Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAP) Quote

There is not an unlimited amount of funding available from the Treasury.
They were amended to provided unlimited funding I think in 2012.

FHEFSSA and HERA are regulatory statutes, governing the companies' regulators. What is a 'regulatory' statute? I have never heard that before. And what is an 'enabling' statute? Do you think one is superior than the other? For example a law is at the top of the hierarchy then comes a charter then comes bylaws, rules, regulations that are set by a board or body but there is no law required to be passed for regulation unless there is a law for it or limitations in it's charter.

The GSE’s had a limited explicit obligation from Treasury in the amount of $2.25 billion. With the passing of HERA this explicit obligation was increased above the limit of $2.25 billion to $200 billion to purchase obligations of the company (MBS Obligations) up to the point in time expired December 31, 2009. Page 18 charter act.. You are referring to this.
a) PURCHASE AND SALE OF MORTGAGES; SECONDARY MARKET
OPERATIONS; ADVANCE OF FUNDS OR ORIGINATION OF LOANS;
SETTLEMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF BORROWERS RIGHTS.—

So you are suggesting that this was amended by the spspa? If so why does it matter because in accordance to section 304(d)
d) ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS SUFFICIENT TO CARRY OUT
FUNCTIONS; CHARACTER; PURCHASE.—The Association may issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury its obligations in an amount outstanding at any
one time sufficient to enable the Association to carry out its functions under this
section, such obligations to mature not more than five years from their
respective dates of issue, to be redeemable at the option of the Association
before maturity in such manner as may be stipulated in such obligations. Each
such obligation shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration the current average rate on outstanding
marketable obligations of the United States as of the last day of the month
preceding the issuance of the obligation of the Association. The Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to purchase any obligations of the Association to be
issued under this section, and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any
securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the
purpose for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United
States Code, are extended to include any purchases of the Association’s
obligations hereunder.
Indeed the original spspa grants the authority.
B. Purchaser is authorized to purchase obligations and other securities issued by Seller pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (the “Charter Act”). The Secretary of the Treasury has determined, after
taking into consideration the matters set forth in Section 304(g)(1)(C) of the Charter Act, that the purchases contemplated herein are
necessary to (i) provide sta

304(g)(1)(c)
1) The Association is authorized, upon such terms and conditions as it may
deem appropriate, to guarantee the timely payment of principal of and
interest on such trust certificates or other securities as shall (i) be issued by
the corporation under section 304(d), or by any other issuer approved for the
purposes of this subsection by the Association, and (ii) be based on and
backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages which are insured under
the National Housing Act, or which are insured or guaranteed under the
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, title V of the Housing Act of
1949, or chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, or which are guaranteed
under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act; or guaranteed under
section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
The Association shall collect from the issuer a reasonable fee for any
guaranty under this subsection and shall make such charges as it may
determine to be reasonable for the analysis of any trust or other security
arrangement proposed by the issuer. In the event the issuer is unable to
make any payment of principal of or interest on any security guaranteed
under this subsection, the Association shall make such payment as and when
due in cash, and thereupon shall be subrogated fully to the rights satisfied by
such payment. In any case in which (I) Federal law requires the reduction
of the interest rate on any mortgage backing a security guaranteed under this
subsection, (II) the mortgagor under the mortgage is a person in the military
service, and (III) the issuer of such security fails to receive from the
mortgagor the full amount of interest payment due, the Association may
make payments of interest on the security in amounts not exceeding the
difference between the amount payable under the interest rate on the mortgage and the amount of interest actually paid by the mortgagor. The
Association is hereby empowered, in connection with any guaranty under this subsection, whether before or after any default, to provide by contract
with the issuer for the extinguishment, upon default by the issuer, of any
redemption, equitable, legal, or other right, title, or interest of the issuer in
any mortgage or mortgages constituting the trust or pool against which the
guaranteed securities are issued; and with respect to any issue of guaranteed
securities, in the event of default and pursuant otherwise to the terms of the
contract, the mortgages that constitute such trust or pool shall become the
absolute property of the Association subject only to the unsatisfied rights of
the holders of the securities based on and backed by such trust or pool. No
State or local law, and no Federal law (except Federal law enacted expressly
in limitation of this subsection after the effective date of this sentence
[October 8, 1980]), shall preclude or limit the exercise by the Association of
(A) its power to contract with the issuer on the terms stated in the preceding sentence, (B) its rights to enforce any such contract with the issuer, or (C)
its ownership rights, as provided in the preceding sentence, in the mortgages
constituting the trust or pool against which the guaranteed securities are
issued. The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the
payment of all amounts which may be required to be paid under any
guaranty under this subsection. There shall be excluded from the total
amounts set forth in subsection (c) the amounts of any mortgages acquired
by the Association as a result of its operations under this subsection.

