Replies to post #771043 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Bradford is a hippie that always diverts the attention from technical concepts because all he knows is to swap his stock for a different stock, like kids trading with baseball cards.
1st. FnF are in the business of making investments. So, the debate about MBS purchases is about the very existence of the Charter or try something else, because the latter was the objective during conservatorship since day one: to eliminate their advantages, enumerated here, and one of them was the usage of their low cost funding to boost profits in their investments held in the Retained Portfolio (on-balance sheet), as opposed to their mortgages bundled into MBSs and sold to investors, held in MBS trusts (off-balance sheet obligations). Their assets are split into Mortgage-related Investments portfolio (MBSs, mortgages) and Other Investments portfolio (Treasuries, cash,...)
So, the debate isn't about their current capital. You snuck Critically Undercapitalized to conceal the Separate Account plan, where FnF have excess of capital to redeem their JPSs.

Please explain to me how two critically undercapitalized (CET1) firms in conservatorship could even dream of making "investments"?

2nd. Quit repeating that the FHFA Director has a charitable function.

Sandra Thompson's charitable distributions from scarce corporate capital, which are actually a government function,

You are referring again to the 4.2 bps on new acquisitions funneled to two Affordable Housing funds managed by the UST and HUD, as mandated by law.
Yes, this is considered a capital distribution and thus it was restricted. But, unlike other capital distributions restricted by law (dividends and today's gifted SPS as compensation to UST in the absence of dividends), the provision with the 4.2 bps has its own exceptions and it was Mel Watt who considered in December 2014 that the restriction could be lifted and it's been assumed that the milestone regarding financial stability at the time, can only be the repayment of SPS in full, as per the Separate Account plan (See the chart below with the case of Freddie Mac: SPS fully repaid one year earlier)
Therefore, Mel Watt lifting the suspension is evidence of the Separate Account plan, otherwise this payment of 4.2 bps to UST and HUD would have been a violation of the law. Prison sentence and monetary penalty, remember? And we don't want it to happen. As always, every action is legalized for the resolution of Fanniegate and all you want is to take the money and run, while the hedge funds that pay you lie in wait. The 4.2 bps was explained here.

You lack knowledge of financial concepts and FnF matters. The corrupt litigants have covered up the key statutory provisions and financial concepts and then, it's your turn to cover the daily debates on social media in mud. Debates like what happens with the SPS absent from the balance sheets (you claim that SPS and LP are different securities) or with the adjusted $-216 billion in ther Retained Earnings accounts that aims to absorb future losses and where the dividend payments are distributed from, $304 billion SPS still outstanding, etc.
A modern day hippie under the orders from the hedge fund manager Ackman hand-in-hand with Pagliara, just like your buddy Navy Hedge Fund.
Why don't you two go to the park and play with other kids?