Replies to post #681026 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

“next step toward responsibly winding down” so the first step was also wind-down

No. The original SPSPAs were signed during the George W Bush administration while Michael Stegman, who said that line, only served during the Obama administration.

The Obama administration wanting to use the SPSPAs (plus the NWS) to wind down FnF doesn't mean that the original SPSPAs, which happened during the George W Bush administration, were designed to wind down FnF. Quoting an Obama appointee doesn't prove your point, and thus one of your later arguments is defeated.

with this theory (the reality) the FHFA-C should have acted and should have re-negotiated the deal as it cannot continue forever (“put in sound and solvent condition), this is an inaction of FHFA-C it should have done something about it but it didn’t

FHFA-C couldn't act alone. If Treasury didn't want to renegotiate the SPSPAs then there's nothing FHFA-C could do about that. The best they could have done was pay the NWS dividends in kind instead of in cash.

but in this case, it was inaction that caused the injury, so 4617(f) will have to go as the courts will void the action/inaction taken

I think you have completely forgotten what 4617(f) even says. Here it is again:

(f) Limitation on court action

Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.

How could a court possibly "restrain or affect the exercise of" an inaction?

But you said it best yourself: "so the courts can always take action if ultra vires". That means 4617(f) stays. There is no need to strike it down, and the Collins plaintiffs didn't get anywhere close to asking for it to be struck down. This quixotic quest of yours will require a new lawsuit.

prospective relief (2012-up) will need to be reversed when the un-redacted documents contain an illegal fact(RFP 1-30), therefore it would be wise just to void the entire PSPA per SCOTUS

The Supreme Court ruling won't have anything to do with the documents (redacted or not) in the Washington Federal case. Different cases, different allegations, different timeframes.

In addition, the Supreme Court's ruling will come out before any documents in Washington Federal are unredacted. Washington Federal is currently fighting merely to have their case heard (it was dismissed in its entirety by Judge Sweeney); trying to get those case documents unredacted isn't close to the top of their priority list at the moment.

the powers for a director to determine by himself in his sole discretion to put the companies into conservatorship

Are you still acting as if the FHFA director could impose conservatorship for any reason at any time regardless of what 4612(a)(3) says?

the miserable 5% backstop ($200B-$3,7T) from the government can be stricken instantly, it has no use whatsoever

Completely and utterly wrong. 5% is massive, and represents enough to keep the companies afloat (and thus MBS investors 100% whole) through any reasonable crisis. While credit is not capital and FnF need to build actual capital by regulation, the MBS market cares greatly about that backstop and it would be severely disrupted if that backstop were to disappear. There is an enormous difference between the $49B of capital FnF have on the books (which includes $19B of non-loss-absorbing DTAs) and the $49B plus an extra $200B.

upto now the warrant cannot be executed as it is part of the PSPA and the 3rd amendment lawsuits

Wrong. Treasury could exercise the warrants tomorrow if they wanted to. The only lawsuit that involves the warrants at all is Washington Federal, and they only want the warrants factored into a damage award.

The January letter agreement clearly shows that Treasury and the Department of Justice think the warrants are fully legal as is, and the Biden budget includes a warrant valuation that past budgets didn't, again showing that Biden's administration views the warrants as legal and likely intends to exercise them in full.