Replies to post #357722 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[WovenO2]

Wow! Whether holding shares or not, I can honestly say I find your applied logic downright frightening. Please understand, with all due respect, this is not a personal attack but rather an observation of how differently we view the role of government in our lives. Wow.

[MATT6929]

Cool story bro. Your antagonistic ways tell a different story.

[FastEddie18585]

True that the risks should be well-known, and we investors are responsible for our own actions, but that doesn't mean we should let the Government off the hook for using questionable tactics to surreptitiously wipe out our shares.

This entire process has been shrouded in secrecy, and it's only from the court cases that we have learned the full extent of what many of us had suspected all along. If it were the Government's plan from the beginning to wind down FnF and wipe out shareholders, they should have put them into receivership and not continued to offer shares to investors and pretend that they were going to "preserve and conserve" the companies. This lack of transparency is the thing that bothers me the most.

Even if you agree that the conservatorship was just, there is the net worth sweep, which is a whole different kettle of rotten fish. The timing should make it obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that this was for the sole purpose of overcoming budget shortfalls due to the GOP-forced sequestration, though the Government is going to great lengths to conceal that fact too.

Obviously, anyone who invested in a bank or AIG or FnF after the recession took a risk in the economy recovering. The difference here is that the Government is not letting free market forces determine the value of our investments. They are simply taking the profits out of our pockets and putting into theirs. That's not how things are supposed to be done in a democracy, and we are right to fight it.

[rekcusdo]

"As unpopular as that view is, here, especially among an audience that is largely optimistic investors, I have always maintained that the government's motives arose from...."

It isnt that the view is unpopular, it is that it is irrelevant. It doesnt matter what the Governments motives are. They are subject to the same laws as the rest of us and they CLEARLY broke several areas of Contract law at the least, and Criminal/Tort/Constitutional Law at the most.

This is just another step toward total government control over our lives. The last step was changing the Interpretation of the Constitution to allow the taking or private property for private use. If we lose in the GSEs, the next step can be demonstrated by the facy yhat Legislation has already been proposed (though it was shot down) which would require babies to be chipped at birth to monitor health, finances and criminal records. These small steps WILL lead to a complete breakdown of private rights over time. No government should have that much power.

No matter what the governments motives are, they must abide by the law, or what kind of society do we live in.