Replies to post #158702 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

Not an Attorney

Spoke with about 3-4 over last 2 weeks - mostly 2-5 years out of law school

Showed them this link

http://www.restorefanniemae.us/perrycap

Which are the arguments in the Perry case which is 85% third amendment (85%) and 15% goal of a conservatorship in conflict with wind down - and other

All noted
A. Hard to beat the GOV
B. Harder to beat the GOV with a company viewed as part of the problem
C. Emergency - national interest arguments - carry massive massive weight
And
And
D. From one surface read the third amendment is the logical place to attach hard (might argue for owning some preferreds)

Note the amount paid in June of one year by passing to the GOV all of profit and not ""just"" 10%

10. Treasury’s additional profits from the Third Amendment are enormous. On or about June 30, 2013, Fannie and Freddie collectively paid Treasury the largest dividend in history: $66.3 billion. By contrast, without the Third Amendment, Treasury would have received $4.7 billion.

That 60B excess - if pulled back to FNMA - capitalizes it or a new company (see Berkowitz) or pays off the preferreds handsomely - or pays them nicely (say at 50% of face) and then the rest to common 4:1 Gov to common

[robtewms]

Good video presentation at:
http://www.restorefanniemae.us/perrycap
GOV created FnF in such a way that GOV wins no matter what. If wind down, profit sweep of FnF will continue until GOV is ready to stop raking in cash. If spin off, GOV owns 80% of commons. If GOV combines profit sweep and spin off, this allows the GOV to play shell game with cash or be both buyer and seller of FnF. GOV legislates, passes, and upholds its own laws in its own courts.