Replies to post #791134 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[MRJ25]

Welcome to the board.
Your points are very well taken.
Give a bureaucrat unlimited power and the power will be abused.

Go FNF.

[Rodney5]

Quote: “ as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case.” End of Quote

The SCOTUS did not rule anything. The court voted a no contest.

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. The federal statutes ( THE LAW ) was not mentioned at all before the SCOTUS.

The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, and Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts.

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

[Guido2]

Welcome to the Board 2Four. Please continue sharing your insights.

[Wise Man]

FHFA is an independent agency of the Federal Government.


As conservator, FHFA is even more independent:


FHFA has limited powers, as it's still subject to the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. The reason why we request a refund of the CRT expenses, net (deductible expenses, now they pay income tax), illegal in the Credit Enhancement clause.

The Supreme Court didn't say

FHFA has nearly unlimited power through HERA as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case.

You are repeating the take of Bradford and his boss, Bill Ackman, eager to give FHFA superpowers.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the FHFA-C's Incidental Power, like judge Willett in the prior ruling over the same case, stressed as prerequisite: "Rehabilitate FnF", which, in a financial company, it's related to capital levels (soundness), captured in the FHFA-C's Power: Put FnF in a sound and solvent condition". Justice Alito was just legalizing the Separate Account plan "in a way, not in the interest of FnF (awful ERCF tables) but in the best interests of the FHFA", and adding something on his own not written anywhere: "...and the public it serves", for the extortion of the enteprises and give good deals to the investment banks and hedge funds in the sale of NPL and RPL at fire sale prices, REO inventory, etc, that we are witnessing.
Good! But, at some point, it'll be unwound, because in this world, the financial rehabilitation must be seen on the Balance Sheets, not in "External Positions" used by the allies (in fraud): the Bundesbank with the ECB's Payment System Target2, etc.

The president has no say on the conservatorships of FnF. He is only required to give his take about the release, just because the UST recommended a Privatized Housing Finance System revamp for the release, in a 2011 Report to Congress, at the request of the Dodd-Frank law.
Then, about the 3-option plan it came up with. Which is it?
Or about HUD and the FHA's MMIF;
Whether FnF will be taken over by bigger players in housing directly, through a Taking by UST at the stocks' fair value of Book Value and subsequent resale using the PER method for stock valuation this time;
Whether the FHFA will be dissolved or it will be given Chartering authority as it has requested numerous times;
Whether the Charter of FnF will be revoked but the existng shareholder will remain instead.
Etc.

the president of the United States has, in all accounts, unilateral control (all three constitutional branches) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The "link to the sovereign" is captured through the Charter Act, as a consequence of the UST backup of FnF at rates similar to Treasuries, to fund their operations (purchases of either Equity or Debt) as a last resort. That's what makes FnF get funds on the market a few basis points over Treasuries, and not due to some crackpot Govt "implicit" guarantee peddled by the scammers.
Anyway, this is when FnF charged only 28 bps g-fee. Nowadays 62 bps and subject to Basel framework for capital requirements, bound for the aforementioned Privatized Housing Finance System. Therefore, the endgame is that the Charter Act will be revoked because this UST backup is no longer necessary with a Tier 1 Capital > 2.5% of Adjusted Total Assets (achieved even when the JPS are redeemed, thanks to a CET1 > 2.5% of ATA), and FnF no longer subsidize the g-fee as mandated in the Charter Act (section Purposes).

Let me guess, you are one of the 30+ aliases from the rebel pro se plaintiff.

[Rodney5]

2Four, Quote:”Therefore the FHFA director has the equivalent power of congress. In the event congress actually passes a bill that counters the FHFA director” End of Quote

Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law. THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS.

Our Friend Barron explained it for us.

Barron4664
09/20/23 9:36 AM
Post #768746 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results. Had they brought before Lamberth in 2013 any statutory claim involving the actual statutes with regard to the GSEs, then this probably would have ended a long time ago. It almost seems that the plaintiff attorneys have operated as some type of controlled opposition to run the statute of limitations out. A conspiracy. How can 15 years go by and nobody filed a court case based on the charter act. It is like Ray Epps, after 2.5 years, now he gets indicted for 1 count misdemeaner. With GSEs, we get a little victory for Hamish Hume. Look how great the attorneys are, they are fighting hard for us.” End of Quote

THE ATTORNEYS DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSERVATORSHIP! THE ATTORNEYS ASKED THE COURTS TO RULE ON THE ILLEGAL CONTRACT, SPSPA: JUSTICE BREYER TOLD THEM HOW TO WIN!

UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12

The link may not work anymore, the above statement was made and recorded in the transcript.

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

[Rodney5]

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is an illegal contract between the FHFA and The Treasury Department.

Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:

When will the written law apply? The government is not in the business to make money.

Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION

Fee Limitation

Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16

Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)

Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29


Link:

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019

link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf

[kthomp19]

Through HERA and amendments, the United States Treasury has gained, or can gain 79.9% control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's shares and dominant share structure through PSPA's.

The 79.9% thing has nothing to do with FHFA's control of Fannie and Freddie. That control is granted by HERA as conservator. FHFA would still have control even if Treasury had a 0% or 99.9% stake in FnF commons. Note also that Treasury currently does not own any common shares at all.

Therefore the FHFA director has the equivalent power of congress.

No. FHFA doesn't have any authority to write legislation, for example. FHFA's powers are limited to what Congress delegated to FHFA in HERA.

In the event congress actually passes a bill that counters the FHFA director then congress must do so in a manner that the president cannot veto.

Huh? I can't even tell what this means.

Finally, FHFA has nearly unlimited power through HERA as ruled on by the supreme court in the Collins case.

No. The Supreme Court said on page 12 of the Collins opinion:

Every Court of Appeals that has confronted this language
has held that it prohibits relief where the FHFA action at
issue fell within the scope of the Agency’s authority as a
conservator, but that relief is allowed if the FHFA exceeded
that authority. See Jacobs, 908 F. 3d, at 889; Saxton v.
FHFA, 901 F. 3d 954, 957–958 (CA8 2018); Roberts v.
FHFA, 889 F. 3d 397, 402 (CA7 2018); Robinson v. FHFA,
876 F. 3d 220, 228 (CA6 2017); Perry Capital LLC v.
Mnuchin, 864 F. 3d 591, 605–606 (CADC 2017); County of
Sonoma v. FHFA, 710 F. 3d 987, 992 (CA9 2013); Leon Cty.
v. FHFA, 700 F. 3d 1273, 1278 (CA11 2012).
We agree with that consensus. The anti-injunction
clause applies only where the FHFA exercised its “powers
or functions” “as a conservator or a receiver.” Where the
FHFA does not exercise but instead exceeds those powers
or functions, the anti-injunction clause imposes no re-
strictions.

FHFA's authority as conservator is limited to what HERA allows.

The shocking decision from the Supreme Court was that HERA authorized FHFA to sign the NWS. But that doesn't make FHFA's authority "nearly unlimited", but instead "expansive" (the Court's own word, see page 13).

Everything in HERA and the amendments need to reviewed and edited to show the sovereign as having control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

What you think needs to be done is merely your opinion. Since the government has not seen fit to do so before now, it is pretty unreasonable to expect them to do this in the future. In fact, the government specifically refuses to consolidate FnF's balance sheets onto the government's because conservatorship is temporary and not permanent control.

If the Federal Government can openly, blatantly, and boldly combine all three branches of the United States Government to take over two of the most powerful companies in the world, what can be imposed on a single citizen.

A totally baseless and illogical statement. FHFA's power is purely executive. The Supreme Court said "For these reasons, the FHFA clearly exercises
executive power.", see page 30 of the opinion, and "No party contends the office of the FHFA Director is a nonexecutive office", see page 6 of Justice Thomas's dissent.

[2Four]

I appreciate the responses. When I get the opportunity I would like to look into the references mentioned in this discussion. I am just trying to gather a better understanding.

A couple of additional thoughts to the original post. Like I said, I am trying to connect the dots.
(1) The linked article below provides a scenario where it appears the FHFA's power is equal to that of congress. FHFA passes a rule and must require an act of congress to reverse which implies that the rule is equivalent to legislation.
https://financialregnews.com/house-passes-bill-to-reverse-fhfa-mortgage-rule/

(2) I may need help with the following logic. The FHFA was established as an independent agency. SCOTUS ruled that the director could be removed at will. Shouldn't that imply that the director serves at the will of the president? Per wiki (best and quickest reference I have), because the agency is run by a single director and not a panel, the agency is no longer an independent federal agency. Also, the agency funding is not controlled by congress. So, I don't think the agency has the same status after the SCOTUS ruling as before. How do you define it? Is it an executive agency that is independently funded? Whatever it is, no one has bothered to question it or update any rules, laws...etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

See also where Demarco himself questions what the FHFA is (sheet 11).
https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-118-ba04-wstate-demarcoe-20230517.pdf