InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

HappyAlways

07/28/23 8:41 AM

#760563 RE: bradford86 #760552

Glen,

Can you suit the USG for us (as I am not a US citizen) that the NWS loan terms is illegal ? It is modern time slavery. In layman terms, "I am afraid you cannot afford the interest payment. From now on, you pay me everything you have (including any income, earning, etc.) quarterly." The revised loan terms makes sure that I can never repay my debt.

https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx

Third Amendment

On August 17, 2012, Treasury and the Enterprises amended the SPSPAs. The Third Amendment recalibrated the calculation of the quarterly dividends the Enterprises pay to Treasury. Rather than use 10% (or in some cases 12%) of the liquidation preference to calculate the Dividend Amounts - a practice which was contributing to the Enterprises need to draw on Treasury’s commitment of financial support - the Third Amendment based the Dividend Amounts on the Enterprises’ net worth[color=red][/color]. This helped ensure the Enterprises’ financial stability, fully captured financial benefits for taxpayers, and eliminated the need for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to circularly borrow from Treasury only then to pay dividends back to Treasury. The Third Amendment also suspended the periodic commitment fee for so long as the Dividend Amounts were based on net worth. The Third Amendment also eliminated the requirement that the Enterprises obtain Treasury’s consent for asset dispositions with a fair market value (individually or in aggregate) of less than $250 million, but required the Enterprises to submit annual risk management plans to Treasury.

We can simply focus on the revised loan terms and the terms only. The revised loan terms makes sure that the Enterprises can never repay their debt. At the end of 2011, the Enterprises owed UST $191B. In 2012 alone, the Enterprises paid UST $121B as NWS dividend. That's 63% interest. It is Unconstitutional. It is clearly illegal taking of private property. That is also aligned with the SCOTUS ruling "Why not suit for illegal taking".

1. To address the time limit issue, the NWS related lawsuits are ongoing for many years.
2. The lawsuit is purely derivative
3. Ms. McFarland informed FHFA management weeks before the NWS announcement is not an coincident. And, Jim Parrots's email to FHFA calling "to ensure Fannie and Freddie can never exit the conservatorship".
icon url

skeptic7

07/28/23 1:17 PM

#760592 RE: bradford86 #760552

I don't understand your meaning here. Any insight appreciated.