Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (QB) (FMCCO)

There are a lot of attentions on this stock but they need to let their valued customers to catch up so they pretend to be “ mo rudh”

Is there any reason to believe this puppy goes green just a couple pennies any time soon ?

Starting by not appealing the Lamberth Decision again to SCOTUS and settling the case regarding damages

Not this shit again about wamu. You are dreaming and have know knowledge about bankruptcy law.

Bottom line “No Rush” there is absolutely no attention being given to this project, none at the current time!

The housing bill with the final amendment passed the Senate about an hour ago 85-5. The House leadership is reported to be using a "suspension of the rules" to fast track it and they are expected to concur with the Senate version. It is targeted to be on Trump's desk for signing ceremony on Wednesday ... all of this could shift by a day due to the late vote and passage today ...

Stating over and over the bill doesn't matter because there is no c'ship related language misses the point entirely ... this has become a necessary pavement stone Trump wanted in place for the housing path ... he may not mention F2 at all during the signing ceremony, but it will still be important to listen to his words for clues about potential next steps...

Obviously, a decision from the D.C. Court of Claims Lamberth Appeal is critical to resolution ...

No the DOJ needs to do their job!

Yes, they can apply to uplist at any time. If you recall Pulte said he already spoke to the SEC and they were ready to go. Without the syndicate cancelling either the warrant or the SPS it would likely not be feasible to uplist the current shares. With the warrants and SPS combined the syndicate seized 95+% of the companies value. The crooks need to surrender some of what they stole for these shares to have value on the NYSE.

The fact they continue to trade OTC is nothing short of criminal.

No other companies have ever traded on the NYSE while under conservatorship other than F2 - they traded from Sept 2008 until they were delisted in June 2010; however, some companies have traded on the NYSE after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy/restructuring ...

we all know it's down right illegal to have the F2 hunkered down to OTC , but can it be easily moved to NYSE without having a resolution to conservatorship? Are there any other company in conservatorship trading on any of the big board. I hope and wish it can be done without addressing the conservatorship first. 

Yes, and since there was obvious collusion in the NWS fraud - as evidenced in government emails - the WHOLE entity - F&F conservatorship - is ripe for investigation. That's fraud and criminal investigations 101. Where is the DOJ? And each time this administration points the finger at the perps involved in other government fraud - I wonder if the internal and external auditors are investigated and fired or are they part of the good ole' boy network?

From what I have read it should have little impact. My concern is that keeping the shares trading OTC is downright illegal. With a decade of massive earnings, and no real headwinds in sight, there is no justification for trading the shares on the OTC market. They get away with it because of the senior preferred shares and warrants they assigned themselves. How the Supremeless court ever let this Takings slip by is a sure sign of corruption.

Burry is right. 2-3 years if anything ?

That housing bill has nothing to do with F&F. But they could twist it around and say in order to support the Bill going to law, they have to action some parts of F2. Who knows. Can anyone read what's in 47's head? 

Provided that Trump signs the "Housing Bill" in the coming weeks/months, would it be MORE advantageous for the F&F IPO before or after Trump signs the Housing Bill? Or would the signing have little market impact? Thank you for your expert opinions.

The letter is drafted, Boom, Green Christmas, Wonka Tickets, sooner before later, Patience, 10X, advocacy letter, trillion dollar evaluation what’s that spell ?

BULLSHIT !

All shareholders of FNMA & FMCC, please like and repost attached:
Just to remind everyone that $FNMA and $FMCC DID NOT GO BANKRUPT.

NO BANKRUPTCY WAS EVER DECLARED.

THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT *RESCUE* THEM, as such.

The conservatorship was simply to increase public confidence.

