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.
Is this ridicules, well maybe…
No, trust me, it is ridicules.
Blade-
I could not agree with you more about the "eight years of nonsense."
I could not disagree with you more about the Presidential election; there was not a political figure from dogcatcher to governor to senator, not a sports hero, a movie star, a military man or any American in existence that could have stood with the Republicans and John McCain and produced a win.
It was and is time for a change. I sure as hell don't know what that change is going to be, and I have to admit that I'm worried, but I'm willing to give the new administration a chance.
"Do you think it would help if you directed the credit towards the purchase of properties that are under foreclosure?"
I've been on my soapbox enough here today and I apologize, but here goes:
That's exactly where it needs to go, IMO, because it would help the housing situation immediately and the employment situation soon after.
As in any retail business, it's all about inventory. And the one factor that is crippling my business is the amount of foreclosed homes in the inventory.
Instead of the government just giving money to the banks with no or very little oversight, have the government (yes, that's us, the taxpayers) buy every single foreclosed home from the banks at absurd, ridiculously low prices. If the banks don't like it, too friggin' bad, they have no choice. If that puts a certain bank out of business, too friggin' bad. Then sell every single one of those homes at proportionate ridiculously low prices. And I mean insanely low prices: ten thousand, a thousand, a hundred, a buck! Just get them out of inventory. Owner-occupied only, buyers have to live there 3-5 years minimum, I'm sure that many other prudent conditions could be added.
Every first-time homebuyer in the country who has been sitting on his/her hands in fear, waiting, will jump up and buy one. If they don't have the cash, give them legitimate, carefully written, strictly supervised, very low-interest, low down payment loans (not to give a history lesson here but read about the Irish Loan Funds in the 18th century, World War II's Marshall Plan, or more recently Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and his concept of microcredit.)
These same people will immediately start shopping at Home Depot & Lowes; at carpet, paint, lighting, appliance, home furnishing stores; calling their local plumbers, electricians, roofers, etc. That means work, jobs, commerce, capitalism. The money will circulate, not go into some fat cat banking CEO's personal account.
Yes, the average home price in neighborhoods where these homes are "disposed of" will greatly decrease. Yes, you and I will see a loss of home equity. Yes, legitimate home sellers will be unable, for a time, to compete with this "Fire Sale." But eventually, when the glut of foreclosures are gone, the market will stabilize back to a reasonable balance of buyers and sellers doing an average amount of negotiating on fairly-priced homes that are in normal supply.
Better for homeowners not in trouble now to feel the pain in one traumatic jolt than this steady, constant bleeding to death.
Vin-
As I wrote, it was the management- not the science or the product- that finally chased me out. I simply cannot believe that they let the FDA approval just sort of "happen", as if the world was then going to beat a path to their door. Very poor public relations!
I lost about 30% of my investment. What is more annoying to me is the lost opportunities cost; I passed on dozens of good deals throughout the year because I had so much tied up in GTCB.
I don't want this to happen to you, but if this thing went all the way back to the teens and then stayed there awhile, I'd jump back in. That looks doubtful, 0.47 seems like some sort of support.
I honestly wish you and the other regulars the best of luck!
Do you think Real Estate brokers/agents were part of the predatory lending practices?
Absolutely, some were. However, you might be surprised how little we have to do with the lending part of the transaction. Most of us say the same little line: "I've got a deal with the banker- he doesn't sell houses and I don't make loans."
Also, and I hate to descend to cliche, but we both know that there are "bad" doctors, lawyers, teachers, bus drivers, et al.
As I just responded to n4807g, we could point fingers until the cows come home. Let's move on, let's get something done.
n4807g: I agree, it's a very, very complicated problem, and I didn't mean to suggest only one or two causes. And yes, these bailouts and give-aways also burn me to no end.
Much of what you say is correct, and if you and I had a few beers together we'd have a civil, spirited and interesting conversation about the "how's" and "why's". The whole country could and should have such a conversation, but at a later date. Our boat, yours and mine, is sinking. Right now. Let's work together to save as many people as we can, we can figure out what happened later.
Foreclosure Moratorium:
The banks are not being benevolent, altruistic or "just trying to help the little guy out." Ha-ha-ha.
