Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Power minute coming up! To da moon!
Are we rich yet??
He probably will. He's not looking for a lottery ticket. Just quick gains.
So you're long?
Waddup Charlie! I've been quiet and playing the waiting game and occasionally flipping for more shares. I've been able to double my share count to 8300 just from flipping. I'm averaging $2.34 right now. I'm thinking about selling when the big news hits that we won the lawsuits. Who knows what congress will do after that.
How do we know that Trump is pro FnF? There was a time when many people on this board thought Obama, Watt, Waters, Johnson/Crapo, Shelby were all in favor protecting shareholder's rights. I'm optimistic that Trump is but how do we know?
I believe in Freddie right now. I'm 100% in Freddie.
Would they dismiss this quickly?
Not to be a pessimist, but what could be worse case scenario? Denial of the appeal? I'm trying not to just view this through rose colored glasses.
Looking forward to Jason Biggs' chart.
Detearing....what are your thoughts on LL. Distressed company. Huge upside. I got a little for my portfolio.
Be greedy when others are fearful.
Where's Beambie?
I agree. Sharpton is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
The only thing is...kid rock told him to f%#k off when he demanded the removal of the confederate flag during his concerts. Not everyone listens to Sharpton. Let's hope Obama does.
Why do you let these people rattle you? Lol.
I have to admit, you've been correct on your calls and the gaps have eventually filled.
But....I don't play the gap game because the moment that they announce a release, uplist, or favorable court ruling....any gaps that are left will not get filled. At that point we will never see prices this low again.
100 % in Freddie. I'm loco!
Sky is falling sheeple. Better take your Xanax to take the edge off.
;)
When Blue made his call, I actually sold a good chunk at 2.42. He's made some pretty good calls in the past when it came to price drops (not so much when he pumped). But I knew it wouldn't drop all the way to 1.50. I got back in with Freddie at 2.02. I gained about 1300 shares. Holding tight with 8300 Shares. This was pure luck, I admit. I'd be $hitting bricks right now if I waited for 1 fiddy.
Of course if you are a day trader. I'm not flipping this stock. If I sell, I can't buy for 3 days. I still think this is a catalyst for a nice uptrend. Good on you if you flipped and made 8% yesterday.
USMCVET - bronze
That's usually true, but this is pretty significant and start an uptrend that could take us to over $3. Are we at the promised land? Not yet, but this could be a nice little run.
I remember 4 years ago when NETLIX made some bonehead decisions, replaced CEO, and weathered the storm. I think LL will do the same and will easily hit $60 within 12 months. Maybe sooner. I'm being greedy when others are being fearful.
Publicly traded company brainiac.
We are all owed just compensation regardless of when we purchased the stock because....
"This is a continual taking and has and is happening to all those who owned the stock on 8/17/2012 and all those who have, currently and will own it after that date."
And I agree, the Gov't lawyers just made a serious tactical error.
"You can’t have different rights attached to the same class of securities. This is especially so because the argument here is that the NWS, which takes all future earnings is happening to those who own the stock today, not just those who sold it before 8/17/2012. This is a continual taking and has and is happening to all those who owned the stock on 8/17/2012 and all those who have, currently and will own it after that date."
Great article regarding the Gov't motion to dismiss. This is going nowhere folks and this article cites legal precedent to prove that the motion will be denied.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/fannie-mae-case-govt-makes-a-bizarre-argument/
The Government Makes a Bizarre Argument in Fannie Mae Case
Posted By: valueplays
Posted June 8, 2015
(OTCBB:FNMA) - This is truly strange stuff…….truly. One looks at this and can only think that our government is operating under the “let’s throw a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks” doctrine of legal defense.
From the Fannie Mae filing:
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Fairholme Funds, Inc., the Fairholme Fund (collectively the Fairholme Hedge Funds), and all other plaintiffs who did not own shares in Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) (the Enterprises)1 on August 17, 2012, the date of the alleged Fifth Amendment taking in this case. These plaintiffs lack Article III standing to maintain their takings claim because they did not own the property alleged to have been taken until many months after the alleged taking occurred.
The government is saying that anyone who bought shares after 8/17/2012 should have their cases dismissed because they “lost nothing” post 3rd Amendment (ie: “Net Worth Sweep”) which required “all future earnings” of the GSE’s would be diverted to the Treasury.
