Replies to post #790827 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[DaJester]

Donotunderstand, I'm not sure if or how much of the LP will get written down. I run several scenarios to see how much it benefits my position (0%, 25%, 50%, 100%, etc.), but I don't pretend to prophesize on which is likely to happen. It could be anywhere from zero dollars to the entire LP amount.

The fact that every dollar drawn could NOT be paid back without authorization from Treasury is a predatory lending practice. The move from 10% dividend to the NWS was also predatory. The previously dismissed cases claiming Treasury was taking profits that didn't belong to them, were dismissed for lack of standing or bringing the wrong legal challenge. I'm glad the Berkley jury was able to see the impropriety and set a precedent for future claims.

Now, any sniff test should tell us that if the NWS is a violation of the good faith of the common shareholder agreements, then the Treasury should not be put in a position to further engage in predatory practices by using a mechanism of a profit "sweep" into the LP, very similar to the sweep in cash.

If the GSEs drew 191B and repaid 300B+ in dividends, IMO - the taxpayer already has a return on the investment. The entire LP should be moot - the GSEs are not being liquidated. IMO - the SPS should be retired and the LP written down as part of the release plan as they approach the capital thresholds. They have served their purpose. Similarly, the warrants have also served their purpose, but that one is may be harder to position as a pure profit grab since it has been unchanged from the original agreement.

[kthomp19]

the idea --- notion - theory - that there will be some "return of LP" (my quotes) now that the Jury decided in our favor is very interesting

Only "interesting" in that it is wildly incorrect and yet somehow widely believed.

The jury verdict had NOTHING to do with Treasury, the senior preferred shares, or the liquidation preference of those shares. Nothing that Treasury did was found to have been a violation of any law or covenant. Treasury wasn't even a defendant in the case!

And no, the argument that "Treasury signed the NWS therefore they were a party to the wrongdoing" doesn't work. Again, Treasury was not a defendant. They got offered a plum deal and took it. The implied covenant was only between the companies and the shareholders; Treasury has nothing to do with it.

The verdict ONLY resulted in the companies having to pay money to shareholders. That is it and that is all. There is no implication on Treasury because, again, Treasury was not a party to the case.