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.
No worries.
The natural daily fluctuations of the market. Do you assume the market always properly values businesses on a minute by minute basis? You'd be incorrect if you did.
There was no crime. Just a poorly ran company that took on more leverage than they could handle. Nothing illegal about taking on debt. Your thesis is wrong.
That's a good description even though it lacks fine details.
The exact reason why Buffett sold. He doesn't believe the GSE's, that were created to stabilize the housing market, should be in the investment business. I agree. It's what got them into trouble to begin with and it looks like they're doing it again, per their losses of derivatives contracts.
Some of the quotes are correct. Others are not. All easily verified online.
I didn't threaten you. Your recommendations that I should do A or B in a smug way is hostile. Chill out.
We don't differ on how a poison pill can "play" out. We differ on our understanding of what a poison pill is. Type in poison pill on Google. Isn't a finance site you'll run across that endorses them.
A lot of fake quotes in that post, lol.
$0.30 - $4.00 is a heck of a return. Can't really get much better than a ten bagger.
Corsi didn't come up with the ObamaCare thesis. He gives credit to Joshua Rosner as one of the accountants that revealed it to him. I highly doubt Corsi has ever met Trump.
A company doesn't have to be illiquid in order to be bankrupt. There are several different forms of bankruotcy. ObamaCare has nothing to do with the conversation we were having.
The poison pill eliminates the possibility of a takeover. It also dissuades companies from having interest in an acquisition. So it has its good and it's bad. I believe they're more bad and anti-capitalistic than anything. They put forth the message that management has more interest in operating the business as a private entity than a public one. Anyone on Wall Street will tell you that.
Understand. Companies under Conservatorship and Bankruptcy are restricted by the guidance of the conservator. In bankruptcy it's the judge. In conservatorship it's the government. Nothing can be done without their approval, and everything they rule for the entity to do, the entity must do. That is why, whether temporarily or permanently, they are no longer considered a private business. However, a private business can remain public. Private and public are not synonymous.
The calculation rule is the same regardless of what constitutes the DTA.
I'm already ahead of you. I'm very disappointed, as a Trump voter, how Mnuchin is handling the NWS.
When the government has full control of an entity, whether permanently or temporarily, that entity is no longer a private company. Do you know what a private company is?
Your first observation doesn't make sense to me. Your second one does. I can only assume the reason is, the housing market is the number one driver of our economy. Naturally they approach it much differently than an auto maker.
Whether I would "like" them to or not is a moot point. Whether they "can" or can't is the question. The answer is, they can. That means your observation rests more on fear than reality.
Couldn't agree more.
He does, but he also hates greed. Chasing a buck always equates to greed. We're all just leaseholders here on our temporary stay. Your assets will be owned by someone else you never knew, someday.
They're public, not currently private. A conservatorship removes is private status which is why shares currently have no voting rights.
Nothing wrong with that but just understand, I doubt money is nearly as important to God as it is to you or me.
My study is fine. Are you unaware that a company can modify the corporate charter to increase the amount of capital stock?
Too bad David Lykken isn't Treasury Secretary. Seems he gets it.
Or, it can be lower.
I'm thinking it has more to do with the time it takes to pass legislation.
That's what a chartist said last night based on his knowledge of..... a chart. lol. He's only off by 9.5% so far... but he says he knows what he's talking about. ;)
1.2 million so far.
Freddie Mac's 10-Q is out.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000102621417000025/a20171q10q.htm
I doubt it's shorts. I think people are realizing their thesis is incorrect and leaving. Or they could be switching to preferreds. Two people I give advice to exchanged their shares for preferreds yesterday. Not a large amount but it's occurring nonetheless. Anyway, the market hasn't opened yet.
I've analyzed the GSE's a hell of a lot longer than 2008. Go back another 20 years. I hope the court cases gain ground. So far, it doesn't look good.
Watt stated not that long ago that the GSE's should be allowed to retain at least $5b per year otherwise serious problems were ahead. I hear him blamed a lot. In my opinion, he's not the problem. Treasury has always been the problem.
I know a lot of guys with deep pockets, some of them are responsible for providing most of you with the analysis that revealed how the government took control of the GSE's in 2008. They think otherwise. If they believed what you believe, they would have purchased commons like you did. They didn't.