Replies to post #681948 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

The original PSPA were to wind down FnF, it only contains a liquidation end date and not the 4th amendment “terminate conservatorship end date” the PSPA has an open end to the end date, and that is the “liquidation end date”

No, your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises. What has kept FnF in conservatorship is a lack of capital, and FnF were losing money between the start of conservatorship and the NWS. It was the NWS, not the original SPSPAs, that allowed for a wind-down.

Having a set date to end the conservatorships makes no sense because there was no way for FHFA to know in advance when FnF would have enough capital to leave. The "Liquidation End Date"

that would have been pretty stupid right, the goal of conservatorship is to put in sound and solvent condition, if treasury would have refused this duty it makes the Treasury unreliable a party of last resort, this is something treasury would NEVER EVER want their name attached to

Treasury does not have a mandate for safety/soundness or to conserve/preserve assets. Those belong to FHFA alone.

I’m not sure how to point this out more clearly to you but “no court may take any action at the request of the director” or because “HERA says no court may take any action” then HERA is not answerable to the separation of powers ?

It's not that you're being unclear, it's that you're incorrect. The separation of powers claims in the Collins case have nothing to do with 4617(f). That's just a plain fact. Questions 3 and 4, which are part of Collins v Yellen, address the separation of powers claims. Question 2, which is part of Yellen v Collins, addresses 4617(f), and only as a matter of interpretation, not as a challenge to 4617(f) itself.

Several circuits, including the Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh, have already ruled that they can review ultra vires actions by FHFA as conservator. You act like no court can ever take action no matter what, and that was proven wrong by the Fifth Circuit en banc panel majority ruling on page 18:

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 viresor 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.”73 And the Eleventh Circuit holds that “[t]he FHFA cannot evade judicial scrutiny by merely labeling its actions with a conservator stamp.”74Th

Again, the separation of powers claim in Collins has nothing to do with 4617(f). Only the combination of a single director and for-cause removal protection.

Yes well that is the beauty of it, if you do not “conserve and preserve” and siphon of all profits and fail to prevent this action or “now we know” fail to amend this “now we know” 9 years later, it is an inaction of the FHFA, this inaction violates the duty the FHFA has to conserve and preserve, so because it failed to perform their duty, the conservatorship itself is at stake

Not even close to correct. The siphoning of the profits only happened with the NWS, not the original SPSPAs because the senior pref dividends could have been paid in kind. And since the NWS is the only thing that violated FHFA-C's conserve/preserve mandate, it is the only thing in danger of being voided.

So because 4617(f) says it cannot take action, and the 3th is an inaction & ultra virres, the court takes an action to the prohibited action, and therefore it has to go(not only because of this, but also as “for cause” is also an issue in this)

The NWS was an action, and each payment made under the NWS was an action. This action/inaction argument is leading nowhere.

And the "it" that "has to go" is the NWS, not 4617(f).

What would you say if the Supreme Court struck down 4617(f) but upheld the NWS as legal? It wouldn't help shareholders at all! You are tilting at the wrong windmill here.

Assumption, you will find no document pre-2008 claiming the implicit needs to change to explicit, pure fantasy

That has nothing to do with what I said. You act as if a $200B backstop is meaningless and I strongly disagree. That is an enormous amount of money compared to the losses FnF stand to suffer in a downturn, but their current capital levels aren't. If a housing downturn were to happen right now, Treasury's backstop would be the only thing preventing receivership, which would impose losses on creditors (thus triggering the meltdown).

the warrants cannot be exercised as long as the litigation is outstanding, as the litigation might have a consequence on the warrants

No. There is not even a single case out there which seeks to overturn anything more than the NWS. Washington Federal only wants money, and filed their suit in a court that can't overturn the conservatorships, original SPSPAs, or warrants anyway.