Replies to post #693702 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Because when you buy Preferred shares you are entering into a legal written contract at an agreed price! That written contract between the company and warrant holder it can never be changed without consent both both parties.

Agreed.

So warrants are worth par any less is a direct violation of the contract and awarded damages!!

The warrants are for common shares that have no par value. So how could the warrants be "worth par"?

As for the SPSA, I laugh when some here talk about conversion to common shares. It can never happen! Read the SPSA again and prove to the board where it says Gov has legal right to convert or sell them. That's a BIG NOPE !!

As you said at the beginning of your post, preferred share contracts can be amended with the consent of both parties.

It would be trivial for FHFA and Treasury to agree on the terms of a senior-to-common conversion. FHFA would be willing to do so because it would add $193B to core capital and allow outside capital to be raised, and Treasury would agree because it allows them to monetize the seniors before FnF hit full capitalization.

Treasury does not have the right to force a senior-to-common conversion on its own. But there would be no reason for FHFA to deny a request to that effect, and now that the President can pick both the Treasury Secretary and FHFA Director, there would be little reason for them to ever disagree.

Between you and ano I'd like to know who has a degree in business law in what state?? Because I read both sides of your arguments and can see both points of view BUT, you both interrupt the law differently, the same law!

ano repeatedly makes provably false statements. It doesn't take a degree in business law, or anything else, to see that.

I don't even interpret the law in our discussions. I just quote excerpts from opinions issued by judges, including the Supreme Court. ano isn't arguing against me, he's arguing against the courts. For all the good that does...

Word of advise, be more open minded like ano to the fact that contracted rights and share right hold legal standing in some sense.

When have I denied these things?

Two of the main points of disagreement between ano and I are over whether FHFA has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and whether 4617(f) is legal/constitutional. The Supreme Court put both of these issues to bed, in my favor.

[Donotunderstand]

solid - thank you

questions

1. I suggest when most JPS are bought they do not enter into a legal contract for PRICE as 99% for most issues are on the secondary. What is assumed by the NEW owner is the promises in the prospectus (first divvy and eventually PAR or FACE) ??

2. Serious Question

I agree JPS have this contract (explicit v say implicit in common).
SO JPS need to be paid and conversion is super hard

Does that mean that the SPS - also preferred - have the same stubborness?

Actually I so assume !!!! but I also assume there will at some point be an inside court or outside court SWAP of any obligation by FHFA F or F to pay back any of that infusion into equity in return for money paid already (above by 100B?) ---- some NWS over payment swap > 100B value --- or - more negotiation and get it done --- kill the SPS for money paid in total already and the GOV right - with no lawsuit from those who sign up - when WTS are used to raise money for TREASURY ---- if TREASURY agrees to reduce capital needed (force FHFA) and no SPO