As readers know, the 9 to 7 majority opinion led by Judge Willett was a prospective Net Worth Sweep cancellation. But his 7 to 9 minority opinion was a pure and simple vacatur of the NWS, meaning a retrospective cancellation. Read the reimbursement to Fannie and Freddie of the amount they paid Treasury in excess of the amount they borrowed. In Willett’s writing, the numbers were $250 billion repaid at the time of the suit, against $187 billion borrowed. Actually, as of Q2, 2019, the amount repaid was a total of $306 billion, for an excess of $120 billion.
Treasury is opposed to this, and argues that taxpayers, on whose accounts it acts, are entitled to compensation for lending the money in the first place. Makes sense, but my first reaction was to counter with the Trouble Asset Relief Program, aka TARP.
I looked up the legal defination of "vacatur" and this is what it said:
It said nothing of it being "retrospective" (or not!). However, I looked up "null and void", also, where it stated (null and void):
null and voidadjective abrogated, annulled, canceled, defeated, defunct, disannulled, effectless, extinct, extinguished, forceless, ineffective, ineffectual, inefficacious, inoperative, invalid, negated, no longer law, not valid, nugatory, obliterated, of no binding force, of no effect, of no legal weight, of no validity, omitted, overruled, quashed, repealed, rescinded, reversed, revoked, set aside, strengthless, superseded, suspended, unauthorized, useless, vacated, valueless, void, withdrawn, without authority, without legal effect, without legal force, without potency, without value, worthless
While the decision "did not" suggest that x billion be returned to shareholders, it also did not allow for any compensation due to the treasury for making this invalid "loan" by an unconstitutional agency. The En Banc decision did say that shareholders were "injured". And, by law, parties injured through illegal processes are entitled to compensation. While Obit explained that there will be briefs in the remand courts, the plaintiffs (sharholders) have established that they were "injured" by the government's net worth sweep, and so the net worth swipe has been superseeded, and is without legal effect or legal force.
It sounds like everything that has been discussed ad nauseam for over the years on this board. Now the courts see it. In the past they have been our opinions. Now they are the opinions of the courts with more court opinions in our favor seemingly around the corner. It does instill a feeling of satisfaction. Sleep well longs. It is happening. Go FnF!
Navy, very informative article but want to add two views.
1. After administrative reform, GSE will go back to prior 2008 operation with big capital. FNMA at 2006 has PE value of 16.5. So the author should use 16.5 rather than 10 to project the PPS after release. i.e FNMA PPS shall be $40-$200 depending on how warrant is cancelled. No need to consider legislative reform as everybody know it will not happen in the next decade.
2. regarding TARP, TRAP programs for banks bring a return of ~12.4% to UST which includes warrant, interest, dividends .... For GSE, excluding $25B NWS overpayment, UST still makes a profit of ~47.6% (four times of banksTRAP return). UST shall cancel the warrant. They steal too much money from GSE. It is not fair.