Peter Chapman writes:
The argument is nonsense. In America, the bundle of rights that attach to a security do not change based on the identity of the holder. Here are some legal citations for that proposition:
— In re Lorraine Castle Apartments Bldg. Corp., 149 F.2d 55, 57-58 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 728 (1945) (“[T]he prices which security holders pay for their securities in no wise affects the measure of their participation in reorganization or their voting power.”);
— Standard Gas & Elec. Co. v. Deep Rock Oil Corp., 117 F.2d 615, 619 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 564 (1941); and
— Security-First Nat’l Bank v. Rindge Land & Navigation Co., 85 F.2d 557, 561 (9th Cir.), reh’g denied, 86 F.2d 3 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 299 U.S. 613 (1936), reh’g denied, 300 U.S. 686 (1937) (“The legal value or property right in an obligation is the right to recover from the maker to the entire extent of his promise to pay. The consideration given for a security by the holder thereof is immaterial.”).
A copy of Judge Firestone’s Textainer Equipment Management decision on which our Government relies is available at http://bit.ly/1IyxePx and is easily distinguishable from the shareholder claims asserted in Fairholme v. U.S.
Chapman is right. When companies want different rights attached to securities, they create different classes (preferred, common, class A, Class B etc). You can’t have different rights attached to the same class of securities. This is especially so because the argument here is that the NWS, which takes all future earnings is happening to those who own the stock today, not just those who sold it before 8/17/2012. This is a continual taking and has and is happening to all those who owned the stock on 8/17/2012 and all those who have, currently and will own it after that date.
Fannie Mae - Judge Firestone writes (emphasis mine):
Capital argues in response that the government, by taking physical possession of its property for use by the military, has established a per se taking and that there is no basis for reconsideration of the court’s previous determination of taking liability.
The court agrees with Capital and declines the government’s invitation to reconsider its earlier ruling. Regardless of whether the government’s actions may also be characterized as a tort, the critical issue in this case is whether the government is liable for a taking of property. Contrary to the government’s contention, the fact that the government’s behavior might also give rise to a tort claim does not alter this result. See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., (“The city argues that because the Constitution allows the government to take property for public use, a taking for that purpose cannot be tortious or unlawful. We reject this conclusion. . . . When the government repudiates this duty, either by denying just compensation in fact or by refusing to provide procedures through which compensation may be sought, it violates the Constitution. In those circumstances the government’s actions are not only unconstitutional but unlawful and tortious as well.”). The court finds that the government is liable for a taking in this case because the government did appropriate Capital’s containers for a public benefit in the form of continued military use.
The principle distinction between a tort and taking relates to the purpose of the government’s action. A tort is intended to remedy an injury to property without regard to public benefit. See Ridge Line, 346 F.3d at 1355 (discussing distinction between a taking and a tort). A taking, incontrast, turns on whether the government has acted for a public benefit. Moden, 404 at 1342 (citing Ridge Line, 346 F.3d at 1356). Here, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government decided to keep Capital’s containers for a public purpose.
How does this compare to the Fannie Mae case? Did the government “take” shareholder property for “public benefit”? Most assuredly they did. The monies taken from the Fannie Mae has been used by our government in a variety of ways, none of them by them way consistent with the Fannie Mae conservatorship doctrine of “preserving and protecting the assets”.
Did they provide “just compensation” or “provide procedures in which compensation can be sought”? No, and in fact they specifically set out and said there is no redress by shareholders or any other entity claiming injury as their actions are “beyond judicial review” (the rub here is plaintiffs are claiming the gov’t violated HERA which means judicial review is necessary).
The post The Government Makes a Bizarre Argument in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Case appeared first on ValuePlays.
Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae
Sign up for our free newsletter
Ads by Adblade
More offers and articles
22-Year Congressman Explains How And When A Dollar Collapse Could Happen— And How To Prepare
Ridiculous Credit Cards Offering 0% Interest Until 2017
If the Saudis take out the U.S. dollar, what happens to your stocks, bonds and real estate? [This]
American Citizens get up to $4,700 by piggybacking “Canadian Social Security”
Can you really risk as little as $25 to make up to $100 when you copy this?
