The Treasury backstop is written in the Charter, not in the SPSPA, because the Treasury backstop is a funding commitment where it gets SPS in exchange for the cash, and the section that authorizes the Treasury to buy those SPS is written in the Charters, incorporated by HERA. SECTION: AUTHORIZATION OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS. CONDITIONS. It turns out that Congress neither specified the amount of funding nor the yield, because it says unlimited yield obligations. The fact that it was the SPSPA the one that established the specifications such as the amount of the funding commitment and the yield, doesn't mean that the bailout falls under the PA. It's the Charter the one that authorizes the bailout. And always remember that that section was incorporated by HERA in their Charters just below another section with the name: AUTHORIZATION OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS. CONDITIONS. What? So, two sections with the same name? It means that the bailout was already written in the Charter since its inception, in exchange for their Public Mission. The only difference is that the old bailout specifies that the obligations must have "an appropriate rate" similar to the Treasury yields and it was limited to $2.25 billion. Therefore, Congress just had to update the obsolete $2.25 billion, set 40 years ago.
Because I only have 3 posts daily, I use this last post to reply to Bradford. Mnuchin was referring to a Housing Finance System revamp to "don't put the taxpayer at risk". He used the word restructuring wrong to mislead us, primarily because a restructuring isn't meant to don't put the taxpayer at risk. A restructuring of companies is related to debt restructuring (or preferred stock restructuring) and it occurs only when they are in financial difficulties, which isn't the case in FnF.
