Replies to post #163490 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

That is a curious question given that the US Treasury and Government are now in the process of legally defending the Third Amendment.

Even so, determining the chance of Watt partial amending the Third Amendment as suggested depends first on his authority to do so unilaterally and second and partially, on the answers to the questions given below.

Authority to unilaterally amend
The Third Amendment to the PSPAs was primarily a move initiated by the temporary authority of the US Treasury under Sec. 1117 of HERA 2008. The FHFA participated as needed to complete the amendment.

The FHFA Director, Watt, is not in a statutory position to unilaterally and directly dissolve or amend the Third Amendment in part (gradual reduction of the capital reserve) or whole. There must be mutual agreement according to Sec 6.3 of the PSPAs -

6.3. Amendments; Waivers. This Agreement may be waived or amended solely by a writing executed by both of the parties hereto,...

Questions
Also, why and how would Watt, representing the GSEs, attempt to have the US Treasury amend only the gradual reduction of 3 billion capital reserve rather than the entire amendment including the net worth sweep?

Would such an action be too partial an effort and result since there are lawsuits seeking the Third Amendment to be vacated in its entirety while at the same time there is a defense of same by the US Government, Treasury and FHFA?

Is this partial amending being considered as a possible point for a settlement in the cases alleging violations of APA and HERA and seeking a Third Amendment vacate order from the court?

If it is, what chance is there that Perry Capital and others suing on the basis of violations of APA and HERA and seeking a Third Amendment vacate order from the court will accept a such a partial settlement for so small an amount?