Replies to post #410200 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[contrarian bull]

The idea of conservatorship is to try and avoid receivership.

As for stockholder rights - anyone buying f&f after conservatorship started should have done due diligence and known they were buying shares with no vote. That's partly why these shares are so cheap.

Even in receivership they don't have to kill the shares - they could give shares in the new company to old shareholders if they wanted... but that seems less common. It's so much more profitable for the new company to issue new shares and keep all the cash generated.

I own some shares from before receivership - I suppose I should fight for my voting rights, but meh.

[rekcusdo]

"I still do not understand why in conservatorship stock is still allowed to be owned and traded...

If they are going to disregard shareholder rights when the stock dropped to next to nothing in 2008 why didn't they just do something about it then? "

Easy answer...

If they had removed ownership from shareholders back in 2008, they would have been required to adhere to Taking's law. Instead, they kept shareholders around and claimed that nothing has been taken from them.

"If we are a private owned company then they should be concerned with shareholder rights... "

HERA has disregarded shareholder rights. They have no reason to be concerned with them.

"If it is a government controlled company as they keep saying , then they should have killed all the shares in 2008..."

They have never said that the GSEs are a government owned company. And again, they would have to have paid people out under takings law which could get murky given the value of the company.