Saturday, December 20, 2014

Read the Statute! DOJ will not like the Appeals court answer to that! They are Wrong!

That is exactly how that statute is read! but the point is law is not about statute individually it is about the heading of the statute it falls under!
12 U.S. Code § 4617 – Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(2) Discretionary appointment
(2) falls under the purpose of why would a conservator or receiver be appointed! (a) gives no power or duty!
(a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver
Powers and duties are under (b)
12 U.S. Code § 4617 – Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(b) Powers and duties of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(a) has no power to wind up, (a) has only purpose for why conservatorship or recievership are in existence and under law they become alive in (a)!!
(b) tells the conservator or receiver and the world what powers and duties it may perform and are lawfully his powers and duties.
You all have to see this from a Law perspective. Laws dont get written in a single line.
Like the govt would want judges to believe, and I can tell you their argument will NOT stand up in appeal! Appeal court judges know the law and know that (a) is Not where conservator can get his power or duty from!! only (b) can.

Wind up is defined in the statute as follows! Wind up is not a made up definition by the FHFA, It is defined in the statute and has its powers there.
(6) Winding up
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), not later than 2 years after the date of its organization, the Agency shall wind up the affairs of a limited-life regulated entities.
12 U.S. Code § 4617 – Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(i) Limited-life regulated entities
(1) Organization
(A) Purpose
The Agency, as receiver appointed pursuant to subsection (a)—
again here HERA tells us that (a) only gives purpose. (b) is powers and duties
(6) Winding up
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), not later than 2 years after the date of its organization, the Agency shall wind up the affairs of a limited-life regulated entity.
both (1) and (6) are under (i) limited life regulated entities
(i)(1) Organizes recivership
(i)(1)(a) gives purpose to reciever existing
(i)(6) winds up

Friday, December 19, 2014

treasury buys Fannie mae for a 95% discount! So they claim!

Fannie mae enterprise value $3.14 trillion dollars as of 12/18/2014

So according to Real world comparisons, The US treasury bought a $3140 car for $117!!! And not only that they negotiated for the seller to pay them $16 a year for as long as the treasury owns the car!! 

Now does that sounds like something a sane person would agree to in the course of running a business, let alone selling the car. Dont forget in exchange for the $16 a year the buyer says, if need be, they will add an additional $100 to the original $117 and this is why they deserve the $16 payment. So again for a $3140 car the treasury would be willing to pay $217 total if it has too! Great deal for the seller of the car, HUH? I think not!!

The truth shall be told. FHFA (a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver

Under title 12, the department of justice is telling the court that The FHFA has the power to Wind up Fannie mae and Freddie mac under the hat of the conservator. The DOJ is using this statute as its only method of proving this and has told countless judges read the statute!

I got news for the DOJ they are wrong and hopefully a very astute judge will see it!
here is why the DOJ is wrong and the FHFA is operating outside of HERA title 12!

1.section (a) is for the appointment of FHFA as conservator OR receiver. This section is only for appointment! section a does not give powers or duties definition!

12 U.S. Code § 4617 - Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(2) Discretionary appointment
The Agency may, at the discretion of the Director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity.

Under section (a) (2) it does not give power to the conservator or receiver! It simply gives the LAW for the APPOINTMENT of one or the other! Thats it! Nothing else. Section (a) is about appointment, not power.

We know that Fannie is under conservatorship, NO ONE DISPUTES THIS, not FHFA or the DOJ! Also this information is on FHFA website!
Why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in Conservatorships
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorships to preserve and conserve their assets and property and restore them to a sound financial condition so they can continue to fulfill their statutory mission of promoting liquidity and efficiency in the nation's housing finance markets.  
Right from the horses mouth!

2. section (b) gives power to conservator or receiver! Once (a) gives appointment of (b) gives power!
This is how laws are written, they are not cherry picked for use by FHFA to do what it wants!

