Replies to post #191220 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Sogo]

Never be confused about this: Politicians are paid advocates for their donors' views and goals, and therefore they lie a lot. That Op-Ed is a perfect example of another common politicians' tactic: when they are doing a bad thing, they simply say that the other side (in this case the shareholders are the "other side") is doing that bad thing. The politicians "changed the deal", NOT the shareholders. And it's a sly and deceptive debate tactic we see in this Op-Ed. They are saying the shareholders are the ones who now want to change the deal. Everyone knows changing the deal after it's been agreed to is slimy. So simply associating the shareholders with the phrase "change the deal" accomplishes a lot for a politician, who is being paid by some 3rd entity (banks most likely) to say something, to make a case, to sway opinion, and to just ram bad laws down our throats when those things fail. Some People who are uninformed will now wrongfully make that association in their minds even if they don't trust politicians' words. Listen to the prez carefully and you'll see he's absolutely mastered that technique i described above. Like him or not, he regularly but wrongfully and deliberately conflates issues in his statements and then with a straight face switches the blame for the bad thing onto his opposition, even when there is in fact documentation showing that he is the one who did that bad thing (whatever it might be). I've never seen anyone better at that deceptive tactic than he is.

[obiterdictum]

Yes. That is correct. It is the US Treasury and the FHFA that substantially and unlawfully amended and changed the previous rubber-stamped agreement from a 10% quarterly dividend to a quarterly net worth sweep.

Shareholders via injunctive suits in the US District Court are requesting that this unlawful change be vacated.

[chessmaster315]

Delaney, Carney, and Himes have tarnished their reputation with this mis statement: Of course, it was the government who changed the terms of the agreement, in 2012 modifying the agreement "sweeping" the profits into the treasury.
The agreement whereby the Board of Directiors voluntarily gave up their positions and put the company into Cship mentioned nothing about any type of "dividend sweep" of all the profits to the treasury.
Remember this Board of directors that consented to the cship was elected by the shareholders..and represented the interests of the sharholders.

If the government intended in 2008 when FNMA went into cship, to amend this agreement in 2012 essentially "taking" the entire company's dividends forever, to compel the Board to do this is unconsionable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

This would be akin to selling a teenager a car, and require that teen to turn over his lifetime of income for said car. While a teen may be duped into such a contract, it would be unenforceable as this would be an example of unconscionability.

In a similar way, if our government intended to, or the board knew of the coming 2012 dividend sweep, the said agreement is unconsionable. You just can not require someone to forfeit their lifetime income as did our government. This is akin to "debtors prison" where individuals are no longer put in prison based solely on their inability to pay a debt.