Replies to post #377661 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[justradin]

As with all contracts, the hidden "meaning" of the contract is not important. Only what is within the 4 corners of the document.

"Only" is not correct either. What is lacking between the 4 corners of the document is also very important.

And many cases are brought to the courts because of such.

I would love to see a single case in all of history where the court ruled along the lines that because a party didn't get a reasonable return on their investment, that they should win some sort of damages. I don't believe such a case exists.

You mention damages... seems that the court does weigh it's decision on how a decision may damage, or seriously and grievously cause suffering or harm to the parties.

Please inform me if I am wrong in the following:

One party has been made whole to the monies loaned at and above the original terms of the loan. Which arguably may have only been necessitated by false accounting methods. And so not only made whole on a potentially unnecessary loan forced on the company, but the entirety of the conservatorship may be in question. Not only such, but more importantly, the original management of said company was removed by force and so only were the warrants/loan agreed to by agents assigned to that company by the same entity as is party to the loan in question.

If there was no merit to the actions, would they not have been dismissed?

If there is merit, then the court when abiding by previous precedent will weigh potential harm to both parties in making decisions.

To what extent will the treasury be harmed in relation to the original loan/monies if the warrants are canceled?

To what extent will the company be harmed if the warrants are not canceled in relation to the original loan with loss of value to the company, all monies paid toward the end of that loan, plus swept profits following repayment of that loan in full?


If the validity of the Conservatorship is open to fight, how are all actions that followed not open to the same evaluation of validity?

The answer always depends on the question. Are the correct questions being asked and answered.

[justradin]

As with all contracts, the hidden "meaning" of the contract is not important. Only what is within the 4 corners of the document.

"Only" is not correct either. What is lacking between the 4 corners of the document is also very important.

And many cases are brought to the courts because of such.

I would love to see a single case in all of history where the court ruled along the lines that because a party didn't get a reasonable return on their investment, that they should win some sort of damages. I don't believe such a case exists.

You mention damages... seems that the court does weigh it's decision on how a decision may damage, or seriously and grievously cause suffering or harm to the parties.

Please inform me if I am wrong in the following:

One party has been made whole to the monies loaned at and above the original terms of the loan. Which arguably may have only been necessitated by false accounting methods. And so not only made whole on a potentially unnecessary loan forced on the company, but the entirety of the conservatorship may be in question. Not only such, but more importantly, the original management of said company was removed by force and so only were the warrants/loan agreed to by agents assigned to that company by the same entity as is party to the loan in question.

If there was no merit to the actions, would they not have been dismissed?

If there is merit, then the court when abiding by previous precedent will weigh potential harm to both parties in making decisions.

To what extent will the treasury be harmed in relation to the original loan/monies if the warrants are canceled?

To what extent will the company be harmed if the warrants are not canceled in relation to the original loan with loss of value to the company, all monies paid toward the end of that loan, plus swept profits following repayment of that loan in full?


If the validity of the Conservatorship is open to fight, how are all actions that followed not open to the same evaluation of validity?

The answer always depends on the question. Are the correct questions being asked and answered.

[Lionscantwinagame]

My point was that the court will take into account the decades long legal precedent established under FDIC conservatorships pertaining to return on investment in determining damages should a taking without just compensation occur, and I believe the second the warrants are exercised, that argument will be ripe. HERA conservatorship and receivership provisions were designed to virtually replicate the pre-existing model of the FDIA conservatorship and receivership provisions. This was done for the purpose of incorporating the existing body of FDIC legal precedent into any conservatorship or receivership for the Companies in order to provide predictability and fairness to stakeholders. Where in the history of conservatorships has the conservator been allowed to expropriate hundreds of billions of dollars from the shareholders and companies under conservatorship long after the loan has been repaid? It’s completely unprecedented, and it seems like you deflect away from acknowledging this simple concept and revert back to some lopsided agreement made between two government agencies. The conservatorship started with a contract that was signed under duress followed by years of outright negligence in their fiduciary duty from the conservator coupled with accounting fraud that led to the 187 billion in debt owed, and then an outright theft in 2012 which resulted in Treasury reaping a windfall of profits.

Your comment regarding the Conservatorship of the GSEs being unprecedented is not entirely true. What FHFA has done while acting as conservator is completely unprecedented, however the legal framework surrounding the very principle of a conservatorship is not. HERA was well-grounded in the long history of FDIC bank conservatorships, and what FHFA has done here has gone completely off the rails.