It is interesting how you say, "Laws ban one sided forced perpetual agreements." I don't know whether that is true or not, but in this case it is moot. The FnF SPSAs, (which include the despicable third amendment Net Worth Swipe in particular,) are technically not one sided agreements. They are contracts to which parties on two sides, FHFA as so-called "conservator" on one side, and US Treasury on the other side, have agreed.
(Okay, we all want to say, but FHFA and USTsy are both the same guy when it comes down to it, they are both the US gov, but so far no court has agreed with that. I would love it if they did and it led to unraveling the BS here, but none of the suits I know of come anywhere close to making serious ground on that aspect.)
Regarding your claim that the 3rd amendment was to keep them from paying down the LP, certainly it would prevent any possibility of paying back the draws from USTsy, but that possibility was already explicitly prevented in the original agreements. The only provision for repayment is in the event that USTsy's "commitment" (to fund FnF for any deficit in Net Worth) has been terminated. It is actually even more restrictive than Fully Diluted pointed out. FnF are explicitly prevented by the contract from paying down the LP at all, whether it be against unpaid dividends or original investment, as long as USTsy continues to honor the "commitment" to provide funds to keep FnF from going Net Worth negative.
Now, I believe, and I think any "reasonable person" (one of those legal abstractions) should believe that this is despicable, usurious, onerous scumbaggery beyond pale. "I will invest money, but you can never pay it back and I will charge you 10% annualized interest." Well, that's how preferred stock often works. A fairly steep rate, true, but you've got me bent over a barrel, so, okay.
Then a few years later, "Wait, I take that back, not only can you never pay me back, but I will take all of your profits until you die!" Now you, or I, or any normal person would say, "Whoa, no effin way!" But Slick Eddie D., our wonderful "conservator" at the FHFA, said, "Hell, yeah!" because he was up to his eyeballs in creating the whole idea in the first place.
Unfortunately, we have yet to hear an opinion from a court that has jurisdiction in the matter on that particular point, because, as stupid as it may be, there is this massive issue: There is not one single suit, (as far as I have seen,) in which one of the parties of the contract itself, (FNMA, FMCC, FHFA or USTsy,) has challenged USTsy's rights in the SPSAs. The plaintiff(s) under every single suit involve shareholder{s}, whose rights have been subsumed by the law of the USA under HERA. After all, if your next door neighbor agrees to sell his awesome, mint-condition '67 Shelby GT350 Mustang to the guy across the street for three hundred dollars, what right do you have to interfere?
That is how stupid this whole thing is. The people who own the companies, (including you and I and a bunch of other people who hang around this board,) are watching someone not just pawn off our awesome Shelby for three hundred bucks, but seeing it being GIVEN AWAY FOR NOTHING, over and over again, every three months, to charity, and NOT EVEN GETTING A WRITE-OFF FOR IT! Every dollar paid into the swipe has already been filtered through the tax grubbing machine of (you guessed it!) the Treasury of the United States of America.
We now have the entities actually involved in the agreements, FHFA and USTsy, under administration of different political forces than were in charge during the 3rd amendment. One might think that these forces are in opposition to the NWS and the ability to "repay" USTsy's funding. Yet somehow, the last major change was actually with Mel Watt at the helm, shortly after the election, and shortly before the installation of these "new forces" with the increase to $3B each allowed Net Worth. Mel WATT! Are you KIDDING ME?!?
It would seem the only hope is that whatever goes on "behind closed doors" is taking its time to be sure not to step on anyone's toes and not to appear self-serving or giving preferential treatment to whatever cronies might be involved. Then FnF can be slowly unleashed from their bondage, which bondage I believe is unprecedented in the history of this country, perhaps even in the history of the known universe.
I continue to hang on to my shares, but I am actually coming up against financial need that could very soon make me begin to have to let go of some. How many frickin years is this going to take?
Sorry for the rant, and thank you @bcde for your regular and supportive presence on the board. Maybe one of these days we'll get to toast at the Wynn, or wherever.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