12 U.S. Code § 4617 - Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(b) Powers and duties of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(A) Successor to regulated entity
The Agency shall, as conservator or receiver, and by operation of law, immediately succeed to—
(i) all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director of such regulated entity with respect to the regulated entity and the assets of the regulated entity; and
(ii) title to the books, records, and assets of any other legal custodian of such regulated entity.
(B) Operate the regulated entity
The Agency may, as conservator or receiver—
(i) take over the assets of and operate the regulated entity with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of the regulated entity and conduct all business of the regulated entity;
(ii) collect all obligations and money due the regulated entity;
(iii) perform all functions of the regulated entity in the name of the regulated entity which are consistent with the appointment as conservator or receiver;
(iv) preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity; and
(v) provide by contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action, or duty of the Agency as conservator or receiver.
(C) Functions of officers, directors, and shareholders of a regulated entity
The Agency may, by regulation or order, provide for the exercise of any function by any stockholder, director, or officer of any regulated entity for which the Agency has been named conservator or receiver.

(D) Powers as conservator
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—
(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.
(E) Disposition of assets
In exercising any right, power, privilege, or authority as conservator or receiver in connection with any sale or disposition of assets of a regulated entity for which the Agency has been appointed conservator or receiver, the Agency shall conduct its operations in a manner which—
(i) maximizes the net present value return from the sale or disposition of such assets;
(ii) minimizes the amount of any loss realized in the resolution of cases; and
(iii) ensures adequate competition and fair and consistent treatment of offerors.

That is All the powers of conservator! All powers of receiver are irrelevant as Fannie mae and Freddie mac  are not in receivership!

The last one (E) is interesting too, when FHFA and Treasury made the sweep deal,  the FHFA was required by LAW to ensure adequate competition for the offer of treasury to take ALL profits in exchange for Nothing!
I would of personally offered to take only 99% of all profits in exchange for ALL profits but the FHFA failed to ensure competition for such action!!!!

It really is that simple (a) is the LAW of appointment (b) is the LAW of powers!!
under section (a) alone there is NO POWER! under section (b) alone there is no Appointment of the Power! The term purpose means nothing as under section (a) there is NO power or duty, the Term purpose is only to allow for descriptions of what a conservator or receiver is appointed for, Not what its power or duty is as described by (b) powers and duties!

define purpose:
pur·pose noun
1.the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

The word purpose has No power or duty! the word purpose is to define the existence of the conservator and the receiver.  In law the purpose does not define powers or duties, it simply difines why the FHFA as conservator or reciever can exist!

Because I exist, that does not give me power or duty. I would need to be given those. And in (b) the FHFA is given those! this is why (b) is written! I know this is the stumbling block, but a good lawyer would see the distinct differences in this and make sure the judge could see it too! Simple comparisons to the title 12 FDIC law would make it abundant as the GSE part seems to be written in accordance with it!

It really is this simple.

The law of title 12 should scare every BANK!!

The department of justice is saying under this statute that the FHFA can transfer the assets of fannie mae and freddie mac to the US treasury.

12 U.S. Code § 4617 - Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
(G) Transfer or sale of assets and liabilities
The Agency may, as conservator or receiver, transfer or sell any asset or liability of the regulated entity in default, and may do so without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer or sale.

That is the power FHFA is saying allows it to send the profits to anyone it chooses, US treasury in this case. But they are making the case they could have sent it to Mel Watts sister if he wanted to. All $32 billion a year, to his sister. And not a court could stop it!
What should worry banks is this:
12 U.S. Code § 1821- Insurance Funds
(G) Merger; transfer of assets and liabilities
(i) In general The Corporation may, as conservator or receiver—
(I) merge the insured depository institution with another insured depository institution; or
(II) subject to clause (ii), transfer any asset or liability of the institution in default (including assets and liabilities associated with any trust business) without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer.
This his what regulates the FDIC and banks that are taken into conservatorship or receivership. Using the department of justice argument the FDIC can give all of a banks profit or money or building for that matter to anyone it wants including the US treasury!
So if you want the Government to win the court case and your a bank, Know that it is setting up precedent for your bank to be taken over in the same manner as Fannie mae.
Its in the law and if you simply read the statute as the DOJ has convinced the court to do, you will be next!! 

clause (ii) does not save your bank!!
(ii) Approval by appropriate Federal banking agency No transfer described in clause (i)(II) may be made to another depository institution (other than a new depository institution or a bridge depository institution established pursuant to subsection (m) or (n) of this section) without the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency for such institution.

clause (ii) only protects you from your assets being sent to another bank, Not the sister of the FDIC regulator!

