Replies to post #755443 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Freddie bagholder]

too much expectation from sandra

[Wise Man]

Howard talks about the capital requirements instead of the actual available capital reported by FnF. Negative available capital or deficit :
-Freddie Mac: $-33 billion.
-Fannie Mae: $-57 billion
What's the point of complaining about $207 billion Capital requirement, if there is a $400 billion Capital shortfall over capital requirement, adjusted for the $103 billion SPS increased for free. Even if you reduce the capital requirement to $0, there is still capital shortfall.
FnF would post $252 billion Core Capital under the Separate Account plan, that would meet the $207 billion Minimum Leverage Capital requirement.
This is due to the corrupt litigants that don't denounce the Separate Account plan according to the Law, seeking a different outcome, out of a political negotiation.

The Capital Rule was first proposed by Mel Watt on June 2018.
Calabria reproposed it just for the delay strategy by the litigants and T. Howard is a member of Berkowitz's legal team, seeking to reach out to the Supreme Court that would bless the FHFA's actions by misinterpreting what was left in the law (the FHFA-C's Incidental Power), in order to deprive the laws and financial concepts of their meaning and boil it all down to a political negotiation.
The attempts to link a rule to an individual are childish, instead of part of the normal rulemaking by a Federal Agency, with a mandate that was initiated by HERA, but with the guidelines established by the UST when it was required by the Dodd-Frank Law to come out with recommendations on ending the Conservatorship no later than January 31, 2011, and it chose a Privatized System, which means Basel framework for Capital requirements.
Bank-like Risk-Based Capital requirement refers to the same asset class, because it's 4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets and 8% Total Capital to risk-weighted assets. So, mortgages have a different weight than commercial loans, for instance.
Calabria increased the weight of the risk-weighted assets from 6% of Mel Watt, to 8%, for the Total Capital. This is specific to a Basel III 8% requirement that has nothing to do with ideology.
Other theme is that Watt put an asset risk-weight floor of 15% and Calabria rose it to 20%. This is authorized in the Basel rules where it's called "base" risk weight.
The buffers aren't a capital requirement because it's the amount above it. Buffers also included in Basel.
With the floor, Calabria attempted to make the Risk-Based Capital requirement be closer to the Minimum Leverage Capital requirement (Tier1 Capital = 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets), another capital metric also contemplated in Basel (Tier1 Capital = 3% of Adjusted Total Assets)
Yet, the Risk-Based Capital requirement is still far lower than the Minimum Leverage Capital requirement. So, attacking this Risk-Based C.requirement with "bank-like", besides being deceiving because the weight depends on each asset class regardless of being a bank, it's futile if the binding capital metric is the other.
Howard should be attacking this Minimum Leverage Capital requirement, not based on risk, but we see that it's lower than the banks, and he could not raise the flag of "bank-like" for ideological reasons, pursuing an alliance Hedge Funds - Socialists for the Utility Model (secured deals)
Howard:

For ideological reasons, Calabria cynically added enough minimums, add-ons, buffers and
cushions to produce the 4 percent-plus “bank-like” capital percentage he wanted,

[Donotunderstand]

ok
capital requirements with buffers and step up and ten names - stands at - for just FNMA at ? $

in dollars - how much might it drop ?

or in %

my sense is we could really benefit from say a 25% or > reduction