Fannie Mae (QB) (FNMAK) Share Price

Going to miss her positivity like brain cancer.
Fnma

Oops I meant 240 million shares.

240 Billion? That's a rather Trumpian comment! lol.

Guess not! Looks like maybe 6 more months, hopefully shorter.

I thought American Growth Fund owned $890 Billion?

Trump is businessman deal maker. Trump should tell his advisors he wants a $200 common price.

He can extract big cash for govt selling shares at 2 hundy per share.

Pulte confirmation begins the fireworks show.

Buckle Up my friends, grab your popcorn and junior mints.

Ackman owns 240 billion combined far greater than the American Growth Fund.

#commonsense will prevail and the GSEs will be free fully intact

Nobody is above the law, Treasury and Director of FHFA both broke the HERA Laws from the get go with their agreements ...........UNWIND IT !!!!

Yes - I know jog49 but I believe it is the right thing to do and also the pragmatic thing to do - since I have been holding since May of 2008 - I have been alone in the wilderness many times especially when others have thought a fair outcome for GSE shareholders would be politically impossible. I believe Director Calabria believes he did the right thing at the time and in totality I believe Director Calabria's role with the DJT Administration will increase the likelihood of EXIT. Regarding fairness I have to believe he knows the shareholders were screwed since he was on Senator Shelby's staff when the Senate recap plans were sabotaged by the UST and the NEC in March of 2008 by leaking the Barron's "For your eyes only Memo" . https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-docs/2008-03-08_Treasury_Email_from_Hason_Thomas_to_Robert_Steel_Re_Source_document_for_Barrons_article_on_FNM.pdf
He was also on Shelby's staff when the GSEs were told to raise billions of JPS while knowing that the NEC Special Advisor to the President said that "shareholders would be wiped " in the For Your Eyes Only Memo . He knows enough about Securities Regulation that this would be considered fraud by omission at the time unwitting shareholders like me paid $ 25 per share for FNMAT on May 2008. So yes - alone in the forest but there is a new sunrise starting to beam through the trees and it is MAGAnifficent!!

FNMA/FMCC
Order of Attack Strategy for Win-Win
1. Re-list
2. Repay Shareholders (Reparations)
3. Release from C-Ship

RE-LIST -REPAY-RELEASE

They will all merge into 1

I have been giving this some thought and think it is critical for the cause of the shareholders:

copied directly from HERA:
[color=red] Page 2665]122 STAT. 2665
SEC. 1103. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

(a) In General.--The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety
and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 1313 the following:
``SEC. 1313A. [NOTE: 12 USC 4513a.] FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE OVERSIGHT
BOARD.
``(a) In General.--There is established the Federal Housing Finance Oversight Board, which shall advise the Director with respect to overall strategies and policies in carrying out the duties of the Director under this title.
``(b) Limitations.--The Board (of which one member is Treasury) may not exercise any executive authority, and the Director may not delegate to the Board any of the functions, powers, or duties of the Director.
``(c) Composition.--The Board shall be comprised of 4 members, of whom--
``(1) 1 member shall be the Secretary of the Treasury;
``(2) 1 member shall be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
``(3) 1 member shall be the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
``(4) 1 member shall be the Director, who shall serve as the
Chairperson of the Board.
[/color]
This is clear proof that the FHFA Director and the Secretary of the Treasury have broken the laws of HERA. The Director of FHFA is prohibited from transmitting to Treasury any executive authorities like control of payments, and Treasury breaks the laws of HERA when it demands control of any responsibility assigned to the Director of FHFA by HERA.

Socialism is alive and well in the good old U.S. of A. It doesn't need to be suppressed, it needs to be crushed. Unchecked, it will hinder Fannie and Freddie's return to post 1970 business as usual.

"Release, Re-list and Repay. Then we are talking about $300.00 / share. With a cherry on top."

To date . . . . all talk!

Regardless of what we think the current and past FHFA / UST letter agreements say or allow expect one thing to be certain. If President Trump uses an executive order or any of his administrative powers, through Pulte and Bessent, to end the c'ship and/or release expect the Democrats to judge shop for an injunction and force the issue to higher courts (SCOTUS).

"Judge shopping" virutally guarantees an injunction as there are plenty of O'Biden judges to choose from. They just successfully pulled this on a Trump EO to get a $2B USAID foreign payment to go through - SCOTUS upheld the lower court injunction against Trump's EO power to stop all of these payments.