GSE or bank is in default if a conservator or receiver has been appointed!

12 CFR 1237.2 - Definitions.

(1) Default means, with respect to a regulated entity, any official determination by the Director, pursuant to which a conservator or receiver is appointed for a regulated entity. 

Thursday, December 18, 2014

12 U.S.C. 4617(b)(2) (D) Powers as conservator

Withdraw and Correct the Error of Thy Ways: The Perry Capital Opinion

12 U.S.C.  4617(b)(2) (D) Powers as conservator
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—
(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
(ii) appropriate to crry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

DeMarco Redefined GSE ‘Failure’ and ‘Conservatorship’

DeMarco Redefined GSE ‘Failure’ and ‘Conservatorship’
DEC 16, 2014 1:12pm ET
In his speech at the Richmond Fed last May, Edward DeMarco declared these truths to be self-evident: “Restoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not the solution. They failed and their business model failed. Going backwards to an obviously failed model cannot be dressed up with some promise of higher capital or explicit rather than implicit guarantees.”
Have any doubts? Don’t, says the former acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. “There should be no doubt that this set of events [leading to conservatorship of the government-sponsored enterprises] and the billions of dollars in subsequent losses meant that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had failed,” said DeMarco. In fact, “there was broad consensus at that time that not only had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, but the GSE model had failed.”
He redefined failure in a very specific way. By excluding the standard criteria — such as loan performance, the flow of funds, impact toward stabilizing the mortgage market and other data used by business executives — DeMarco’s claim, that the GSE model had failed, may not seem implausible. By redefining “failure,” he framed FHFA policy to preempt any discussion about restoration of the GSEs.
Which was quite a feat. It’s one thing for DeMarco to insist that “restoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not the solution.” It’s quite another to act on that belief, because DeMarco’s job, and the statutory mandate of FHFA, was to make the GSEs as healthy as possible.
But when he was in office, DeMarco doubled down. He went beyond redefining “failure.” He also redefined his job description and the statutory meaning of “conservatorship.” That way, he could do whatever he wanted, and no judge could tell him otherwise. DeMarco’s verbal sleights of hand teach us an important lesson: Corruption in finance is often rooted in corruption of language.
DeMarco’s job as regulator is supposed to promote the GSEs’ safety and soundness. FHFA’s job of the conservator is to:
“take such action as may be —
(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.”
The primary metric for measuring a GSE’s safety and soundness is its level of capitalization, which shall be classified as adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, seriously undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized.
And the law specifically prohibits any distribution of capital (dividend) whenever a GSE is undercapitalized. The statute would indicate that any senior preferred dividends should be accrued in arrears. This makes perfect sense. Who would be so reckless as to send cash dividends out of an undercapitalized financial institution? How could any conservator, tasked with putting the companies in a sound and solvent condition, authorize such distributions? The whole idea seems oxymoronic.
Which may be the point. If you divorce words from their original meanings, you end up in an endless loop of doublespeak. “Contrary to what Fannie and Freddie apologists claim, the GSEs have yet to repay any of the taxpayer-funded bailout funds they received,” said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., last week. You know what they say, money talks, doublespeak walks.
Using his self-defined powers, DeMarco announced in August 2012 that the GSEs would distribute to Treasury all available cash as part of Treasury’s plan to wind down the GSEs. From then on, the GSEs would pay out cash dividends equal to 100% of reported earnings. This change, he believed, would prompt Congress to act on his advice. DeMarco wanted to abolish the GSEs’ charters as part of a broader legislative package of housing finance reform. So he translated, “restoring soundness and solvency,” into “draining the companies of the maximum amount of cash possible,” while preempting any opportunity to build up equity or capital. In exchange for $187 billion in government outlays, the GSEs have so far returned $219 billion in cash dividends.
It’s funny. DeMarco’s definition of “conservatorship” looks, sounds and smells like a fraudulent conveyance scheme, which improperly transfers assets out of a company so as to impede the rightful legal claims of other stakeholders. Not surprisingly, shareholders of Fannie and Freddie stock filed lawsuits, arguing that FHFA had no right to authorize the 100% dividend sweep. Cases are pending in several different courts.
But on Sept. 30, 2014, DeMarco’s actions got an unqualified endorsement from U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled that, under the “plain meaning” of the of the Home Equity Recovery Act of 2008, his court had no authority to second guess any of DeMarco’s decisions. Lamberth’s legal analysis is drenched with unintended irony.
Lamberth noted what FHFA noted, which was that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(2), of, “HERA permits a conservator to ‘reorganize’ or ‘wind up’ the affairs of a GSE. [Ergo] the court has no occasion to decide whether the conservator is empowered to wind down the GSEs.”
Oh really? That’s not how I read the statute. HERA sets forth FHFA’s “powers as conservator,” as noted above. HERA also sets forth FHFA’s “additional powers as receiver,” which allow the receiver to liquidate the entity. And § 4617(a)(2) says:
“The agency may, at the discretion of the director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity.”
If Lamberth were familiar with, say, the difference between a Chapter 11 trustee and a Chapter 7 trustee, he might appreciate how things are supposed to happen sequentially. Hence, “winding up a company’s affairs” is a task of the receiver, not the conservator. Under the proper sequence of winding up a company’s affairs, company operations are shut down and creditors are repaid before any equity distributions are ever allowed.
In Footnote 20 Lamberth explains how, in his eyes, the “plain meaning” of the statue gives FHFA unlimited discretion:
“Even if FHFA has explicitly stated an intent to eventually wind down the GSEs, such an intent is not automatically inconsistent with acting as a conservator. There surely can be a fluid progression from conservatorship to receivership without violating HERA, and that progression could very well involve a conservator that acknowledges an ultimate goal of liquidation. FHFA can lawfully take steps to maintain operational soundness and solvency, conserving the assets of the GSEs, until it decides that the time is right for liquidation.”
Except the role of a conservator, of carrying on a business and restoring solvency, is inconsistent with the role of a receiver that winds up a company’s affairs. This so-called prerogative of a conservator — to wipe out GSEs equity so as to make receivership a self-fulfilling prophecy — fits the plain meaning of “doublespeak.” Once again, money talks, doublespeak walks.
It remains to be seen how the cases will proceed in the courts.
David Fiderer has previously worked in energy banking for more than 20 years. He has written extensively about the financial crisis and is currently working on several projects concerning housing finance, including a book on the ratings agencies.

