UK markets close in 2 hours 49 minutes

Federal National Mortgage Association (0IL0.L)

LSE - LSE Delayed price. Currency in USD
Add to watchlist
1.4700-0.3100 (-17.42%)
As of 2:48PM GMT. Market open.
Sign in to post a message.
  • B
    We need to have clear the difference between an Eminent Domain case (Taking), a Regulatory Taking and the current state that FnF are in, a Conservatorship. A Taking is when the owners are divested of the title to private property, which isn't our case as the title of our stocks is attached to the stocks which are deposited in our broker account. We are very close to a Regulatory Taking, which is when through regulation the owners have been deprived of the economic value of their property and we've been deprived of disposing of our stocks valued at their fair value. But here's the thing, the regulation and Govt actions aren't authorized by Congress. This is why I always repeat that FnF are statutory corporations, that is, everything is decided, controlled and required by Law. FnF are ruled by the FHEFSSA and the Charter and the Conservatorship is set forth in the Law as well. So, every action taken has been unauthorized by Congress unless there's a Secret Plan to comply with the statutory provisions, that say that the Capital distributions, like dividends, are restricted unless they are meant to reduce the obligations SPS and, later on, the controversial and ill-conceived 2011 FHFA's rule that allows capital distributions for their recapitalization, CFR1237.12 (1). So, Scotus can't declare a Takings with effective date in 2012, for instance. If the UST wants a Takings, which is fine, it must be declared today and pay today's fair value of the stocks according to a state of Conservatorship.
  • $
    Will SCOTUS let Aunt Fannie & Uncle Freddy free from government grips? Free enterprise is the key principle of capitalism & as such, it may be unconstitutional for the government to hold them indefinitely at the permanent detriment of shareholders. I hope SCOTUS provides guidance for a path to allow them to operate independently again.
  • k
    Thursday is now an opinion day for the Supreme Court. Affordable Care Act, Philadelphia foster care, Fannie-Freddie and Google-Oracle cases all outstanding. Stay blessed lads.
  • c
    Capital requirements still not close so it will be many more months....inflation is out of control
  • R
    "Thursday is now an opinion day for the Supreme Court. Affordable Care Act, Philadelphia foster care, Fannie-Freddie and Google-Oracle cases all outstanding."
  • D
    Longs let look at it this way. It's only been about 76 days. The court has to review thousands of documents, and more than likely there are backdoor negotiations going on between the parties. If they were going to rule against us, then 76 days sounds right, but the longer they take tells me we're going to win! Hang in there Longs!
  • D
    The Banks never learn, because no one ever goes to jail for their crimes. They just pay penalties, and move on to the next fraudulent scheme.

    Big banks settle Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bond rigging litigation in U.S
    By Jonathan Stempel

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Thirteen prominent banks and financial services companies agreed to pay $337 million to resolve claims by investors that they conspired to rig prices of bonds issued by mortgage companies Fannie Mae FNMA.PK and Freddie Mac FMCC.PK for a decade.

    The preliminary settlements, filed late Monday night in federal court in Manhattan, require a judge’s approval and would conclude private nationwide antitrust litigation brought against 16 defendants, with settlements totaling $386.5 million.

    Barclays BARC.L, which underwrote the most Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, will pay $87 million.

    Bank of America BAC.N, BNP Paribas BNPP.PA, Cantor Fitzgerald, Citigroup C.N, Credit Suisse CSGN.S, HSBC HSBA.L, JPMorgan Chase JPM.N, Morgan Stanley MS.N, Nomura 8604.T, Societe Generale SOGN.PA, Toronto-Dominion TD.TO and UBS UBSG.S will separately pay a combined $250 million.

    The banks denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. Deutsche Bank DBKGn.DE, Goldman Sachs GS.N and units of Tennessee's First Horizon FHN.N previously settled for a combined $49.5 million.

    Investors including Pennsylvania Treasurer Joe Torsella had accused the defendants of exploiting their market dominance to overcharge for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2019, and keep more profit for themselves.

    The civil case began after a published report said the U.S. Department of Justice had opened a criminal price-fixing probe related to the bonds.

    According to an amended complaint, the 16 defendants underwrote $3.97 trillion, or 77.2%, of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2016.

    A spokeswoman for Barclays declined to comment on Tuesday.

    In a statement, Torsella said the settlement also calls for strong oversight and compliance programs, to help ensure that the alleged misconduct “is not only corrected, but that it is prevented.”

    The Manhattan court is home to an array of private litigation accusing banks of conspiring to move various bond, commodity and currency markets.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee more than half of U.S. mortgages.

    The so-called government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, have been in conservatorships established by the Federal Housing Finance Agency since taxpayers bailed them out in September 2008, with profits swept to the U.S. Treasury.

    On Sept. 5, the White House announced a plan to return Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the private sector. FHFA Director Mark Calabria has said he hopes to complete the process by 2024.

    The case is In re: GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-01704.

    Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis
  • S
    Does SCOTUS need to seperately address the LP $1-for-$1 increase since the "agreement" of FnF retaining our own profit? Wondering because they brought up NWS, then after the oral arguments, agency & treasury agree to those horrible terms. I don't see how that conserved FnF, but that's me. I just don't want to the court to say, coh you got rid of NWS? Cool, then we have that settled." It's a concern of mine that it isn't overlooked or thought of as a remedy.
    Also, preference and odds of true/fair settlement before ruling? Or, preference and odds of ruling instead of settlement? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
  • D
    As investors we have to do our due diligence to make informed decisions. Then there's the ability to pick-up on cues that help fill in the puzzle. One of those intances is when @Onthewayto200 posted this on January 19th.
    "There has to be news out, over 1,2 million shares traded in the last 10 minutes and it goes up 15 cents."