They're still, as always, very difficult to work with as far as getting them to reasonably accomodate people in trouble. (Sit in my office with me while I try to arrange a short sale and you'd see what I mean!) They can't get out of the habit of threatening people with foreclosure, even though it has become a self-destructive habit. Lately, as my patience grows thinner, I've just been saying, "Well go ahead and foreclose then. By the way, would you mind telling me what you plan on doing with the house afterwards, because you sure as hell won't be able to sell it." There's usually a long silence at the other end of the line.
They've agreed to this because they don't know what the heck to do with all the foreclosed homes that they already have. Every time they take possession of another home that home just goes to the back of the inventory line and the line isn't moving because there are very few buyers.
The vast majority of homeowners are making mortgage payments on time, and will continue to do so.
I'm talking about direct, extremely low interest, extremely low down payment loans to qualified low or middle income buyers, to people who work. The absolutely criminal, IMO, and predatory lending transactions that occurred by the millions in the past 20 years combined with job loss is why we're in this pickle.
Oh, and by the way, I realize that you and I exchanged a couple of messages on another board before I had quite enough. I don't care if it's a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Black, White, Yellow or Martian who starts making some effort to end this paralyzing polarization of America and gets us all pulling together. And belittling, racially-oriented name-calling won't help!
The credit has been changed to $8K; as far as I can tell, they have left the two-year use provision in. Just talked to a senior loan officer at a major bank: he's not sure! What a confusing situation.
Actual Refundable First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit In Stimulus Package
February 13th, 2009
http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/2009/02/13/actual-refundable-first-time-home-buyer-tax-credit-in-stimulus-package/
For those who are interested, here is the wording of the Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit as announced by Congress in a statement issued this morning.
Essentially it bumps up the level for first time home buyers to $8,000 and waives the repayment requirement.
You know how this set the real estate market on fire the first time it was offered.
Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit.
Last year, Congress provided taxpayers with a refundable tax credit that was equivalent to an interest-free loan equal to 10 percent of the purchase of a home (up to $7,500) by first-time home buyers. The provision applies to homes purchased on or after April 9, 2008 and before July 1, 2009. Taxpayers receiving this tax credit are currently required to repay any amount received under this provision back to the government over 15 years in equal installments, or, if earlier, when the home is sold. The credit phases out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000 ($150,000 in the case of a joint return). The bill eliminates the repayment obligation for taxpayers that purchase homes after January 1, 2009, increases the maximum value of the credit to $8,000, and removes the prohibition on financing by mortgage revenue bonds, and extends the availability of the credit for homes purchased before December 1, 2009. The provision would retain the credit recapture if the house is sold within three years of purchase.
This thing is so complicated and they're making so many changes to it that this info may already be out of date!
I just called a bank senior loan officer who I often work with, he should know.
February 9, 2009, 1:05 pm
FAQ: Senate Stimulus Bill’s Home Buyer Tax Credit
Nick Timiraos reports:
Readers are posing lots of different questions about the proposed $15,000 home buyer tax credit that’s in the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill. It’s important to remember that the proposed credit is far from a done deal. The bill still has a couple of big hurdles, including tomorrow’s scheduled vote in the Senate. (Read the Senate version.)
If it passes, it will have to be reconciled with the House version of the stimulus bill, which modifies an existing $7,500 home buyer credit, repealing a provision that requires buyers to pay it back.
There are some big differences between those two versions. The Senate version is nonrefundable, meaning you can only receive the credit if you owe federal income taxes. The existing credit is refundable, meaning you get a check from the government even if you don’t owe income tax. And the current credit applies to first-time home buyers, defined as anyone who hasn’t bought a house in three years. The Senate version is open to existing homeowners.
Here are some more Frequently Asked Questions. Please note that the answers may change as the Senate bill changes:
If I bought a home and used the $7,500 home buyer tax credit, can I retroactively receive $15,000 credit if it becomes law? No.
Are there any income restrictions on the tax credit? The Senate version currently has no income limits. The current $7,500 tax credit phases out on buyers with incomes exceeding $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples.
When will the new tax credit go into effect? The Senate version would take effect when the bill is signed by the president into law, and it would last for one year.
