Replies to post #791231 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Govforprofit]

Rodney5,

I think this is an important comment! I’ve never seen anything where the government is in the business of making the most profit. The government provides a service and tries to do it at cost. Examples are the postal service, national weather service, the National Park Service. They aren’t in the business of making money but providing a service at cost. I never understood this maximizing profits bullshit. Show me where it is in Hera, the Charter Act or any other government service articles. I’d like to see it.

[trunkmonk]

if courts followed the law, everything from Lockhart on was illegal. Bush signed HERA and most likely like Biden, didnt have a clue what he was signing. he was never confirmed by congress. so if the goose and gander is equal, treasurer and Director can do anything they want, including set them free.

[Wise Man]

You call the dividend on SPS "commitment fee" to fit your narrative, contending that there is a Limitation on Fees by the United States, in the Charter Act.
No commitment fee on the UST's Funding Commitment was ever assessed or collected. So, shut up.

There is only the initial $1B SPS LP issued for free and the Warrant, that, in some documents, is called "initial commitment fee".
This is why we fix it by considering these gifted SPS a higher compensation to UST, thanks to the provision that allowed a 10% and NWS dividends, subsection (g), the second UST backup of FnF inserted by HERA into the Charter Act of Fannie Mae.
This higher compensation is later unwound, in order to uphold the original UST backup of FnF at rates similar to Treasuries, subsection (c) (any obligations of subsection (b) redeemable obligations, including the SPS), which is the exception in the Fee Limitation of the United States that you have written.

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.

The Warrant is deemed a collateral in order to uphold the authority of UST to purchase this security, to (iii) protect the taxpayer. The fact that it was issued for free aiming to skip this prerequisite on purchases, is a trick struck down right away. It's considered purchased at no cost.

There you are. Once everything is fixed, the Fee Limitation and the original UST backup are upheld, and what this scheme has achieved is simply, through the SPSPA that arose in light of the subsection (g), to update the obsolete $2.25B limit in the amount of UST backup of FnF in the original subsection (c), written more than 50 years ago, when the debt outstanding of Fannie Mae was just $800 million. That's the so called Separate Account plan.

We would have saved all this convoluted scheme, had the Congress updated the original UST backup directly, instead of enacting a homonymous second UST backup.
This Separate Account plan is allowed in the FHFA-C's Incidental Power. We cannot complain, other than about the breaches of Securities Law, with the SPS LP "increased", instead of issued, in order to evade the deadline on the temporary authority of UST to purchase these "high yield" securities of FnF through the subsection (g), December 31, 2009 (There is no purchase if they are "increased". Zing!); the SPS LP and its offset, absent from the Balance Sheets; Etc.

Haven't you received a phone call from the DOJ yet, Mr. Pro Se?