Replies to post #764868 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[LuLeVan]

A regulated entity shall make no capital distribution if, after making the distribution, the regulated entity would be undercapitalized.

One could argue that the entities are already undercapitalized anyway, so that the payout does not trigger the undercapitalization (it only exacerbates it) ;-)

Perhaps Sandra also adheres to this interpretation when she distributes funds to those in need, thereby increasing the undercapitalization.

[Guido2]

"They look but don't see, and they listen but do not hear or understand."

[Wise Man]

SPS and SPS LP, the same/// HERA? It's FHEFSSA.
2 topics:
- It's not the first time that someone tries to make a distinction between SPS and SPS LP, in order to justify that there is $111 billion SPS LP that is missing on the balance sheets (Financial Statement fraud)
Like LuLeVan yesterday:

The only "separate account" is the Liquidation Preference because it is not included in the balance sheets, which show only the SPS.

Liquidation Preference is how you value the SPS. Others might choose the Redemption value in a preferred stock.
The number of SPS is the same since day one of Conservatorship, when FnF issued 1 million SPS for free. Since then, the Liquidation Preference has been increased in the same amount as the draw from Treasury, plus nowadays the LP increased for free.
Other theme is that this increase is a Securities Law violation because any security must be issued in order to have the formal deed of purchase/sale at a determined date.
This way, the UST evaded the December 2009 deadline on purchases in the law with the second UST backup of FnF. Not even one security has been purchased by UST during conservatorship. How is this even possible?

The second topic. Once again, the pro se plaintiff talks about HERA, even with the Restriction on Capital Distributions, when almost all the provisons in HERA start with: "Section XXXX in the FHEFSSA is amended by....."
He tries to conceal the remainder of the FHEFSSA, with the definitions of each Capital Classification (the capital requirements are met with Core Capital and Total Capital, not with their Net Worth), definition of capital distribution (any dividend, today's gifted SPS, payment of securities litigation judgments and stock buybacks). Also the remainder of the Charter Act, with the original UST backup of FnF, that HERA replicated in a UST backup with unlimited rate and in an unlimited amount. Now, you can see 2 UST backups of FnF with the same name: Authority of Treasury to Purchase Obligations.
This is what HERA states, with regard to the Restriction on Capital Distributions, a key provision the grounds of the Separate Account plan using the exception (Then, the exceptions in the July 20, 2011 CFR1237.12 supplemented it, once the SPS were fully repaid). The coverup of this provision in court, including this pro se plaintiff, is the reason why the plainfiffs face a $4.8B penalty, accused of stock price manipulation, making false statements, abuse of court process, etc.




So, HERA inserted it in the FHEFSSA. Where is the ball now?

Also, notice that the problem with "and" in the exception "(A) and (B)", was solved with the intent of the lawmakers: the cash for the redemption of the SPS, was raised in the same amount with the double-entry accounting when the Common Equity increased, as seen in my signature image below. So, it wasn't necessary to issue more shares, Preferred Stocks or other obligations as set forth in (A).
The pro se plaintiff forgets this explanation and calls (A) "refinancing option of the SPS".
Beware of this pro se plaintiff "Rodney5", who also uses other 30 different IDs on this board:
HappyAlways
Barron
Vancmike
EternalPatience
Nagoya1
Skeptic7
Fannie Heyyyyyy
JOoaOky
stvupdate
Etc.
The pro se plaintiff is one of the scrambled lawsuits remaining in the CFC.
Why don't you amend your lawsuit with judge Sweeney, instead of bothering the Equity holders here, posting flawed analyses and deceptive comments 24/7?