Replies to post #349785 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

Then, in your analysis, no plaintiffs are likely to see any monetary damages from the alleged overpayment of quarterly distributions to UST above the amounts advanced as so-called bailout funds? More simply stated, the $50 B paid above the $179 B bailout goes only to the GSEs, not shareholders?

Then why are so many suits in progress that seek return of income to shareholders or reinstatement of dividends denied under allegedly illegal circumstances? Is everyone else crazy for spending huge legal fees chasing some unattainable goal?

Sounds like grounds for dismissal of most every suit filed because the remedy sought would not be allowed by the court. Right?

Please explain, knowing all along that with this view you may now actually be more in disfavor by Fannie fans than I am. You are challenging the "Big Payday" that has kept the dream alive for many longs for all the years since 2008.

JMHO.

[JosephS]

Listen to the IU call with Richard Epstein. He clearly points out why back divvies are "in play"

I am not an attorney but respect one of the best legal minds in the country

[rosen62]

//NWS surplus would go to F/F

and that would mean increased net worth and the possibility of retaining earnings which feed into the Jr. dividends upon discretion of the conservator/regulator/Board.

The point is not that Mel Watt will say no to any dividends to the Jrs. provided there is the needed cushion in retained earnings. The point is that there will be a sea change from not having retained earnings to having them. So the dividends will become a "when" question. It doesn't matter when that "when" takes place.