When the 3th amendment is taken away from a contract, the rest of the contract must be reconstructed and be enforced as the new contract then dictates, we just fundamentally differ in opinion and that is o.k., the Equity you suggest is indeed on paper, but those funds were already paid(that was my point), so yes my conclusion was a bit too fast and not correct, but also nowhere near your conclusion, or as you like to call it, your conclusion is False Too
Upto Q1 2012 before the 3th amendment, fannie was forced by voodoo accounting to draw 116,149 + 1,000 initial = $117,149M , when the 3th is declared illegal (the most likely scenario) all payments from Q2 2012 upto Q3 2019 will have to be returned, this totals $164,908, the total payback of the draw would have happened in Q2 2015 after this date a total of $45,940M is transferred to treasury (`Q3 2015 to Q3 2019) So they paid during the 3th amendment $164,908M with an outstanding draw amount of $117,149 = 164,908 – 117,149 = $47,759M + 25,259 + 5,000= $78,018M, when the 3th is illegal Then as Conservatorship itself is also questioned in question 1) from Collins, the executive powers might be voided, the whole PSPA might be voided, not exactly sure how this plays out with the 4th 2021 amendment, as you cannot amend something that is already gone, and then choose and pick regulation, but for sure the executive powers belong to the president only no doubt about that, so Then extra $20B (Q4 2008 – Q4 2011) also need be added so it will be $184,72M and the draw $117,149 makes 184,72-117,149 = $67,570 M+ 25,259 + 5,000= $97,830M
“JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Well, those are good points, and I guess the one point that's in tension with that is that Congress also designated if an independent agency, and if the official, even though acting, running it is removable at will, the agency's no longer independent.”
“JUSTICE GORSUCH: And two is, let's --let's box in that, let's assume that's the case. So what? The --the plaintiffs here challenged actions after --during this whole period, including after a period in which the acting director disappeared and we now have a director. You say, well, that --that --that doesn't matter because the amendment is a thing that was adopted by the acting director. But the plaintiffs are challenging the director's actions as void because he is unanswerable to the President. So why wouldn't we at least be able to provide relief voiding the director's actions once we had a --a --a Senate-confirmed director in 2014? ”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
