Replies to post #14116 on Fannie Mae Preferred S (FNMAS)

[44centsAKAchoccake]

"if they would have left out the part where they said that any dividend payments over 10% would not be a return of capital."

I don't think that the 3rd Amendment did that, I think that was done earlier, most likely in 2008. I'll try to doublecheck that in the few days.

[cfljmljfl]

Joe, in the original pspa1, no terms were inclusive or define about how the infusion were to be repaid. It was a investment. You don't repay an investment but you do repay loans. If this is an investment, the exchange value....in this case government put forth a promise of $100 Billion andvlater unlimited gov backing in exchange for senior preferred, 10% dividend and 79.9 % warrants. Since the money advanced was an investment and not a loan by gov definition from terms and absence of terms, "payback the taxpayers" is invalid and "return on taxpayers investment" is valid but limited to the terms in the pspa 1. Returning infused money not included in those terms, return on investment defined. So repaying taxpayer is invalid, can not do since it doesn't exsist. That makes sweeping profits above the defined limited 10% dividend for senior preferred is not valid since HERA requires the conservator the preserve a solvent and safe FnF. So if the sweep was legal, would you argue that the sweeps are exclusive the only means of protecting the taxpayers investment? No! It's rediculious when you consider taxpayers are first in line in a bankruptcy on $5 trillion business.