    If that's not insider knowledge, I don't know what is. Hang in there Longs.
  • R
    Former Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson Quote: “Nationalize them”...
    “If we had not Nationalized Fannie and Freddie” Time 0:48

  • W
    What is up with the climb? Somebody know something we don’t?
  • c
    I cannot find anything about Thursday at Website ?
  • T
    If we don't start moving up, I'm not going to take
    a shower for a month...

  • W
    Warrior Boat Shoes
    Good Morning Warriors. Is this the week we become rich?
  • R
    GSE’s Government Charter

    Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), the misconception of the meaning of the charter relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    The term ‘quasi government agency’... Justice Breyer said it in these terms,

    “JUSTICE BREYER: Thank you. I think
    in reading this you could, with trying to
    simplify as much as possible, do you -- the
    shareholders' claim as saying we bought into
    this corporation, it was supposed to be private
    as well as having a public side, and then the
    government nationalized it.”

    Think about the charter like this, the ‘Charter’ is a license provided to a private shareholder owned corporation, ( government contractor ), providing liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Another example: The Federal Reserve is a privately shareholder owned corporation, a contractor for the U.S. Government.

    We are not a socialist nation !

    The government charter is none other than a government license given to Fannie and Freddie to operate the businesses in the secondary market, that’s it! The government had no equity ownership in the GSEs before the conservatorship. The government does regulate the GSEs with rules whereby Fannie and Freddie can operate in the secondary market. Just as the city, I operate my personal business, the city has no ownership in the business, but charges a yearly license fee to operate with rules and regulations whereby my business can operate. Nothing more nothing less...

    The United States Taxpayers was under no obligation to back the GSEs. The Taxpayers became obligated at the point in time of conservatorship.

  • W
    Warrior Boat Shoes
    Good Morning Warriors! Today is the day we become rich!?
  • B
    The best news is if we don't have an opinion released today by the Supreme Court regarding the Fanniegate case. The Justices are clueless. They've been brainwashed by the plaintiffs' Govt theft phony story and they repeated the word nationalization many times during the Oral Arguments. They are capable of signaling in a ruling: "Deal! Nationalization it is", as a way to take the companies away from us, paying nothing, in what looks more like a coordinated move with the hedge funds that brought the flawed lawsuits. What I expect is a unilateral resolution by the Admn/FHFA according to Law, that explicitly states that there's been a secret repayment of the SPS and recapitalization, otherwise the Capital distributions, like dividends, are restricted, so every dividend must be struck down and returned until they are Adequately Capitalized. Then all those that approved the Capital Distributions imprisoned. So, they'd better announce The Secret Plan. Later, a ruling by Scotus won't be necessary, as the economic damage would have been redressed. Only a compensation for moral damages would be left.
  • R
    Guess whose going to release at least 1 opinion next Thursday?
  • T
    We can speculate and be pontifical we won’t know till the Supreme Court ruling.. I am confident our case has been laid out well for a win and move forward !
  • R
    Undeniable fact, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, also known as Government Sponsored Enterprises ‘GSE’s, have been ‘Nationalized’ by the United States Government.

    Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) is some what of a misconception when relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also known as GSE's. Originally, Fannie Mae had a explicit guarantee from the United States government; if the entity got into financial trouble the government promised to bail it out. This changed in 1968. Fannie Mae became a private stockholder owned company. Fannie Mae securities received no actual explicit or implicit government guarantee. This is clearly stated in the securities themselves, and in many public communications issued by Fannie Mae.

    Quote: “Although we are a corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Government does not guarantee, directly or indirectly, our securities or other obligations. We are a stockholder-owned corporation, and our business is self-sustaining and funded exclusively with private capital. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and traded under the symbol “FNM.” Our debt securities are actively traded in the over-the-counter market.” End of Quote.

    Above Information from: Fannie Mae form 10K Dec 31, 2007
    part I, page 1, item 1.

    The United States Government’s obligation started when former Secretary Treasury Hank Paulson ‘Nationalized’ both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    The Nationalization of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac has been referred to as the Crime of the Century, carried out by the Crime Syndicate the United States Treasury, with backing from the Federal Housing Finance Agency ( FHFA ).

    With undisputed facts, both companies did not need a so called government bailout; this came from the former FHFA Director himself just days before the government takeover;

    Quote “The Enterprises’ $95 billion in total capital, their substantial cash and liquidity portfolios, and their experienced management serve as strong supports for the Enterprises’ continued operations.” End of Quote
    James Lockhart Director.

    Above Information from FHFA/Media/PublicAffairs/Lockhart-in-support of Secretary Paulson.

    When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat. This fact has been stated in the Washington Federal Lawsuit filed against the government.

    History of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac conservatorship can be found on the FHFA website; including all amendments with letter agreements.

    Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the government, and the only lawsuit that has challenged the government nationalization of the Enterprises is the Washington Federal Lawsuit; Washington Federal is asking the court to overturn the conservatorship: The other lawsuits have challenged the third amendment net worth sweep only, these lawsuits are not asking the court to overturn the entire conservatorship.

    So, the spectrum from one end to the other, void the entire conservatorship, make restitutions based on the third amendment net worth sweep only, or the government gets away with the theft.

    Our Friend ‘Black’ is absolutely correct in statement the entire conservatorship should be undone, and our Friend ‘Anonymous’ is absolutely correct in statement the government may get away with the theft. And then there’s the in between, the Plaintiffs, for the Junior Preferred Shareholders, are asking the Supreme Court of The United States ( SCOTUS ) to void the third amendment net worth sweep only.

    Now whether or not the SCOTUS will go beyond what the Plaintiffs are asking for in preferred relief I do not know, I’m not a lawyer. Regards