Rather than purchasing obligations of the companies the Treasury decided to create a new product called the Senior Preferred Stock with an illegal commitment fee attached. Neither the Charter Act nor HERA authorize a commitment fee to be charged by the United States Treasury, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:
HERA permits a conservator to run the companies in the best interest it sees fit. HERA usurped the charter act so any commitment fees charged is a gray area. Also there is no commitment fee that has been paid. However it was also not properly challenged as I have said many times because the attorneys are dumb.

The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion) up to the point in time of ‘‘(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this subsection (g), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009. Page 18 charter act.
. See above.304(g)(1)(c)

The NWS dividends were specifically allowed by the Supreme Court even though FnF were critically undercapitalized; they cited 12 USC 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii).
False. Were they actually even challenged? Are you suggesting that the Director can pay jr pref and common dividends right now if they wanted to?

No. FnF are not even close to being capitalized. This is why they remain in conservatorship. All forms of FnF's regulatory capital (core, Tier 1, CET1) are hugely negative. The funding commitment is not capital.

I didn't say anything about regulatory capital. The circular draws were what was keeping the dividends running and what allowed in part 'dividends' to be paid in cash despite their deficiency in 'regulatory' capital. Tell me what does the payment of dividends out of 'funds legally available' mean? That is a clause implicit or explicit in dividend paying stock.

No. The original SPSPAs, along with the first and second amendments to the SPSPAs, established a limited backstop. If that is exhausted and FnF still have negative net worth for 60 days then FHFA would be forced by law to place them in receivership.
The contracts were amended to an 'unlimited' amount in 2012?
The various letter agreements that have allowed FnF to retain earnings have all been agreed to by both FHFA and Treasury.
Of course. Calabria wanted more mnuchin didn't give it so he had to take what he could.

That statement applies to all of Rodney's legal theories.
Rodney is correct on several matters and not way out there like others.

I would be overjoyed at such a prospect but let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Unless of course Scott Bessent appears on FOX morning news with our good friend Maria Bartiromo. She is virtually guaranteed to ask Bessent about the GSEs unless that topic is off the table. I have been following Bartiromo closely on X and so far nothing yet. I firmly believe though it will be announced shortly. I know Bartiromo very well. Not personally of course LOL.

Rumor mill can only take you so far. Used to be 4,5, or even 6. Now, its 2.50-3.50.
I'm not expecting anything until Jan.20 at the earliest. Relax. All the rest is just hypsters
and traders noise.

Rumor mill can only take you so far. Used to be 4,5, or even 6. Now, its 2.50-3.50.
I'm not expecting anything until Jan.20 at the earliest. Relax. All the rest is just hypsters
and traders noise.

The only thing brewing in the background is the coffee machine.

Buy more. Sell all of your other positions and go all in.

The finish today makes you believe that something is happening behind the scenes.

Government does not own the companies. All they have is illegal warrants and no voting or ownership rights.

Or a call from Treasury to kickstart the release.