Shorts, short on the weekly crossover 5ema 10sma weekly chart

I just figured it out: Shorts, short on the weekly crossover 5ema 10sma weekly chart.

ema 5 sma 10 crossover on the weekly, look for shorts and you'll see they show up when the 5 crosses under the 10 on the weekly, they are gone just as quick when the 5 crosses over the 10!

I just noticed this as Gild had no shorts on this board 30 days ago. If you look at abbv you'll see not one short on the board there and it is dead. on fnma which has a lot of shorts that come and go, they show up when the 5 crosses below the 10 on the weekly.

Its like if you want to not deal with the shorts or know if your stock is a good buy, look at the weekly chart with ema 5 and sma 10 as your gauge of shorts, then look at the yahoo message board. I would suggest not buying until the 5 crosses above the 10, and would suggest selling when the 5 crosses below, all on the weekly. Also as soon as a strange amount of short posters start showing up on your usually dead board, Immediately look at the monthly 5 10 crossover and be warned they will be hanging around until the cross goes the other way. Remember as a short there is no reason to know what the heck your talking about, your tactic is to ride it down and create fear in the long term holders, they need to sell for your short to succeed and to cover in the end.

my 2 cents. take it or leave it.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have since fully repaid the taxpayers. U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have since fully repaid the taxpayers. U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

The NHTF was established in July 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). This law required that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pay 4.2 basis points of their annual volume of business to the two funds. The requirement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contribute to the two funds was suspended when the companies were taken into conservatorship in September 2008 during the financial crisis. 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have since fully repaid the taxpayers.

