News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Semper Fi 88

01/21/25 1:25 PM

#813875 RE: Ace Trader #813871

Standard non answer answers that most nominees basically say in these farcical proceedings. IMO the writing is on the wall that release is coming but the details as always are lacking which is expected in these proceedings.
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

stockprofitter

01/21/25 1:27 PM

#813876 RE: Ace Trader #813871

Based on his answers you can see he is totally up to speed.

He will do as 47 says.
We all know what Trump wants.

The letter.
icon url

RetCB

01/21/25 1:32 PM

#813882 RE: Ace Trader #813871

First Rule in confirmation hearings - DO NO HARM !!
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

jcromeenes

01/21/25 1:46 PM

#813888 RE: Ace Trader #813871

I think the issue of the debt ceiling is going to put us on the back burner for a little. Until that's resolved, we are a distant issue.
icon url

Rodney5

01/22/25 9:20 AM

#814039 RE: Ace Trader #813871

Questions for SCOTT Bessents,

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not bailed out, did not need a bailout, and the term ‘bailout’ has been used and continues to be used to mislead the people of the United States in thinking the companies needed a bailout? That the companies were adequately capitalized when Treasury Secretary Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce before the take down of the companies Treasury Secretary Paulson was unaware that the FHFA Regulator had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told FHFA Director Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEO's and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce the FHFA forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a contract with the United States Treasury by Senior Preferred Stock. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract between Treasury and FHFA as conservator of the two companies. The Charter Act, FHEFSSA and HERA passed by Congress is the supreme law of the land that governs the two companies?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's regulatory guidelines would have prohibited the companies form paying dividends to the Treasury while severely under-capitalized, but the FHFA suspended those guidelines because the regulator wanted the companies to have to draw more senior preferred stock from the Treasury to pay the annual dividends in cash, ballooning their outstanding senior preferred stock and increase their required annual dividends. FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities and cannot make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference). More importantly the actions of Treasury to appropriate 200 billion in taxpayer debt, take non regulatory control of the companies through the SPSPA (require Treasury permission at least 10 separate times) and ownership of more than 50% of the companies requires them under the GAO act and the CFO act to consolidate the GSEs onto the nations balance sheet. The fact that that hasn't happened means the Treasury has violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution by repudiating the 5 trillion plus in debt the Treasury has acquired through their actions since 2008. Their actions have resulted in a takings of the entire enterprise value of the formerly private companies. These actions have necessarily turned the GSEs back into agencies of the executive branch as they were originally created. This is the definition of a major question and also a separation of powers problem since Congress did not authorize the actions Treasury took and continues to take? In addition 'Deferred Tax Assets' the Treasury forced the companies to write down and record these non-cash expenses making the companies appear bankrupted. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were no where near bankrupted?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce “maximize profits for taxpayers" is NOT written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:

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)?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce the Senior Preferred Stock, with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates is a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA?

Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the new products sold to Treasury. The FHFA did not follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act?

The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market?

The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years?

Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; Conservator Lockhart is required by law to file notice to himself as Regulator.

The Safety and Soundness Act required Director Lockhart as regulator not conservator to approve a new product issued by Director Lockhart acting as conservator FHFA-C (SPS with variable liquidation Preference) to Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA for the purpose of carrying out the secondary mortgage market. He was required as regulator to file notice in the federal register, seek public comment and issue federal regulations for the new product we call the Senior Preferred shares sold to Treasury?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will publicly announce the CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?

If confirmed as Secretary of Treasury will you publicly announce that the violations disclosed above will change the posture of the Treasury Department? And reference HERA and precedent, Federal Statutes do not allow the Treasury to attach a commitment fee onto the Senior Preferred Stock. THEREFORE, by reason of Federal Statute, the Treasury owes the companies the overage payment on $191.4 billion total draws from Treasury, plus compounded interest; (recommended interest payment at a compounded rate of return 10%, in conjunction with the amount the FHFA recommended to the Treasury? That the SPS will be determined as paid and the liquidation preference cancelled returning the companies back to the Shareholders?
icon url

kthomp19

01/22/25 5:45 PM

#814124 RE: Ace Trader #813871

Question 80: Because of the federal government’s bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the federal
government owns senior preferred shares in the GSEs.100 Should American taxpayers be
compensated for any reduction in their senior preferred shares?
Answer: Treasury should be compensated for its past support of the GSEs, and if confirmed I
look forward to exploring options for potentially dealing with this matter.



This was the most telling question and answer when it comes to getting a read on whether Treasury will convert or write off the seniors.

The most important word in Bessent's answer is "past". He evidently believes that Treasury has not been fully compensated for the support Treasury gave between 2008 and now.

That certainly doesn't sound like the stance of someone who would be willing to write off the seniors for nothing in return. I don't know if I will revise my estimate of there being a 85% chance of a senior-to-common conversion upward because of this, but I'm tempted.