Our Attorneys should file, or move for,
an Extraordinary Writ to force him
to release our Award:
An Extraordinary Writ is a rare order from a higher court that provides relief when other options are unavailable. It's a discretionary writ, meaning it's not a matter of right, and the court has the discretion to grant it.

He's trying to outdo Sweeney.

I should have stated it more clearly. Not in ACTUALITY, but in PRACTICALITY.

Right now it's a government owned and run agency

No. They were and still are private corporations owned by the stockholders. And they never were, are not, and never will be "agencies". An agency is an entity of the Government. These are Government Sponsored Enterprises. They are currently under conservatorships that are managed by the Government. The Government never nationalized the companies both for the sake of optics and, most importantly, the public would not see the humor of instantly increasing the Federal debt by about $8-9T. This all might sound like splitting hairs or something, but I am tired of people saying that the Government owns these companies. I saw a couple of videos on UTube where the guy says that the Government currently owns 79.99%, etc.

That being said, we are in a hostage situation where the Government will let us get out of conservatorship in exchange for a piece of the action - a very large piece of the action. I guess then, at least for a short time, you could say that the Government would be majority owner - but owner of what still would be private corporations. Am I off base on this?

Nats

"What’s taking lamberth so long? Last motion filed July 16 what the hell is he doing?"

He's a judge so the question could be asked what does he know about high finance? My guess would be very little so he's sitting there waiting for someone to tell him something and no one has been forthcoming. So, there he sits . . . . . .

We have played that game for many years :)

If one actually had the stock certificates, they could be put in the casket with the body and technically speaking, one would be "taking it with you". I have some stock certificated that went to the grave before I did!

I feel like something is goin on in background we are not aware of. Negotiations?

Right now it's a government owned and run agency. 😭

Unfortunately, you never take it with you ,even if one owns 10 Trillion+ LOL !!

No conflict of interest ever since the government sold it's ownership in these corporations. They're called government sponsored entities because they were created by the government (as opposed to private entrepreneurs) and are still operating under federal charters.

We are still sitting in conservatorship jail.  Maybe JB will also give us a pardon.  Why not ?  He is handing them out like they are going out of style.  May as well get in line you know join the queue.  Can't hurt.

Never thought I'd give a thumbs up to anything Rule of Law Guy has to say. 👍️

FNMA is a gov sponsored agency. Would be A conflict of interest 

https://x.com/timpagliara/status/1864032882940940538?s=46&t=xLP2LlWgJrEMUZZ7Fum-nA

"As someone suggested, get one of the Trumps on F's or F's board."

That can't happen, at present, because shareholders' rights have been suspended and thus, our hands are tied. The BODs of both Fannie and Freddie are "government boards" doing exactly what the government wants them to do. Restore shareholders' rights (out of conservatorships) where we can nominate and vote and we can put you on a board DC Bill as well as all the Trumps, if we wish.

Lol, it does when you have a trillion shares!!

Tru that, but absent whatever Trump interest there is (which could be demonstrably deciding), try making that point to "official Washington.
(Some have been doing that for 18 years with little success.")

https://open.substack.com/pub/ruleoflawguy/p/how-sticky-is-the-ercf-part-ii-consider?r=ckcv2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

If either of those happened we would go up minimum 100% rather quickly.  Ackman should join the board.  Is he allowed ?  Come to think of it I should join the board.  Maybe Mr Michael should also join since he owns pretty much the whole float by now.

I would also add they are even less likely to lower standards when the gov has LESS control over their activities. The gov (Barney grand and co) were the ones that pushed the twins to lower standards prior to the crisis. Yes the twins were blamed but that is historically inaccurate.

Does that penny change your life? I'm waiting on dollars. 😁

The app on my phone, which is yahoo finance says $2.70.
Charles Schwab says $2.70

Guido makes a good point about Bill Ackman. As a major stock holder, around 10%?, It would be beneficial for him, and common holders, to have a seat on FNMA board of directors. As suggested, a member of the Trump family would be helpful.

