Replies to post #568751 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

What is the definition of forcefully?

The way I used it was to mean that the NYSE would delist FnF's stocks without the companies' (FHFA's) consent. Maybe "forcibly" would have been a better term. For someone who has, in the past, chosen to define words in a non-traditional way, I would have expected you to glean that from the context rather than insisting on a definition from a dictionary.

So there is a 13 months, 2 day period before the NYSE sent a non-compliance notice again on 11/15/2010.

How is it that another notice was not sent earlier than 11/15/2010?

Did you mean 6/15/2010?

From the time the 30 or more consecutive trading days below $1.00 were first noticed by NYSE personnel, the NYSE personnel had 30 business days or less to prepare and process a delisting, an official Fannie Mae record, notice, file review, approvals, letter production and other red tape.

So it can be asked: How is it that the NYSE did not send a non-compliance notice 30 consecutive trading days after May 11, 2009, that is, on or after June 23, 2009, and before Fannie began trading above $1.00 starting August 10, 2009 till May 17, 2010?

Yes, this is a more clear way of asking the question. The 13 months comment I made was not, as you correctly point out, entirely appropriate due to the rise in the common share price above $1 in the meantime. There is still an oddity here, though ultimately irrelevant due to DeMarco's later voluntary delisting.

However, Edward DeMarco, unlike, James Lockhart, was less inclined to have the GSEs develop and was more into winding up the GSEs and preparing them for legislators to reform or dissolve them.

This has my vote for the most likely explanation, though it is still possible that the NYSE would have taken action on its own shortly thereafter.



Does a company have to delist all of its shares (common and preferred) if any one of them does not meet the various share price requirements?