Obie,
1. I'll try and put a schedule together; but the basic premise is reducing the 10% load to 5% is a 50% reduction in cost. This allows the amounts paid earlier at 10% to cover interest and amortize or curtail the loan. Thus every subsequent payment covers more principal reduction and brings the loan value down.
Thanks.
2. Obviously, there are some timing issues with an estimate like this but its probably not unreasonable.
An approximations can be sufficient for evaluating the bill. Please remember that the schedules will be for several loans beginning from 2008.
3. My work doesn't even contemplate the fact the borrowings were contrived by the felonious method that FHFA and Treasury cooked the books.
Capuano and the House would not consider this when suggesting an amortization schedule.
4. Since all the money was repaid.
Rather than repaid (there are no loans with the GSEs), it is accurate to write that dividend payments exceed the amount of Treasury draws.
5. The money stuffed at FandF when then didn't need it that was repaid, should have drawn no interest. Without studying the 10Q's I wouldn't want to guess, but my sense is nearly all if not all the money should have been without interest or fees because of the government corruption. And if you figure much of the "draws" were circular that would make quite a difference in the outcome.
Capuano could not consider in his calculations or amortization schedules government corruption and circular draws. The bill could deal with the actual amounts of Treasury draws and dividend payments only at 5% rate over 30 years. That is all there is to work with since the court cases have not decided the 5th amendment takings, APA violations, breaches of contract, fiduciary duty and fair dealing allegations and the narratives of US Treasury and FHFA actions that go with these.
So, we can make a schedule with the facts at hand to see what this bill produces and what it proposes to do with the outcome.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