The 79.9% warrants are…
NOT WARRANTED. https://t.co/9pUgYsvh5N pic.twitter.com/LKD8fnc3KY— aerokinetic (@aerokinetic) June 22, 2026

You dont have to believe me - here is the Prospectus for FCMKJ - no collateral

The BOD was given an offer they couldn't refuse and indemnied for breaching their fiduciary duty to their employers, common shareholders, for their breach of fiduciary duty to their employers by the US Government for signing everything away to said, Government for less than a peppercorn. So negotiating a fair price for the warrants is in order because those property rights were traded for less than a peppercorn and nobody actually agreed to that. Now if the price for those warrants was equal to the amount necessary to be fully capitalized under the cap rule making F2 good to go, then F2 would actually be worth the $Trillion 47's been touting. Ackman might not be as dumb as he sounded when suggesting we renegotiate the Warrant Pricing. Of course, actual shareholders would have to vote or that deal would fall into the same peppercorn crack thereby mooting the negotiated settlement.

This means it's up to 51% of the current shareholders because it would end up in Court before there's time to ring the NYSE Bell if Government exercises the warrants. Then it would only take one shareholder with a pen, piece of paper, and the Court filing fees to be a monkey wrench in the spokes of 47's F2 SPO.

Ackman made a mention of negotiating a repricing the warrants earlier in this year.

The $wipe was illegal (in some people's minds) until SCOTUS ruled it was within the powers granted by HERA in the Collins ruling. It's kind of like elections these days. Even after it's over, lots of bickering, disbelief and belief.

I Don’t Believe You.

The JPS is not backed by RMBS but are just preferred equity with no collateral.


And yes I do believe that Lehman’s bought F&F securities as well as WaMu securities.



Ron

We know the media lied to us and still do.
Hope that you are right about this being resolved soon.

Do you know if the Lehman Bankruptcy estate owns F2 JPS? The JPS is not backed by RMBS but are just preferred equity with no collateral.

The SPS are Meant to make F&F look to be in Debt.

JPM wrote 57% of the $83 Trillion derivatives market in 2008, of which ~$13 Trillion was residential mortgages.

That was the plan to distract us from the Derivative Market Meltdown.
The Derivative contract writer’s were not able to cover their contracts because a Derivative contract is naked and the writer was out of money.

We and the Government know that the fictional load has been paid.

Very few people understand the Derivative Market Meltdown of 2008.

The CRA forced the banks to make the loans to unqualified borrowers.
Therefore the banks created trusts to remove the loans off their books, but then invested in the trusts offered as bonds and preferred stock all insured by Derivatives.

In short; the news media lied to us.


Relax, this is resolving very fast.



Ron

Are the JPS Backed by RMBS?

Therefore; Safe Harbor accumulation.

The WMI Series R Perpetual, non-accumulating Preferred Stock made three payments a year.
Two interest payments and one payment as a Performance payment.

The interest payments stopped after BK and c-ship because these are Trusts and managed by a Trustee not associated with the company and not responsible of the offering company, but the Performance payments are accumulating in Safe Harbor for the security holders.

My research and calculations show that WMI Series R should see a ~3.3X face value.
The mortgages payments are still continuing. Where is that money going?

Safe Harbor!


I expect to see the same return for all other Preferred shares that were structured in the same manner.

The JPS claims against F&F will pay for themselves. Self satisfied.
Just like the WMB Notes on the WMB FDIC balance sheet.
Done at no expense to WMI shareholders.

WaMu, Lehman’s and F&F are all waiting for the resolution of the Derivatives that insured the RMBS losses.
Then the accumulated money in Safe Harbor is distributed.

WaMu, Lehman’s, and F&F bought one another’s RMBS offerings to remain in the cash flow from the mortgage payments paid into the Trusts.



Ron

Pulte said q2 for uplist/ipo, we are five working days away. Could this be another misinformation from this administration? Will find out soon.

If that is what you think then you should expect the JPS to do better than common since Trump's friends own JPS.

https://x.com/GuidoPerei/status/2068801447395987716?s=20

"also didn't lockhart say something like they are just an insurance and never be exercised."

On Planet Earth, it's called COLLATERAL but the crooked politicians can't make that word exit slimy mouths.

