Replies to post #355409 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[whipstick]

all that means is FHFA's aka Treasury didn't know what they were doing when they tried to implement it. It's a mgmt at the point in time issue - if mgmt and mgmt's auditors (whose forecasts were wildly inaccurate lest we forget) are saying we can't pay it, and then they require it anyways, relying on mgmt's judgment in the implementation of said dividend should be suspect no?

Further, if mgmt was trying to do invoke a dividend that was so unmeetable as to cause the company to strain in it's capital positions doesn't that also point to manipulation of results to justify moving into a NWS position if that is your intended goal?

You have to look at the actions and the results of the actions on a cash basis. You can't justify forward looking statements at points in time to steal the profits if the opposite of those projections happened.

None of this results in case dismissed. In fact it's case very much not dismissed. Good try, you'll have to live to yank another day.

[Donotunderstand]

But such 10K as prepared under the supervision of FHFA/Treasury and privately audited are the subject of a fraud lawsuit

What where ALL the expenses used to come to the conclusion there was no money for payment?

What wrong assumptions on write downs and future cash flows were used for such a dumb conclusion

I admit its been a while since I read the financials but my recollection is that there was a lot of assumptions - a lot of assumptions about bad paper and thus insanely low incoming cash flow

Such assumptions proved inane and insane

And now lawsuits - I assume on this - have followed

Anyone can make an asset rich company look cash and income poor by reducing the value of assets and purposefully underestimating future cash flow on such assets