What you really are saying is "maximize profits for taxpayers", Mr. Pro Se, because FnF sent to Treasury $301B in cash "dividends", on an investment in SPS worth $191B, at a time when the dividends are RESTRICTED, besides no dividend was legally available for distribution out of of a Retained Earnings account with deficit all along. So, we can't really call them "dividends". First of all you have to understand that a dividend is a capital distribution (also notice that the current SPS increased for free as compensation to Treasury, too) Then, restricted in the law when FnF are undercapitalized. But, because the "dividend payments" went through, we consider the funds as capital distributions that we apply towards the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions in the law to legalize them, because there is no such thing as do-overs. Exception B: to reduce the SPS. When it was expected the repayment in full of the SPS with the coming NWS dividend, the FHFA enacted the CFR 1237.12 on July 20, 2011, coinciding exactly with the Time Limitation of the Acting Director DeMarco, to have another exception to apply the capital distributions towards, under the guise of dividend payments: for their Recapitalization (in a separate account) This is why, with your "recovery" of claims, you are really talking about "maximizing profits", because the SPS investment was fully recovered at the end of 2013 in Freddie Mac (Estimation. Watch my signature image), and at the end of 2014 in Fannie Mae. You want to Treasury to keep the $301B in cash received, plus monetize the $296B worth of SPS outstanding, with the illegal SPS increased for free (another capital distribution restricted that we apply towards the Recapitalization, considering the Common Equity held in escrow, in order to legalize it), which the don't even dare to post them on the Balance Sheet because this $103B worth of gifted SPS are missing (Financial Statement fraud) You are breaking the law and I'm legalizing the illegal actions. Notice the difference? Then, we have to talk about the "cumulative dividend" on the SPS the UST is entitled to, with their "special borrowing right from Treasury" in the Charter Act. It's netted out with the interests due to FnF on the $151B owed to them, of which $110B is the SPS overpayment. Let alone that a distribution of capital violates the FHFA-C's rehab power: put FnF in a sound and solvent condition, because it depletes core capital. This is why the Common Equity (depleted both through dividends and gifte SPS) necessarily has to be held in escrow thanks to the FHFA-C's Incidental Power "In the best interests of FHFA". At some point, this Common Equity will be returned to the enteprises. This Common Equity represents a BVPS: $FNMA =$103 $FMCC =$151 By the way, quit replying with your other ID "Rodney" that wants to be my friend to later post crazy analysis, aiming to tarnish the people that, like me, post real analyses. You are asking "Where is allowed in the Charter Act the $200B funding commitment?" and even unaware that the SPS LP increases 1:1 with the increase in the draws from Treasury, regardless of the number of SPS which remain stuck at 1 million SPS since day one. First of all, everything was already responded many months ago when you used your other ID "Barron", and, secondly, it's in the $200B is authorized in the second UST backup (subsection (g)) incorporated by HERA in their Charters, authorizing an infinite rate and in an infinite amount. This subsection the facto updated the $2.25B outdated limit in the original cheap bailout scheme (subsection (c)), that is the one that prevails. You are using more than 20 different IDs on this message board.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
