Replies to post #729454 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

I see people say ownership of common, I make the connection to a potential 79.9% ownership of common through warrants.

There's nothing wrong with that connection. The problem comes when you refuse to also connect that to a senior-to-common conversion, which Treasury specifically stated was a possibility in its 2019 report.

A more reasonable interpretation when making comments that NWS was a "scam" , "travesty", "socialism", and "theft"

All of that is completely irrelevant. The discussion is what Calabria/Mnuchin/Trump meant in the plaintiffs' filing and Trump's letter. It isn't even about the NWS at all!

I would come to the conclusion trump referred to warrants and not more theft by converting an inflated LP number.

The plaintiffs said exactly the opposite, that's my point. From page 15 of the very filing that you quoted at the beginning of this thread:

All else being equal, the larger the liquidation preference, the more common stock Treasury would receive when converting its shares; and the more common stock Treasury received, the more it would profit from the sale of that common stock.

By arguing against a senior-to-common conversion, you're now in the position of arguing against the plaintiffs themselves. In one of the only remaining cases that can actually unwind the NWS, no less!

So, unless you have audio or video of them saying specifically WHAT was meant by their words, warrants or sp conversion or both, then this is open for interpretation.

No, the burden of proof here is on you and not me. You are the one saying that Calabria/Mnuchin/Trump were only referring to warrant exercise and not a senior-to-common conversion. It is you that would have to provide proof of that.

I said that they could have been referring to either one, and I provided documentation to back up my point.