Thanks for sharing. I remember this article.
We have to analyze this;
1) Just the title indicates, Forbes is antagonistic to F&F and to any goals of then president, Donald Trump.
2 ) Two 2 years later things have changed
3) Explicitly mentions their treatment should be like everyone else's, by not having special rules.
4) It indicates Treasury needed to bailout the Enterprises. It doesn't mention the accounting treatment Henry Paulson (ex CEO of Goldman Sachs) forced the companies to show artificial losses. We have to remember that just a few weeks before the FHA and auditors said they were adequately capitalized, and then suddenly they had a 180 degree change in opinion, when they realized investment banks could use their capital to dump their toxic instruments, at 100 cent per dollar, only with the help of Government, by declaring them insolvent. In order to do this they needed to change their accounting.
5 )Then, it mentions Dividends and device protection Liquidation Preference, where they cannot raise capital w/o paying back LP. This contradicts # 3 above, and the legal meaning of LP.
6) Says the companies were struggling, while recognizing that from 2008 to 2018 they paid $300B to Treasury, i.e. $100B more than received. It credited this to the bailouts. It doesn't make any sense.
7) The goal here was to use the Enterprises' capital buffers to rescue investment banks. Now they blame lack of capital as the hurdle to exit conservatorship.
8) On minute 5:35, it indicates the discretionary power to liquidate assets if placed in Receivership, when Critically undercapitalized. . We know that they have been raising their capital now and this will not happen. It would also create havoc in the bond capital market.
9) Finally, FHFA Director, Ms. Thompson, is for exiting conservatorship. They did not liquidate them in the worst year ,2008
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