Did we close at $2.69 or $2.70 ?  There was also a large buy order around 57,700 shares four seconds after the close.

That's what's happening now, remembering "there is NO BACKSTOP," it's just assumed if any legitimate financial problems (not those political myths made up by the party in power, which is what happened in 2008), the government would step in). But, despite all the GSE money going annually to the Treasury, the relationship is "implicit" not "explicit," like commercial bank deposit insurance.
But, to your question, because of the heavy, well-heeled nature of the GSE opponents, every court issue is a potential decision by SCOTUS, which showed little interest the last time in supporting F&F; in fact, showed a rather significant lack of understanding and history.
That could change if this Administration indicates its support. But, until that happens, I would try and stay away from the courts; as well as a full congressional review, since each chamber has notable GSE enemies (in both parties), i.e. any changes (very simple, reducing the current venal capital standards and, possibly, clarifying the GSE investment authority) should be made through efficient executive action, not slow, grinding legislative action.

Easy. Ackman, the biggest shareholder has the biggest say.

As someone suggested, get one of the Trumps on F's or F's board.

Good Points DC Bill - What do you think about a Consent Decree for Exit leaving the Backstop in Place while Capital is built. First step should be to start paying divs on common and paying the stated divs for JPS prior to Exit as part of the Consent Decree and new Agreement between the FHFA and UST. This will allow the investor base to expand before new secondary offerings for new cap and the sale of the UST stake.

Solid GSE BUYING into the Close -

Lemmings are back to the BUY window ...

I am a proud shareholder my amigo

Wow good piont

The higher the better the stringer the safer

They have never since conception been such a strong company with historically record low delinquencies since 1938
This is what happens when you run a company smartly

And then you have people that say they should stay in cship while h shows how out of tune they really are

I would be so psyched if they could uplist in early 2025 and we could all load an insane amount of calls while we wait for full release details. I just want a nice way to use some leverage here.

Public comments all are CYA; actions speak louder (see MBA's positioning on all recent GSE actions.)
Also, as always with the GSEs, the "Devil is in the details"; what's the capital, and what mission changes (limitations) would the mortgage bankers, commercial bankers, and IBs insist on as a price for their approval?
Turning them loose, only to re-shackle them won't do it.
"It's all about the Benjamins!"
From which group will future GSE income come? It can't be mortgage consumers!
Just think of all of that "fat" in the current mortgage finance process, from home inspections, title searches, to closing costs, etc., which an efficient F&F could reduce.

the whole argument - in a nutshell ... lol
While in Conservatorship the mkt assumes the GSEs
have a total GOVT Guarantee for ALL their Mortgage Loans
if & when they are finally RELEASED from GOVT C'ship

Whalen is saying their Loan quality rating will be downgraded
from "AAA" to "AA" - which is BS cause the GSEs DO NOT HAVE
a written "explicit loan guarantee" - they have always had an "implied"
Govt backed Guarantee - Calabria said HE couldn't get Congress
to BUY IN for the written EXPLICIT LOAN GUARANTEE

Fannie / Freddie are NOT going to suddenly DROP their HIGH LOAN Standards
avg credit score 750 and lots of Equity on existing property or Mortgage INSURANCE !
as soon as they are RELEASED ! - TOTAL BS !

They will OPERATE EXACTLY the SAME they DO EVERYDAY - HIGH LOAN STANDARDS

Good idea; it would add to his personal wealth and all shareholders (both P and C). Try for Eric and/or Ivanka.
I'd even take Barron or Melania!

Wow, go see what just happened with TD TP

I’m buying more

it was just the same Calabria talking points from the

Diana Olnik CNBC Video this morning ...

https://x.com/gerhardtmeyer1/status/1863938735626166440?s=46&t=xLP2LlWgJrEMUZZ7Fum-nA

https://x.com/i/status/1863938735626166440