"I am just advocating for at least $ 25 on the common with a lot of upside and stated value for the JPS - this is fair to me and I will be thankful to Trump if he makes this happen. "

I suspect you are in a very small minority when it comes to righting the ship. And as to Trump....well....I voted for him twice and am not convinced that he is not an arrogant shithead. To date, he is a thief just like all the others. Hell, Biden might have cleaner hands than all the others!

i would not be surprised fhfa wins and does what they argued for (only reason i brought it up i.e. fhfa wants this). the only reason shareholders won was due to jury. anything above it , it is in their hands. when do we hear back?

All the Class Plaintiffs which include the Berkeley JPS and the rest of the JPS Series and FMCC Common will share in any damages on a proportional Series by Series basis regardless of the purchase date. Judge Ginsburg brought up the market for bankruptcy claims as an example where this is the case. The FHFA lawyers argued what you are asserting but it is likely that the Panel will affirm the principal that the claim travels with the chain of title of the impaired security regardless of the purchase date.
Rule of Law Guy has an excellent Substack Post on this exact issue and his expectations for the Decision.

i see some of you are still optimistic, but don't you think time has slipped, the comment "no rush" ? that is what keeps me thinking mnuchin 2.0.

i see no conversion of jr pref. because of lamberth jury trial, they may give multiples to jr pref who bought pre nws and were clearly hurt, the whole premise of jury trial.

i see it. it is clear it is wrong. there must be more paper trail. you are doing a great job but it is not they don't know.

the paper trail that no one has seen , behind the scenes, need to be out

Why the warrants were given for sufficient consideration:

No, consideration does not have to be fair or adequate in value. In common law contract systems (primarily the US, UK, and similar jurisdictions), a contract requires sufficient consideration — something of legal value that is bargained for — but courts generally do not require it to be adequate (i.e., roughly equal or fair in economic value to what is received).

opencasebook.org

This is known as the peppercorn theory (or doctrine) of consideration: even a tiny or nominal amount — a literal peppercorn, $1, or any scintilla of value — can serve as valid consideration for something far more valuable, including property, services, or rights worth millions or billions.

en.wikipedia.org

Why Courts Do Not Police "Fairness" of the BargainCourts enforce the principle of freedom of contract. Parties are generally free to make whatever deal they want, including a "bad" one. The law does not step in to rewrite bargains just because one side got much more value than the other. As long as there is a bargained-for exchange with some legal value (a benefit to one party or detriment to the other), consideration is sufficient.

saalck.pressbooks.pub

The classic statement comes from cases and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 79: courts ordinarily do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.Classic ExamplesPeppercorn or nominal sums: English case Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) held that chocolate bar wrappers (which the recipient would throw away) counted as valid consideration. A peppercorn "does not cease to be good consideration" even if the recipient dislikes it or discards it.
Real estate deeds: It is extremely common to see deeds reciting consideration of "$10.00 and other good and valuable consideration." This satisfies the requirement even if the actual market value of the property is far higher.

reddit.com

Batsakis v. Demotsis (Texas, 1949): During WWII in occupied Greece, one party gave 500,000 drachmas (worth roughly $25 at the time) in exchange for a promise to pay $2,000 later. The court enforced the $2,000 promise. The consideration was sufficient because it had some value and was bargained for — the court refused to examine whether it was "adequate" or fair.

en.wikipedia.org

Can You Really Exchange a Scintilla for a Billion?Yes, in principle. A contract stating something like "$1 in consideration for the transfer of [valuable asset/IP/company rights worth a billion]" would generally satisfy the consideration requirement under common law. Courts have upheld nominal consideration ($1 or similar) in contexts like:Patent or copyright assignments
Option contracts (paying $1 to keep an offer open)
Releases of claims
Many other commercial deals

The law treats the parties as the best judges of value at the time of contracting.Important Caveats and Practical LimitsWhile consideration itself does not need to be fair, extreme disparity can sometimes open the door to other challenges:Sham or disguised gift — If the transaction looks like a gift dressed up as a contract, a court might find no real bargain.
Fraud, duress, undue influence, or unconscionability — Gross inadequacy can be evidence of these other defects (e.g., one party exploited superior bargaining power or hid information).
Tax and regulatory issues — The IRS or other agencies might recharacterize a nominal-price deal as a gift, triggering gift taxes, or scrutinize it for other reasons.
Specific contexts — Some areas (e.g., certain non-compete agreements in particular states, or modifications of existing contracts) have stricter rules.