Can I take the tax credit this year? Yes. The Senate proposal would allow buyers — even those who purchase in 2009 — to claim the credit on their 2008 taxes.
The proposed tax credit is nonrefundable. What does that mean? You can only receive the credit to the extent that you owe federal income taxes. The Senate proposal would give home buyers two years to claim the credit, so buyers could claim a $7,500 credit in 2009 and a $7,500 credit in 2010. A family of four that makes less than $82,000, for example, could have a tax liability of less than $7,500 and they would not receive the full value of the credit.
Are there any repayment requirements on the tax credit? No. The Senate proposal does not require the credit to be paid back. The House proposal eliminates a 15-year repayment provision on the existing $7,500 tax credit.
If I am eligible for the current $7,500 credit, am I also eligible for the $15,000 credit? While the $15,000 credit has fewer restrictions than the existing credit, there is one big difference: because the credit is nonrefundable, if you have a low federal income tax liability, you could end up receiving more money with the current credit than the larger, proposed credit.
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/09/faq-senate-stimulus-bills-home-buyer-tax-credit/
Are there any increased down payment requirements on the proposed tax credit? No. A separate measure has been introduced in the House that would expand the tax credit to $15,000 but would require a 5% down payment on mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration currently requires a minimum 3.5% down payment.
Can I use the tax credit to buy a second home? No.
How long do I have to live in my home after I purchase it with the tax credit? The Senate version requires buyers to pay back the credit if they sell the house less than two years after they buy it.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/09/faq-senate-stimulus-bills-
Dew- Actually, I think you may be wrong about that. I believe you get two years to use it.
A Note On The Stimulus Package:
As a real estate broker and agency owner I'm especially interested in the tax credit for first-time homebuyers. I've been getting quite a few calls about it.
One of the main problems is that it does not help many low-income buyers, who are just the folks who we are trying to stimulate. It's a tax credit, not a refund; one has to earn enough to owe enough to get the credit. This may appear to be a simple and obvious fact to most of us, but you'd be amazed how many potential buyers are confused about it.
Also: poorgradstudent- great board, thanks for starting it. Without overstating it, I'm just disgusted by the tone of some of the stuff posted on other political boards. Lots of name-calling, much of it racial.
One personal preference: I think you did a great job of addressing the issue of merely posting articles with links. Since virtually every position or assertion these days can be "backed-up" by a link, all we wind up having is a battle of dueling links! Actually I'd like to see less posting of articles and more discussion.
"Civility Is Valued Here?": You guys kidding?
Everything you say seems to have a vicious racist undertone, from the juvenile name-calling to the juvenile jokes.
And I'm sure you think you're uber-Americans. Bye.
Asleep At The Wheel: George W. Bush Spent More Than A Third of His Two Terms On Vacation:
Yes, that's 487 days!
Why don't you give OUR new President a break and see if he can help get ALL OF US out of this mess?
Sen. Gregg: I'm not sure that we'll ever know the "real reasons", at least not until he writes his memoirs.
As a liberal Democrat and a strong supporter of Obama, what bothers me is that it's simply one more thing that looks bad. What ever happened to the normal and customary vetting of prospective cabinet members before they are trotted out on the national stage?
OT: On The Solvency of Banks:
The old native American wanted a loan for $500. The banker pulled out the loan application, "What are you going to do with the money?"
"Take jewellery to city and sell it," was the response.
"What have you got for collateral?"
"Don't know collateral."
"Well that's something of value that would cover the cost of the loan.Have you got any vehicles?"
"Yes, 1949 Chevy pickup."
The banker shook his head, "How about livestock?"
"Yes, I have a horse."
"How old is it?"
"Don't know, has no teeth."
Finally the banker decided to make the $500 loan.
Several weeks later the old man was back in the bank. He pulled out a roll of bills, "Here to pay." he said. He then handed the banker the money to pay his loan off.
"What are you going to do with the rest of that money?"
"Put in tepee."
"Why don't you deposit it in my bank," he asked.
"Don't know deposit."
"You put the money in our bank and we take care of it for you. When you want to use it you can withdraw it."
The old Indian leaned across the desk, "What you got for collateral?"