After witnessing last night's address to Congress and the Democrat Party rebuttal, one thing is certain: they are dug in against any of his policies - especially if they are implemented through EO's or administrative action. Will they win? Who knows. Can they win? Well, they just successfully pulled this off. If they do not like what they see in the action, or if they are cut out of the process expect them to nose their way in through the courts. It's how they operate. If nothing else the delay is a way to claim victory with their base, fill the media with more nonsense, and thumb their nose at Trump and main street shareholders.

Fannie Mae flat today

Thanks Viking....
Thought there might be more to this. I'm still hoping that the Trump family has taken a massive position in the GSE's and would then structure the Release and Re-list in the most favorable conditions possible. Release, Re-list and Repay. Then we are talking about $300.00 / share. With a cherry on top.

Essentially, you are all alone in the wilderness.

Red, it was a try to get all small businesses to disclose their beneficial ownership In a personal corporation. This was attempted under the Biden administration under the guise of finding money laundering. It was a terrible idea for the Mom and Pop small corporations.

Personally I think Director Calabria did a good job. It is my impression that he knew that we needed high capital requirments to deal with the political push back from EXIT and that he would have managed an EXIT before meeting the ERCF with a Consent Decree and retained earnings to build capital post EXIT. It is great that he is in the DJT II Admin.

What's your opinion...?

Yes, no, maybe.....nothing burger.....super-size value meal....?

Good. American growth fund passed Billy boy now with 150 million common Fannie / Freddie combined, something around that number.

Awesome! Good to hear from him

Haha no no.. I'm good i guess

"If he makes it thru committee does anyone believe that will ignite the Stock price? Quite honestly feel very negatively convex on this one. Say again, stock price action across the whole GSE complex telling me something changed and I have no idea what."

I'm in your camp. Something is wrong here but I can't get my finger to point.

Bessent on X - TAD benefits FnF bigtime!!

https://x.com/secscottbessent/status/1896932061782643196?s=61&t=KEFTLxsG2C318JcOnlHS4Q

And

https://x.com/secscottbessent/status/1897134861988847869?s=61&t=KEFTLxsG2C318JcOnlHS4Q

120,000,000 Common shares of Fannie Mae

Anything else you need?

Anything from Bill Ackman?

For real? You think this has any semblance of relevance to GSEs?

This is for shell companies, does not apply.

Anyone comment on this story....?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/treasury-department-boi-reporting-deadline.html

Seems as if people or persons who might be influential or possibly have a personal financial interest in Release and Re-List might no longer be obligated to disclose their positions.
If I have this right, great news and interesting timing

Fannie Mae - All The Way
Imminent Buying Frenzy
Beat 'em to the Punch - Put some of these hotcakes on YOUR plate now

I don't think it will follow that pattern, we're in for an interesting ride.

Definitely will be interesting. But I think the exit itself and even the SWF are on well trodden ground - the SWF if not for the US, then other countries. Its going to be a cut and paste from something. Its just in their DNA. Just what they cut and paste from is the issue.

Nats

100% sure he will get the job.

If he makes it thru committee does anyone believe that will ignite the Stock price? Quite honestly feel very negatively convex on this one. Say again, stock price action across the whole GSE complex telling me something changed and I have no idea what.

I think he makes it!

Excellent!

This is the Golden Age - I am expecting $500 / share.

We should sticky this for the links!

Yes, Patswil's $325/share. 🙂

?
I do not view this as a tug of war between the FED and White House

Within relative bounds EVERYONE wants the lower interest rates that help investment - consumers - and people buying houses. That is true for the FED as well as EVERY politician (non partisan) . And politicians say they hate inflation

But politicians continue to put upward pressure on rising inflation - non partisan or BI partisan. (So - do politicians (bi partisan) say one thing and do another - i suggest yes)

Upward pressure on inflation continues from political actions. Debt financed spending like Biden Anti Covid Stimulus puts upward pressure on inflation. Debt financed tax cuts like Trump 4.5T tax cut for the 2% puts upward pressure on inflation. ion. So summary = politicians want low inflation but help cause high inflation (unfunded tax cuts are the same as unfunded spending - deficit spending is deficit spending)

FED - while imperfect is trying to fight inflation with the one big tool it has - raising ST interest rates. To stay recent - neither Biden nor Trump focus on fighting inflation with more than words and promises

FED - it seems DID tame the 9% inflation mid Biden term to just under 3% by raising interest rates - as is their JOB.

