Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

The original PSPA was supposed to wind down the company, it does not contain an exit, “With today’s announcement, we are taking the next step toward responsibly winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while continuing to support the necessary process of repair and recovery in the housing market,” said Michael Stegman

Your link is from the day of the NWS: August 17 2012. The NWS was absolutely meant to facilitate wind-down, but your link does not support your first statement there.

the FHFA has full blanket protection under FHFA-C statute

False. No fewer than three different federal appellate courts have said the opposite. Check the bottom of page 18 of the Collins Fifth Circuit en banc opinion:

Other circuits follow the same interpretation. Even our sister courts that rejected claims like Counts I–III acknowledge the same rule: “Section 4617(f) will not protect the Agency if it acts either ultra vires or in some third capacity” besides conservator or receiver.72 So have circuits deciding unrelated cases against FHFA. To quote the Ninth Circuit, “the anti-judicial review provision is inapplicable when FHFA acts beyond the scope of its conservator power.”73And the Eleventh Circuit holds that “[t]he FHFA cannot evade judicial scrutiny by merely labeling its actions with a conservator stamp.”

Other circuits (Sixth, Seventh, DC Circuit) only dismissed their cases on 4617(f) grounds because they held that the NWS was not ultra vires; they never said that 4617(f) gives full blanket protection no matter what.

The 3,687 CECL draw (119,836-117,149) would not have been needed if the 3th is void-ab-initio

Good point, but this is true only for Freddie. Fannie didn't pass the 10% moment until 2018, and the 10% moment assumes that FnF would have put every possible penny (past the 10% cash dividend) towards paying down the seniors. Had Fannie done so, they still would have gone balance sheet insolvent in December 2017 when they wrote down their DTAs due to the tax bill becoming law and required a draw from Treasury.

If the FHFA did not have the power to enact, anything they did is void (“for cause”) as at the time the power to do so was missing, it follows the payments made under this structure are void too, not voidable, but just void, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will undo everything the FHFA ever did, but it is a difficult negotiation process for the FHFA

The two bolded parts appear contradictory. If the Supreme Court applies a similar ruling as Selia, where they sever only the parts of HERA that they deem unconstitutional, will any of FHFA's past actions be undone? Or only those taken by a Senate-confirmed director (as opposed to an acting director)? We will find out soon.

On top of that it's possible that the Supreme Court will allow Calabria, now able to be removed at will by Biden, to ratify past directors' decisions and not have to undo any of them (other than the NWS). I don't see any reason for Calabria to choose to void the original SPSPAs when there is good reason that it would harm the companies (through the removal of Treasury's backstop).

Correct if Collins loses on both counts they are legal from the beginning

The warrants are legal no matter what happens in Collins.