Your posts are interesting but you glaringly mislead people and you know it.
Who told you that the FHFA does not have to abide by the laws of conservatorship when it comes to fiduciary responsibility? What does the FHFA have to follow then? Just make it up as they go along? Actually, that is what they have been doing isn't it?
HERA does not invalidate the rules of conservatorship. Even on treasury's own website it is made clear that the conservatorship of the GSE's is the standard legal process with a clear definition. If it did what you claim then they would not have called it "conservatorship", they would have created a new term such as "special government asset status". Then they could make all the rules up as they went along. You cannot use a standardized conventional term in a law and expect it to have a new meaning. With that logic, they could also choose "receivership" and do something completely different - and if they did you would be OK with that because as you say, there is no fiduciary responsibility in HERA. The government can just do whatever they want?
You are correct when you say that the fiduciary responsibility of FNMA to its sharesholders was vacated when they were put into conservatorship, however, this responsibility was taken over by the conservator. The conservator is not there to "conserve and preserve" for the government or even for the taxpayers. A conservator is to conserve the enterprises for the OWNERS who are the shareholders. As the government has not actioned their warrants they are not even a voting shareholder at this time. Even treasury has stated many times that the owners of the GSE's are the shareholders.
All of Obama's allies are leaving him on this topic. Sharpton, civil rights organizations, mortgage groups, etc...So unless he wants to throw the next presidency to the Republicans he will do the right thing and recap and release.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