Right now there are cross currents on inflation - not the least of which is how high and long tariff taxes kick up prices - if at all.

So the tug of war is not between the FED and WH - but between those who focus on inflation and want to fight it and those that want to cut 4.5Trillion from GOV income (or spend and spend as noted). If inflation comes down from FED actions and any help from
the WH - the FED will not be fighting the WH one bit

THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS will meet in EXECUTIVE SESSION--Thursday, March 6, 2025 TIME:11:00 AM-- to Vote on the following nominations: Mr. William Pulte, to be Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency
https://banking.senate.gov/hearings/03/03/2025/executive-session...

https://x.com/Patswil/status/1897265067709874222

The old saying goes: Expect the Unexpected... But does anyone know how to do this? Does anyone have a model that assumes a significant possibility that none of their known "probabilities" will actually come to fruition?

I always give a 50% or greater probability that I'm wrong. It's like including a bet on the "field" rather than a specific outcome.

I have never, NEVER, NEVER, seen or heard of a consultant who deals with the Government that had an original thought.

That's certainly the norm in many cases. But I would argue that the GSEs have defied this norm. The initial terms with the SPS that can't be paid down as the entities return to profitability, followed by the Net Worth Swipe, and finally a "win" for shareholders that solidifies that the GSEs breached their side of the shareholder agreement by intentionally thwarting the shareholders. There are plenty of unprecedented examples for the GSEs.

Because they entered their situation differently, I believe the exit will also incorporate new methods not seen before. For example, the Sovereign Wealth Fund comes to mind. The ability to predict what has happened (before it happened) and what will happen is far more challenging that most are wanting to admit. They just want to slap a 20 year old model on the current situation and call it a day. I don't think it will follow that pattern, we're in for an interesting ride.

HOW TO WIN

Thanks Rodney5!

Nats

We have covered these many times; it is not the courts' fault...
Again, the plaintiffs' brought the wrong lawsuits.

Thanks Rodney - You are right. As I said, the law is on our side.

Nats

The FED will win this one because the markets dictate that action. Lean times = Low rates but that also comes with inability to pay. No independent FED means no impact on rampant inflation. Hello Venezuela.

HOW TO WIN

Barron4664

Re: EternalPatience post# 762310

Saturday, August 12, 2023 11:25:20 AM

Post#
762323
of 820107
If you were paying attention to my posts you would have realized that my proposed strategy that Rodney has been posting relies on filing little tucker act claims in the local federal district court. If you file a takings claim for greater than $10,000, it has to be heard in Sweeny’s court of federal claims. If you challenge any aspect of the SPSPA, such as the NWS the terms of the agreement requires all claims to be heard in the DC district Court aka Lamberth.

I propose neither. 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. It is called a categorical error. Kind of like the “war on terror” how do you fight a war against a weapon?

Rather, I propose a simple set of questions:

1) is a variable Liquidation preference pegged to the amount of commitment drawn by the GSEs (with a 10% rate later changed to NWS, later to LP increased for free) attached to the sale of 1000 Senior Preferred Shares considered a charge or fee for the purposes outlined in the Charter Act?

2) are the warrants in consideration of the Commitment a charge or fee?

3) If they are determined to be a charge or a fee attached to a GSE obligation or a security, are they prohibited by the plain language of the Charter Act?

4) what appropriations law did treasury use to make $200 billion of tax payer debt available for the GSEs to draw from?

5) are the SPS with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA?

6) If they are a new Product, Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to these new products sold to Treasury. Did FHFA follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act?

7) The CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?

The answers to these questions would hopefully result in the voiding of the SPSPA in its entirety and a cash sum of less than $10,000 to me. Each of these questions can be answered by just reading the plain language of the statute and the Agreements. No fancy legal doctrines are needed for mental gymnastics. It is plain letter law that avoids all the traps. The only doctrine involved is the doctrine of continuing claims. Otherwise we are limited to the SOL on the 4th amendment to the SPSPA.

Showdown: The White House vs the Fed on mortgage rates

The White House wants lower mortgage rates, but the Federal Reserve is holding firm. Who will come out on top in this economic tug of war ?