Replies to post #508669 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

only the buyers ?

give me a break

And the issuers who "plotted the RS and then issuance" are not part of a conspiracy to …………

Assuming the warrants are not exercised:

1) $100B raised at $20 per share (5B shares), new buyers end up with 5B / (5B + 1.8B) = 73.5% of the companies.
2) $100B raised at $5 per share (20B shares), new buyers end up with 20B / (20B + 1.8B) = 91.7% of the companies.
3) $100B raised at $1 per share (100B shares), new buyers end up with 100B / (100B + 1.8B) = 98.2% of the companies.

The government makes no money from any of these. How is #3 a violation of the Fifth Amendment, or any other law? Especially if #1 isn't? What about #2? Violation or not? Where is the tipping point?

Rules of the market are tough when any one group benefits over another

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

If it's like another post I read, saying that lawsuits will happen if one group is given preferential treatment, I just ask again: what law (section and paragraph number) is being broken by a secondary offering? And why does it depend on the offering price?


(from another post)

How does that dilute the 19.9%

Issuing shares at $1 after a 1:50 reverse split is similar to #3 above. Even without the warrants, current common shareholders end up with 1.8% of the companies.

[jeddiemack]

Interesting thing here is a responder to your post wrote

"Assuming the warrants are not exercised:

1) $100B raised at $20 per share (5B shares), new buyers end up with 5B / (5B + 1.8B) = 73.5% of the companies.
2) $100B raised at $5 per share (20B shares), new buyers end up with 20B / (20B + 1.8B) = 91.7% of the companies.
3) $100B raised at $1 per share (100B shares), new buyers end up with 100B / (100B + 1.8B) = 98.2% of the companies."

Yet, why did they write and propose $20 a share? $20? You'd mean what Fannie made per share in a year or and a quarter? That is a little low, most would agree.

Why not a raise of $100B at say $100 a share? or 1B shares so new players end up with 1B + 1.8B = to around 35%?

or

Why not a raise of $60B at say $100 a share or 600M and let the eps of the companies stay at the companies for the other $40B only take two year?

The interesting thing here is assuming the worst; sure at $.001 a share they only issue 400B shares... but really, that's a little incoherent to justify.

So, lets be fair.

if not, why not $100B at $150 a share... see it can go the other way as well.

But be real and people will respect your thoughts.

Otherwise most will just move on.