Replies to post #677890 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Golfbum22]

sticky please

[kthomp19]

The 3th amendment is not severable from the contract

Of course it is.

1) The NWS is an amendment. Severing it just means reverting back to the contract plus the first two amendments. It's that easy.
2) The Supreme Court severed part of a law that didn't have a severability clause in Free Enterprise Fund. That proves they can sever something that is not explicitly severable.

if the NWS never happened all funds distributed to the treasury would be used to pay down the SPS

False. FnF never had the ability to voluntarily pay down the seniors while the funding commitment existed (which it did before the NWS and does).

would be strange to reinstall those as that would be pick and choose regulation especially because they were not able to payback the SPS during the 3th

Now you agree with me, that FnF couldn't pay down the SPS whenever they wanted. That contradicts your previous sentence.

the sum paid during the 3th amendment will be used as paydown on the SPS

This is what the Collins plaintiffs want. However, the original contract didn't allow for this, and the Supreme Court could very well rule as such and grant the less preferred remedy of Treasury paying $125B to FnF but getting to keep the seniors as-is.

1) Violating the separation of powers, will mean ALL actions from the conservatorship are Void-Ab-Initio

Wrong. For at least the fifth time, the Supreme Court's Selia decision disproves this. If your argument were correct, the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to invalidate all decisions CFPB ever made. They didn't, and thus your argument is proven wrong.

Both are a net negative for the government, Collins identified following as violating

Wrong again. YOU are the one who "identified the following as violating", without providing any logical support for many of the items on that list. The Collins plaintiffs did not identify that entire list as being violated. Just the opposite, they assume 4617(a), 4617(f), and 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) are fully legal in their allegations.

And they claim that only the NWS violates some of those sections. Not any other past decision by FHFA, including the original SPSPAs.

FHFA is not accountable to:
1) The Constitution (courts cannot rule it to be illegal (4617(f))
2) The Courts cannot rule (4617(f))
3) The President (cannot remove (4512(b)(2))

3) is correct as is. The other two are false because 4617(f) only applies to FHFA as conservator or receiver (not as regulator), and only applies to actions that are not ultra vires. If a court rules that an action is ultra vires (like the Fifth Circuit en banc majority did with the NWS), then 4617(f) no longer applies and is effectively moot.

Your crusade to somehow have 4617(f) invalidated is entirely misguided. Both the Collins plaintiffs and defendants assume that 4617(f) is fully legal, and the Supreme Court is not, in any way, shape, or form, being asked to invalidate it. 4617(f) is here to stay. Period. Get over it.

[Donotunderstand]

You folks are way beyond me in knowledge 0 memory 0 analysis

I do want to comment on the below

incorrect, if the NWS never happened all funds distributed to the treasury would be used to pay down the SPS,
...


Sorry but not so in the eyes of GAAP accountants and more importantly the TREASURY

the SPS - LP/Lt - never was a loan with interest

The SPS - if we like it or not - was an equity investment - with such security instrument being a (SR) preferred stock with a coupon of 10%

Accountants and again the TREASURY (in release after PR release) noted that all payments of the 10% were dividends and that none of that payment reduced the owed amount on the SPS investment by a penny

Think a regular JPS with a 10% coupond
Then the 10% is declared and paid - such action does not reduce PAR or the obligation of the company to redeem at date certain at full PAR

ON this I am 100% certain - dividend payments never reduce an obligation