatorship by definition eliminated any fiduciary responsibility of the company to private shareholders.

So the questions is what is the true meaning of Conservatorship?
Conservatorship is a legal concept in the United States of America, where a guardian and protector is appointed by a judge to manage the financial affairs of another.

When referring to government control of private corporations such as Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, conservatorship implies a more temporary control than does nationalization.

PLEASE READ THIS WORD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU GET TIRED...(((((((((TEMPORARY)))))))))That's what should have been and this is not what they did.

After that the only defined party in interest was the US government. YOU SAID:The third amendment was good for the government

Exactly: so who does the govt work for? The govet works for the benefit of the people...we are those people...I promise you we are not from planet Mars.

, and so the companies met their fiduciary duties.

YOU SAID:The private shares are effectively worthless from day one of conservatorship,

Was this a fact or an opinion? Should there be any truth to this opinion, we would have law suits from day one as well and our cases have been closed with a slam dunk win! In addition if this is how simple it is for our govt to step in and just take over any company it wishes in the name of taxpayers (this sickining statment - full of lies)most companies would not be trading on the stock market and they would just ramin private and hope they can rasie money and grow over the years...but this is why we have the stock market (wish it was not rigged).

the sweep just institutionalized that fact. So the sweep was in fact perfectly legal.

With regards to the above two words: perfectly legal please refer to this fact see underlined.

In the United States, in some states, corporations can be placed under conservatorship, as a less extreme alternative to receivership. Whereas a receiver is expected to terminate the rights of shareholders and managers, a conservator is expected merely to assume those rights, with the prospect that they will be relinquished.[2] Robert Ramsey & John Head, law professors who specialize in financial issues, suggest that an insolvent bank should go into receivership rather than conservatorship to guard against false hope and moral hazard


I decided to stop here as I believe this is enough to help you understand that we on this board have done years of DD and we are very comfortable with our decision to support this company and allow it to continue its mission to help make homes affordable and provide for our children and their children a chance to own a home.
____ I don't there is a need to continue arguing the point below._____I think it is clear that it is you that: quote: I know if you don't understand the history of these companies it's all very confusing. YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED ANS SHOULD HOP ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FENCE.

If you think otherwise, then you are arguing that they shouldn't be in conservatorship. That's not true either, because (a) they were severely undercapitalized at the time and no private investors were willing to fill the hole (in late 2008 the world was ending) and (b) the Charter Acts and other governing legislation provided for conservatorship in just that case. Ever since Fannie and Freddie issued private securities conservatorship was the specified method for dealing with severe undercapitalization. And the concept of conservatorship always (not just with the 3rd amendment) transferred all control to the Treasury, not eliminating the private securities but allowing the companies to do whatever was necessary to protect taxpayers. That was always a risk to investing in Fannie and Freddie. That was the original deal shareholders cut with the government.

I know if you don't understand the history of these companies it's all very confusing, but at least try a little bit? Certainly more constructive than making feel-good rant posts and trying to solidify conspiracy theories.

[Donotunderstand]

Cham

So why is Ackman buying and buying and then buying more

Would not Ackman know as much as you ?

[BigBenWallace]

CONSERVatorship, get a clue

[GreenWizard]

90% of what you said is a rigid lie.