Rodney5
13 hours ago
Theft on top of theft… “$4.6 billion in pre-tax net interest income ($3.0 billion after tax)”. The treasury collects tax on net income AND adds the retained net income to the LP. At least the retained earnings are drawing interest.
Has anyone run the numbers on the taxes treasury collected since the start of this prison sentence?
Quote: “But…there now is very positive factor adding to earnings: Fannie’s ability to keep its retained earnings (and not have to turn them over to Treasury in a net worth sweep), and the fact that those retained earnings are invested in short-term securities. At the end of the first quarter of 2022, Fannie’s $51.7 billion in shareholders’ equity was invested in short-term securities paying 15 basis points, earning $77 million per year. At June 30, 2024, however, Fannie’s $86.5 billion of shareholders’ equity was invested in short-term securities at 5.3 percent. That’s $4.6 billion in pre-tax net interest income ($3.0 billion after tax), and with no change in interest rates these earnings will grow at the same rate as Fannie’s retained earnings. For that reason, the company’s net income probably will trend modestly higher over the next couple of years, even with higher loss provisions and the continued growth in non-economic credit risk transfer costs.” End of quote
https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2024/07/09/the-mbs-vigilantes/#comment-30597
DCBill
21 hours ago
Answer: "Not in God's lifetime." Ditto George Mason's "Mercatus." or of late the Uban Institute. (I love that Moody's Mark Zandi--who greenlighted "private label" MBS, with his soggy/lofty ratings, and dealt much of the causative role the large commercial banks played in the 2008 meltdown-- often finds himself part of UI's "usual suspects" damning the GSEs. I guess MZ doesn't like to remember or mention his prominent professional role. i.e. giving top ratings--for which the banks paid, literally--to facilitate sales, of their own Non-GSE "private label" commercial bank securities filled with poorly underwritten loans. That's some pertinent history MZ seldom mentions or acknowledges.)
Nope, you have to go to the accurate books by Howard and Pagliara for GSE advocates and arguments.
Rodney5
1 day ago
The Treasury and FHFA illegal exaction due to violating Federal statutes all monies with interest should be returned to the companies.
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).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. 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.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Rodney5
1 day ago
You mentioned the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that’s the problem with the lawsuits. The lawyers did not challenge the actions of the FHFA Director under the APA. The lawyers brought the APA argument against the FHFA as conservator. No mention of the FHFA Director violating federal law. The courts are barred from judicial review of the conservator.
Rodney5
06/25/24 12:08 PM
Post #796524 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. The stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Our friend Barron brought this to our attention. You have to prove FHFA / Treasury broke the law.
Notice: the argument doesn’t include the conservator at all. The argument is the FHFA / Treasury violation of the law.
Barron said, “ I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point.”
PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT
HERA is public law not a contract, the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract not the law.
FHEFSSA
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was amended to establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency. HERA amended certain parts of both FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. AMENDED not to do away with. Safety and Soundness still exists just as the Charter Act still exists.
Page 9 Title I
Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
FHFA is now the Regulator by reason of HERA.
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Rodney5
2 days ago
Wingsjr, you mentioned the SCOTUS……. reposting for anyone new to the board or unfamiliar misinformed investors.
Rodney5
Re: bradford86 post# 799426
Thursday, 08/29/2024 7:30:16 AM
Bradford AGAIN Quote: "The Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that the net worth sweep was legal." THIS IS NOT TRUE correct your article If you do not correct it you are publishing a known lie now.
No, the Networth sweep was not ruled as legal or illegal... Need to get this straight!
All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.
THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:
Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.“ End of Quote
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Acme Investments
6 hours ago
QueenVic
8 hours ago
RickNagra
21 hours ago
2latefortears
1 day ago
Patswil
1 day ago
Stockman1010101
1 day ago
Freddie bagholder
1 day ago
Stern is Bald
2 days ago
Wingsjr
2 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