In short: A scintilla (tiny/nominal amount) can be valid consideration for something worth a billion. The law cares that there was an exchange of value, not that the values were equal.This is a general rule under U.S. common law (and similar systems). Rules can vary slightly by jurisdiction or specific type of contract, and civil law countries (much of Europe and elsewhere) generally do not use the doctrine of consideration at all. For any specific deal, consult a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.

The amount of consideration is never the issue in the enforceability of a contract but you are right about the deception and coercion that Hank and his RINO cronies engaged in. The contract should never had been agreed to by the Board and challenged immediately by shareholders. The strike price of the warrants are not the issue - consideration can be a "scintilla" or a $ 1 for billions and still be enforceable -history is full of great deals gone bad and bad deals living in infamy. The investors who bought JPS for $ 25 months before Conservatorship really got screwed - $ 25 to pennies and the common values went from about $ 6 to pennies. FNMAT for example never paid a dividend even though the issue size was in the $ 3 bn range.
I am expecting Trump to ultimately take 80% - hopefully $ 800 bn in value for the UST and reserve hopefully $ 200 bn in value for the JPS and common. My hunch is that there will be in consensual exchange of JPS for common based on historical trading prices and ultimately there will be equal upside from current trading prices - this may be why there has not been an uplist to date. 20% and hopefully $ 200 bn of upside would be allocated to JPS and common based on relative historical average trading prices based on weighted market values of the common and different series of JPS. Current market values of JPS in the $12 to $ 15 bn range and so is common.

Also please read PG 48 of link provided by 955:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=177700317

how are warrants legal? they were issued at $0.0001 when the market price at the time was around $8? and $80k for 80% of 7 trillion companies? also didn't lockhart say something like they are just an insurance and never be exercised. the paper trail can show what exactly was the motive and motive matters that gs ceo paulson had in mind who retired with big fat paycheck leaving everyone dry.

It has been my opinion that the warrants and the 10% interest rate were a really bad deal for shareholders but not a taking. The NWS should have been litigated as a takings but was not although millions of dollars was spent by shareholders in unsuccessful litigation except the outstanding Fairholme case before the DC Circuit Ct of Appeals.
In any event all of this is not actionable today - it is all up to Trump and he has indicated that the UST will make hundreds of billions from its ownership in F2. I am just advocating for at least $ 25 on the common with a lot of upside and stated value for the JPS - this is fair to me and I will be thankful to Trump if he makes this happen. I will be very happy if the common approaches $ 60 and if the JPS ends up in a negotiation to receive more that stated value in a conversion.

https://x.com/GuidoPerei/status/2068695247916560681?s=20

Yes, the NWS was certainly illegal. That being said, in my opinion, the terms of the conservatorship are a major Takings violation. Who gives a loan that when paid off the lender owns 95% of the collateral for the loan? The warrants alone represent 80% of the outstanding stock. Who besides the government could get away with those loan terms? May as well just redact it out of the constitution.

The NWS was illegal but the warrants have always been legal and a valid contractual right of the UST. Two different issues

Also, if Trump can allocate $800 billion to housing initiatives that will help people and help the MAGA movement thrive it would be double the best possible outcomes from this travesty.

1. Please account for the $800 billion you speak of here and be specific as to where it comes from and the financial calcs to achieve it
2. I believe it IS a noble effort to help people and for the Trump movement type politics to thrive; however,
a. while it is NOT illegal to be forced to pay back legitimate debts, these are public companies with shareholders under a legal conservatorship that has a legal
mandate to conserve and preserve
b. any such effort to subvert conservatorship law and long-standing shareholder rights laws is certainly NOT "MAGA."