New "Steroid Alternative" Boosts Muscle Growth 187%
Promoted Content From The Web:
How Older Men Are Building Muscle
New "Steroid Alternative" Builds Muscle And Burns Fat
Testosterone Booster Takes GNC By Storm
A Seduction Technique Women Can't Resist
New GNC Probiotic Melts Fat Like Butter
New Website Can Reveal Any American's "Dirty Little Secrets"
Billionaires Using 'Limitless' Brain Pills
Shocking Breakthrough Leads Scientists To Discover 'God Vitamin'
Previous
Paul Volcker Slams State Budget Hidng Future Expenses
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
valueplays
Todd Sullivan is a Massachusetts-based value investor and a General Partner in Rand Strategic Partners. He looks for investments he believes are selling for a discount to their intrinsic value given their current situation and future prospects. He holds them until that value is realized or the fundamentals change in a way that no longer support his thesis. His blog features his various ideas and commentary and he updates readers on their progress in a timely fashion. His commentary has been seen in the online versions of the Wall St. Journal, New York Times, CNN Money, Business Week, Crain’s NY, Kiplingers and other publications. He has also appeared on Fox Business News & Fox News and is a RealMoney.com contributor. His commentary on Starbucks during 2008 was recently quoted by its Founder Howard Schultz in his recent book “Onward”. In 2011 he was asked to present an investment idea at Bill Ackman’s “Harbor Investment Conference”.
Copyright © 2015 ValueWalk - Privacy Policy
Developed by ValueWalk Team
gumgum-verify
Watch: Zealots of Zag Episode 1
Nice upward trend-line on the 1 and 3 year charts. Looking good from here. Who's continuing to hold long and strong? This guy!
Signed
Longs on the hook? That makes no sense since the longs are not trading this stock. Whether it's a $1 or $6, I could give a $h!t less. The price is relative until this is resolved.
How do we get in these new warrants? Do they just email me? I'm holding about a thousand shares.
I just happened to see this in my inbox today. I wanted to thank you for your response. You hit the nail right on the head. My emotional attachment to the $$ attached to this stock has clouded my ability to effectively hold, trade and sell this stock many many times. I know the response is late, but wanted to let you know that it definitely sinks in. Thanks again Jayman.
Good info! Thanks for sharing your strategy.
Sorry for your losses. I guess a thousand is pittance compared to some. I didn't want to sell because I don't know what this BK entails. I still own a thousand shares. Would anyone like to share their game plan?
I've been holding this since around a dollar per share. I chose not to watch this everyday as it was my long term play. Who knew that a company that sat on one of the largest gold and silver mines in the world couldn't even afford to pull it out of the ground.
So what happens next? I'm just holding for now.
Wtf just happened? I just lost a thousand bucks! -87% on E-trade.
Whether it pops within months or in 2016, I'm holding. Nobody has a crystal and can only speculate. Why would I risk selling when this will eventually pop to $20 or even $40??
Appreciate your kind words. Let's make some $$.
I'm banking on it too brother. I'm not risking everything just to make a modest return. I want a house free and clear or early retirement.
And I h8 Obama too. Lol
Going back to when I used the word idiot. I said that because I see people here going back and forth to trying to dissect the words:
Wind down: must mean to wind down the Conservatorship
Shutter: to close, then open. Must mean end conservatorship then there will be a new FNF
End As we know them: same as above.
No matter what our critics say, people here only see their words through rosey colored glasses. So when I see people hear trying to spin these definitions, I shake my head.
I'm just being real. I believe in this company enough to have invested my cash savings. This isn't 401k or retirement account.
Lol. I don't think you're an idiot. I apologize for using that word. I wasn't referring to you.
If the Gov't is sucking every dollar they can out of FNF, of course they are going to expand their market share. It only works out to their advantage. Implement a profit sweep, and expand their market share. Makes perfect sense to me.
All I'm saying is that if the president says he wants to wind down the companies, regardless of their market share presence, he means exactly what he says. He has an agenda that wants to expand the reach of Gov't to take over the secondary market.
I don't see him as a man of compromise. When he has an agenda, he had no regard for the rule of law or the legislative branch.
The whole point of my post is to point out the fact that the fight will be long from over if there are favorable court rulings and political victories for as long as he is in office. I don't see us cashing in under this administration. I would love to be wrong though.