Replies to post #752928 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[chessmaster315]

I agree with Barron4664.

I have offered refutations to "the conversion theory", the dilution theory, and other made up hogwash that suggests that every common shareholder will have to write a 200 dollar check to the preferred's for every share of common we own.

The only "evidence" of the conversion theory, for example, is preferred speculation. There ARE a class of shares which are "convertible", but none of them are FNMAS, FNMAT, or other fannie preferreds.

If someone tries to vandalize my common shares by making them "convertible", I will report them to the police, just like I would report to the police if vandals try to cut off the roof of my car and make it a convertible.

[kthomp19]

Your arguments are wrong.

You didn't refute, or even address, any of them. I was only talking about the effects of an unwinding of the NWS, which is what the Collins plaintiffs could win if they prevail on their Appropriations Clause claim.

They are only true if the illegal actions of Treasury and its subservient FHFA are not eventually overturned.

Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.

Thus the dreams of some future conversion of the LP are just that, a dream.

Nope. A senior-to-common conversion is a grave and very real threat. It was listed in Treasury's 2019 Housing Reform Plan and almost actually happened in late 2020 according to Calabria's book.

Please dont ignore this post. Please answer the question if you know what law allowed the Treasury to provide a commitment prior to the purchase of any securities?

Prior? The funding commitment and Treasury's purchase of the senior prefs happened at the same time.

Even if your question said "in conjunction with" instead of "prior", I suppose my answer would be the last sentence of Section 304(g)(3) of Fannie Mae's charter:

(3) FUNDING.—For the purpose of the authorities granted in this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury may use the proceeds of the sale of
any securities issued under chapter 31 of Title 31, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of Title 31 are extended to
include such purchases and the exercise of any rights in connection with
such purchases. Any funds expended for the purchase of, or modifications
to, obligations and securities, or the exercise of any rights received in
connection with such purchases under this subsection shall be deemed
appropriated at the time of such purchase, modification, or exercise.

I don't think it would take much of a stretch to say that the funding commitment fulfills one of the conditions in the last sentence. Part (4) of Section 304(g) puts a time limit on this authority (December 31 2009), but the original SPSPAs (establishing the funding commitment) and first two amendments (increasing the size of the commitment) were all signed before that date. I am not aware of the commitment getting any larger since then.

[trunkmonk]

Yes it’s been that way for years. All of f them based on false outputs or receivership fantasies. Every con in the business is against common shareholders.