Replies to post #768852 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Rep.Massie:

"It's our constitutional duty to do oversight".

<iframe width=512 height=330 src='https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5084809/user-clip-rep-thomas-massie-grills-ag-merrick-garland-ray-epps'; allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' frameborder=0></iframe>

https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5084809/user-clip-rep-thomas-massie-grills-ag-merrick-garland-ray-epps%27%20allowfullscreen=%27allowfullscreen%27%20frameborder=0%3E%3C/iframe%3E
The "unaccountable Agency" diatribe is proven a masquerade by some lawmakers and the social media paid shills, that have allowed the FHFA to replicate the 1989 bailout of the FHLBanks with a "SEPARATE ACCOUNT TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL" section (Howard: "I don't know what that is") in the law and we can see that the UST was deeply involved in "the making". Other theme is that the taxpayer lost the $30B invested in the RefCorp obligation, because the FHFA referred to the RefCorp obligation as an obligation to pay interests on RefCorp bonds, so it could assert that the obligation has been fulfilled, when the Separate Account section makes clear that it's for the repayment of principal.


Sandra Thompson (just when she arrived at the FDIC) and DeMarco (at GAO providing the coverup. Then, at the UST) shouldn't have tapped the maximum authorized $30B, if the interest rates at the time stood at 10% with a 0.299% spread over Treasuries (GAO report) and with Funding Corp paying only interests, monies reinvested in Public-Private Partnerships with Wall Street.

With FnF, the entire assessment was applied towards the reduction of the obligation SPS, as per the exception to the Restriction on Capital Distributions (Then, towards Recap: CFR 1237.12), like dividends and today's gifted SPS. Besides, no funds available for distribution as dividend all along (Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings accounts). The cumulative dividend on SPS assessed at 1.8% rate with a 0.5% spread over Treasuries, as per the original cheap UST backup of FnF in exchange for their Public Mission.

The case of rogue Agencies (in Fanniegate it's included the DOJ and the S.E.C.) and the breach of statutory provisions, was enabled by the lack of oversight from Congress (The CRTs break the Credit Enhancement clause in the Charter Act, yet some lawmakers have stated in the oversight hearings that they want to see more CRTs)
It's different from the debate about the funding structure of a Federal Agency, where FHFA is funded by FnF and the FHLBanks because they are congressionally chartered private corporations (FHFA has limited powers)
The CFPB might need to be funded by Congress through Appropriations, though it hasn't hindered the lawmakers' constitutional duty to do oversight.
The Separate Account plan legalizes all the current illegal actions covered up by the plotters, thanks to the FHFA-C's Incidental Power.
The lawmakers can only make sure that there is accountability: the coverup of a material fact is a felony. There is a 4-box Checklist Template for scrutiny of coverups of statutory provision in formal documents. 1 box for coverup of financial concepts and a 6th box just for Howard, here.