Those are his words, his press release.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Bill Ackman still adding to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (FMCC), Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (FNMA)

Bill Ackman still adding to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (FMCC), Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (FNMA)
Fannie Mae
In an interview with Bloomberg Market Makers, Bill Ackman of Perishing Square Capital discussed Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) and Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA).
Is there money still to be made after most recent Court Decision?
Ackman was asked whether there was money to be made in Fannie & Freddie after the most recent court decision and he responded yes, and that they have added meaningfully in the last week or two to their positions.
Ackman reiterated that he does not think the court decision addressed the substance of the most important argument that the government took private property and that the government stepped in and took 100% of the profits of Fannie & Freddie unilaterally. He compared it to the government walking in to Apple and taking 100% of the profits. The host quickly stopped him mentioning that the GSEs are in a conservatorship and Ackman responded that it does not mean they can steal.
Conservatorship does not mean you can steal
He reiterated that a government cannot act outside of the law and that the bailout was negotiated with the board and that in the next 18 months they will have fully paid back the government. He believes that the decision will not be allowed to stay.
Fannie and Freddie Larger Part of the Mortgage Market Today
He also reminded us that Fannie and Freddie are even more essential now than they were 5 years ago and that Fannie and Freddie consist of a larger part of the mortgage market then before the crisis.
Fannie and Freddie the only bailed out company without capital
Of all the companies in the financial crisis, Fannie and Freddie are the only ones that currently pose a risk because the government has not allowed them to recapitalize. If the government does not allow them to recapitalize they will continue to pose a risk to the tax payer.

Where does he get the 18 months from? they have paid back all plus interest already. so why 6 more quarters of 8 billion sent to the treasury? $220 billion in already, $48 billion more over that period and F&F will have paid $270 billion for $187 billion funded over 7 years. I assume he is thinking 10% interest on the money, but 10% interest stopped at end of 2012 when sweep was enacted! The LP of $187 billion is already principal plus interest as F&F had to borrow to pay the interest which increased the LP each quarter. The point is by enacting the sweep, the 10% interest stopped. And since the sweep $220billion has been paid on $187billion borrowed.
Part two:
RVB from TIMH717 says about Ackman:
The Ackman news IS material, as he’s had 2 months to buy much cheaper shares, but chose to do so only in the last “1 to 2 weeks” in a meaningful way. Not coincidentally, we’ve had the Watt Senate testimony, the funding of the affordable housing trust, and a sealed response from plaintiffs regarding the Govt’s motion to stay in the Fairholme case, indicating the possible presence of some damning evidence (I’ll only concede “possible”) against the Sweep.
And today Ackman is saying on CNBC 18 months? So is Ackman privy to the sealed info from fairholm? Or at least in contact with fairholm that would have the info to make the statement 18 months? It seems maybe behind the curtain there maybe a release brewing. Watt moving towards F&F recap by his actions and words. Senators coming out a telling watt to remove conservatorship. A new senate banking committee chair that wants fannie gone and private capital only!! We know that cant work as in 2007-2009 all private capital went away and The USA would have been pushed into the middle ages by the lack of mortgage funding on top of all the foreclosures. 18 months from now would be bad timing for release as the presidential race would be fully on and Watt would not dare disturb that. It is more likely to happen after elections or this coming year in 2015! I suspect it would be this year as waiting for the loss in the presidential race would not go over well with release after the certain republican victory. If republicans win and hold all houses then you can be certain the entire mortgage market will be handed to banks on silver platter and the newly enacted affordable housing will be killed on the spot when a new FHFA director is nominated by the president and now only 50% of senate needs to ok it. That would be republican senate and the new nominee will be placed.
THIS is indeed getting interesting!

