Replies to post #682047 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

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"

The original PSPA started as a wind-down contract, it nowhere states on witch conditions it can leave conservatorship, it only states the portfolio needs to be wound down and all other sort of demands, nothing however to make them solvent again (a one-sided illegal contract) or the terms upon which the contract will end
The solvency was set by OFHEO, the FHFA soon thereafter made NO adjustments to make the companies solvent again, so it was OFHEO’s lack of proper Gfees that got the companies in conservatorship in the first place, if they had enough capital (due to OFHEO properly granting Gfees ) they would not have been in conservatorship, so we can say it was because of the too low granted OFHEO Gfees the companies are in conservatorship, not because of the actions of the companies themselves, the capital needed is given by the legislative branch, so if it is undercapitalized it is because OFHEO did not do its job in the first place, the current lack of capital is because the FHFA siphoned off all profits to the treasury, so again it is the lack of action of the (now) FHFA that puts the companies at risk, then the current increased capital level will have a huge consequence on the Gfees, only they are not reflected in the current Gfees the companies receive, their portfolio tripled while the Gfees only doubled, but the initial gfees are the problem who got them into conservatorship in the first place right, so yeh what can you say, just think for a moment out of your box and ask yourself “the companies are heavily regulated”, how “could they not have enough capital”? right because OFHEO did not set the Gfees high enough, so should there have been a conservatorship in the first place?

Then you misunderstood the liquidation end date, “it means”:
“Liquidation End Date” means the date of completion of the liquidation of Seller’s assets”

Quote:
________________________________________
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 as 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.

this is incorrect, the party of last resort does have a fiduciary duty to keep things moving, one-sided is illegal, coercion is illegal, so it is their fiduciary duty to keep the companies afloat as lender of last resort, not to bring them down, doing so will ruin the economy as then there is no party of last resort

Quote:
________________________________________
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:

okay let me try again
4617(f) no court can take action
The separation of powers:
1) Legislative
2) Executive
3) Judicial
The FHFA in independent (for now) and does not have to answer to any of the 3 branches, as the FHFA by law is headed by a multimember board(44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5), and the board can decide upon itself what is in the best interest of the companies, as the board will have multiple opinions to what is the best interest, so both sides will be given a vote in a board to determine what is in the best interest of the companies, but we know there is no board only a single director, this problem is in Collins as “for cause” question number 1)
And as both government and Collins agree the “for cause” protection is illegal it most likely is, then this must be changed to “at-will” if this is changed, the director of the agency is no longer independent and must obey whatever the president wants him to do, so the agency therefore is executive, if it then is executive it also must obey the separation of powers as it is no longer independent it must listen to the judicial branch, HERA states it should not listen to the judicial branch as it is independent, but if “for cause” is replaced to at will, it must listen to the separation of powers, it therefore must strike 4617(f) no court can take action, as FHFA will become executive
The courts up to now ruled upon the stance it could not take action as is was in the “lawful” HERA statute, only when “for cause is replaced to at will, the statute HERA is no longer independent, but executive, so those statutes cannot preclude judicial review because of the separation of powers, so the dismissed lawsuits will have to be revisited as it was unlawful to dismiss a lawsuit because the ground on which it was dismissed are taken away by the “for cause” to “at-will” replacement