<< when the FDIC appoints itself as receiver >>
I believe the FDIC I/G and the CBO agreed that the point of conservatorship was the trigger point to end a rule change pending that would have required FDIC debt to be booked at the time FDIC insurance began being paid by member institutions. I believe this was back when S&L's gained access to deposit guarantees under FDIC's oversight and their debt total surged geometrically.
<< agency vs. actor and nationalization >>
You and I both believe this is what Judge McConnell stated. FHFA is a government actor. On the agency designation, however, I think this is still an open question and was ruled differently in different jurisdictions.
<< on release before capital levels are amassed >>
I believe and have stated several times that FHFA as regulator has the authority to amend capital standards. Lockhart chose to remove them altogether in 2008 (yes, acting in the duality of conservator and regulator) and Watt or his replacement certainly could grant leeway to rebuild depleted capital in a period of relative Financial Market calm. I suppose this could be challenged, but I fail to see why anyone would wish to do so. The pending capital standards proposed by Watt would seem to have been put forth by FHFA as regulator, not conservator. My opinion, anyway.
No quibbling noted. This is a healthy exchange. Thanks for contributing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