FHFA's Permanent Conservatorship Ignores the Law

FHFA's Permanent Conservatorship Ignores the Law

As Michael HKrimminger, former General Counsel for the FDIC

Not only does HERA provide this discipline, it also imposes duties on the FHFA as conservator. In this role, the FHFA is instructed to return Freddie and Fannie to "a sound and solvent condition" and to "preserve and conserve the assets and property" of the companies. The FDIA includes the same instructions. The FDIC has always treated conservatorships as short-term solutions leading to the recapitalization and return of the failing bank to full private control, or to a receivership and payment of creditors and stockholders.
The continued diversion of Freddie and Fannie's profits to Treasury misuses HERA as well as ignores the international standards underpinning all insolvency frameworks. This is important because one foundation of corporate finance, and our system of commercial laws, is that insolvency law assures creditors that the remaining value of the company will be paid out under defined priorities. If this standard is ignored, as it has been through the Treasury sweeps, it will undoubtedly affect future investment in housing finance and the financing costs for businesses.

The FHFA is ignoring the basic duty of a trustee: to protect the interests of all creditors. By keeping the companies in conservatorships and diverting their cash to Treasury, the FHFA effectively prefers one creditor over all others. While Treasury provided critical up-front funding to the GSEs, it has now been well-compensated under the original agreements. It cannot simply strip the companies of cash in perpetuity.
Every sound insolvency process, including HERA and the FDIA, repays the funding provided but then pays all creditors the remaining value. In bank resolutions, once the FDIC's cash outlay is repaid, the FDIC receives no more money. The continuation of the sweeps through the conservatorships is a violation of every principle established in bankruptcy and in the more than 80 years of FDIC bank resolutions. And it has no support in HERA.

Michael H. Krimminger  former general counsel to the FDIC.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to lose market share to private capital: CBO

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to lose market share to private capital: CBO

During the 2007-09 financial crisis, it was almost impossible for home buyers to get a loan without a government guarantee, andFannie Mae and Freddie Mac stepped into the breach, backing roughly 60 percent of new mortgages between 2008 and 2013.

From 2007 to 2013 Fannie and Freddie were there when everyone else left the market.

But a mix of recent increases in fees charged by the two firms and a renewed willingness to lend by private sources of capital will help shrink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's share to about 40 percent by 2024, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.

Cbo says Fannie and Freddie by 2024( 10 years from now) will be back at 40% of market, where they were before 2007! 10 years from now they will still be at 40%!!

The two firms do not loan directly but rather buy loans which they then resell in bundles. They substantially hiked the fees they charge to guarantee mortgages in 2011 and 2012, reducing their advantage over private-sector firms.

Fannie and Freddie do not make a single loan. CBO says they no longer have an advantage over private sector. This is good for killing bills where Banks complain F&F are unfair competition to the banks. 

Their market share is already shrinking, falling to about 50 percent of new mortgages in the first half of 2014, the CBO said, citing data from Inside Mortgage

This is good too, as F&F cannot be a duopoly if 50% of mortgages are not from them as of 2014!

The CBO also examined several scenarios for reforming the U.S. mortgage financelandscape, including replacing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a government entity or eliminating them entirely.

But because the CBO thinks the private market would likely price fees similarly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the congressional analysts thought none of the scenarios would have a big impact on the federal budget.
CBO says there is no incentive to getting rid of, or replacing F&F!

Page 9
In 2012, the Treasury and the two GSEs revised their
agreements: Rather than pay a fixed dividend on the
Treasury’s preferred shares, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
began in 2013 to return almost all of their profits to the
Treasury. However, those payments do not reduce the
amount of preferred stock held by the Treasury, and the
GSEs are prohibited from buying back that stock under
their agreements with the Treasury and FHFA. Thus, the
terms of the agreements and the conservatorship ensure
that the federal government effectively retains complete
ownership and control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Complete ownership! thats what they say. CBO.
Why cant we win a Taking lawsuit is beyond me!