Replies to post #773642 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Ace Trader]

I like the sounds of that !!!

Can you point out on what page the info is please . Again if you already have

[Ace Trader]

We’re going to need a Judge to make them give it back old Gov isn’t going to hand that back Biden and Obama spent all the money !

The calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view

The liquidation preference has been paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.

[trunkmonk]

So many get this so wrong for so long it’s mind boggling….unless of course your crooked, greedy, stupid, or just like making crap up.

It’s bad faith and unfair dealing when the Regulator is authorized to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock and sent the Net Worth without the pay down option. The FHFA Director doesn’t need the Treasury approval to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock the Director has the authority from Congress written in HERA:

[HappyAlways]

The document has only 261 pages. Are you referring to page 2731 ?

[The Man With No Name]

I need some of what you are smoking

[Wise Man]

The plaintiff Joshua Angel spinning the Separate Account, in order to not name it by its name and conceal the merits from our negotiator on the Fanniegate hashtag.
You always denied its existence but now you promote it somehow with the objective to deceive in key elements:
1st. It's laughable coming from you that went to the Lamberth Court to claim that FnF should have stored the dividend on your JPS, unaware that the dividend is a capital distribution and now you are talking about a Restriction on Capital Distributions. You still don't get that it's a dividend what is RESTRICTED when FnF are undercapitalized (also the SPS increased for free nowadays) and also unavailable Earnings for distribution as dividend, out of an Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings account.
Dividends aren't interest payments. So, there is no such thing as "mandatory dividends" as the Wall Street law firm representing the FHFA claimed in court.
So, you want a resolution today (back-end resolution) with the money sent to UST, when it's a front-end resolution at the same time the funds were sent to UST, because it was not an actual dividend payment but a capital distribution under the guise of dividend, that we apply towards the exceptions to its restriction.

2nd. It's set forth in the FHEFSSA that you conceal, not in HERA. Because we can read how HERA inserted it in the FHEFSSA, the law in force along with the Charter Act.





3rd. The repayment of SPS isn't a "refinancing option". It's been explained that the EXCEPTION A that requires to raise cash in the same amount as the amount of SPS repayment, is achieved with the increase in the Common Equity in FnF, as the double-entry accounting means a posting of Cash/Total Comprehensive Income (Retained Earnings + OCI) in the Balance Sheet. This is what is contemplated in the Separate Account plan when FnF sent to UST the Net Worth increase. This is seen in the image of Freddie Mac below. So, it satisfies the intention of the lawmakers of raising cash in the same amount.

4th. You point out that the FHFA didn't activate this option of SPS repayment, because it hasn't been made public, when that's what the Separate Account is about: the FHFA-C's Incidental Power allows it to mislead about it, that is, to do it secretly (Take any action authorized by this section, in the best interests of FnF and the FHFA)
Remember that we are here to legalize every action, so we are forcing them to be legal without second-guessing and whether they want it or not. So, don't come out with what should have happened but with what has happened.

5th. Why on earth you are claiming that the controversial Bryndon Fisher has contemplated the repayment of SPS, when he advocates the payment of a 10% dividend and his claims are never backed up by statutory provisions, like this one U.S. Code §4614(e) and the one that supplemented it "...and shall not replace or affect the Restriction of Capital Distributions by statute") through regulation CFR 1237.12. He proposes a cattle market-style resolution counting on one's fingers: "You owe me X, I owe you Y. I add 2 goats and a cow and we are good!"

You have been explained all of the above a thousand times, but you don't care because you are here on a mission, like posting flawed analyses with your more than 20 different aliases, to make our heads spin and aming to tarnish other valid analyses.

[bradford86]

Yeah — not something i would bet on with my money or any money i control

[Donotunderstand]

hhm
copy
The SCOTUS stated the FHFA has the right to Sweep the Net Worth, the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE FHFA / TREASURY TO KEEP THE NET WORTH THAT HAS BEEN SWEPT.

Assume accurate

R U saying that the FHFA has already "Swept" (killed - paid back?) the NWS (not the 10% I assume) VIA money paid already in the 300B

I like that but I do not want to read my bias-hope into your words. If accurate -- FHFA would today simply need to ANNOUNCE such? [color=red][color=red][color=red][color=red][/color][/color][/color][/color]