Replies to post #690595 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Guido2]

Thanks for sharing. You should post more often.

[mrfence]

We've come a long way since then so now I do wish to see the terms of the orginal C-ship revisited as a taking from day 1 and I believe the tolling on that Taking was reset by the recent SCOTUS decision as Guido has pointed out. I'm unclear as to whether or not any of the currently active suits approach the original terms of the C-ship or have the capacity to be amended to include them. I do believe it's crucial to the purpose of arriving at an all inclusive just remedy to common owners of the GSE's as there was much more taken than dividends. From what I've gathered over the years, all the cash GSE's had at the 1st imposition of C-ship was sweep into a creative accounting black hole and most of the monies GSE's were forced to draw that they were to pay dividends on was used to buy known toxic mortgages from TBTF banks. Then of course the majority of these loans defaulted and these banks were sued for selling these unqualified liar loans in the first place. The suits were successful with total recovery in the billions that the Government kept instead of allowing it to be returned to the GSEs as it should have. So IMO, the whole C-ship charade was a creative way to steal by leaving the GSE's liable for the TBTF banking bailouts and that FnF never rightfully owed the treasury all the profits from the DTA's in the first place. Therefore, in absence of revisiting the original terms of C-ship takings, a remedy returning all taken after the 10% moment including a declaration that the SPS is paid in full with warrants voided would still leave the Government getting away with a large unaccounted for Taking.

[bcde]

"Here is a link to the article. It says that the AIG case is different than the GSEs because AIG would have had no value had the government stepped in a saved them. "

AIG was never bankrupt. It was liquidity problem. If AIG were to get help when they needed liquidity (<20B) then AIG would have never needed bigger amounts (200B).

In fact there was a private investor who was ready to buy AIG, but Hank did not allow it (please read in his book). With his rescue scam, major beneficiaries were his WS companies that received in billion for default insurance contracts. The court decision was another scam, a typical pro-gov and anti common people ruling.

In fact Hank did the same with FnF even though FnF never needed any help.

Hank also did the same with many banks, imposing Gov bailout even when they never needed it. With this Hank made a smaller crisis look like very big crisis and caused Global financial meltdown.

[amelia43]

Thanks for the reply.

[Louie_Louie]

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. A few on here have constantly tried the AIG/GSE comparison game, but there is no comparison. Right from the start the GSE's were made insolvent by the government, unlike AIG. There are many differences that are ignored by those who do not take the time or effort to do their own DD, but blindly follow someone on here that plays off knowing what they are talking about.

AIG situation and the GSE's will always be apples and oranges. One big difference that those who preach the AIG comparisons often neglect is the GSE's are 2 companies who businesses vary based on commercial and residential, so how did both manage to come under conservatorship at the same time? AIG was a single company who was at bankruptcy stage.

I could list many, many differences and many have have been pointed out here, as you just did very nicely, but you can't help those who are stuck on a narrative.