"some of our more esteamed colleagues"
Just get them out of the sauna, they're done.
Yes looks great, tomorrow will tell the tail.
But will the tail answer?
Yesterday’s presentation was less than unimpressive, IMO. I thought it was shameful.
One last post here:
It was the poor management that finally sent me over the edge! A freshman in Public Relations 101 could have told them that the FDA approval MUST immediately be followed by a serious, substantive, meaningful company announcement of real news.
FWIW: I'm out, 25% loss.
My Monday purchase was my last mistake with this stock. What a huge disappointment!
Best of luck to all longs here.
Dew: I've been thinking about this the last few days. As I said, I'm glad to see you back as a mod and a poster.
I'd guess that some are finding it unusual to have a board moderator who is rather critical of the stock! Not what we usually see; as you well know, the moderator is usually the biggest cheerleader- and I hesitate to use this word- pumper. That can lead to the dissemination of a lot of innacurate info and downright nonsense, and even worse the censoring of anything that seems to be disparaging of the company, the product, the science. It's all over IHUB and other message boards.
I'd even go so far as to make the fanciful proposal that a board mod must be someone who is, to say the least, "logically skeptical" about the stock. That would eliminate 99% of the current mods!
I trust that you will not descend into mere overcritical hairsplitting, and if the situation warrants point out the occasional positive, however small ("At least the PPS isn't zero." "As far as we know, ATryn hasn't killed anyone yet." )
I think it's a good thing, thanks for your time and effort.
It should be clear to most here that what is written on this board is not a directly tied to what happens in the market.
Go- LOL! That is the understatement of the year!
All you guys do is sew doubt in the minds of investors
Ouch, that must hurt.
...I can't see the agreements with Ovation as previously outlined still honored in its current form with this acquisition...
BP-
I have to agree with some other posters on this, I see no legal or practical reason why they will not be honored. It's not like GTC cut a phenomenal deal with Ovation!
As Dew points out, and the press release & CC make quite clear, ATryn is far from the driving force behind this deal. However, looking at it more positively, its inclusion certainly did not hurt and Lundbeck is happy to have it in the pipeline.
FWIW: Just increased my GTCB position by 1/3. Average now right at 0.70.
Buying opportunity IMHO.
Odds that FDA will approve are VEYR high.
Veyr interesting!
Sheff-
Glad you took profits on GTCB.
Now back to the 0.70 range, IMHO will move up steadily from here, why not jump back in?
JFK felt the need to reign in the Federal Reserve
It has always stumped me as to why this error is so common.
Black Knight: Great post, I hope that it's placed as one of the Sticky Notes.
Extremely Bullish Trend: Lopsided Breast Breakout
Not much of a fan of Technical Analysis, but this must come between the Crooked Penis Candlestick and the Head & Ass Reversal.
Alert:
Sorry to see you go.
Who's the new mod?
"It is the old "buy the rumor, sell the news" garbage..."
Vin-
I agree that it was some of that.
I think we're all kidding ourselves, however, if we don't take into account Dew's thesis that the approval served to push GTC from the wings to center stage under a bright spotlight, and the street did not like what it saw.
Our management is flawed, our finances suck, meaningful ATryn sales are problematical.
A good deal (for a change!) is now what we desperately need; it'll improve the finances and show that the execs can find their rears with both hands.
Flo, hang in there buddy.
Bruce- Thanks for all your hard work. Best of luck!
"What sector is GTCB considered to be in?"
The difficult-to-make-money-in one.
"Is that your twist, to make it look like a downhill race?"
Gym- No, never thought of that,just the way the photo came out. As a matter of fact I think we'd both agree that it's been very much of an uphill race! Best of luck.
"....but 3 weeks and they are already trashing Obama?
An underwater salvager, by dint of great personal and professional effort, finds himself and his crew on the ocean surface directly above the Titanic.
One hour later he gets a messge: "You lazy SOB, why haven't you raised it yet?"
"Only a fool makes predictions in such situations but here I go..."
I could not have said it better myself.
Board Mods: I've occasionally been guilty myself of leading things a bit astray, but this is getting ridiculous and as we hopefully attract new posters it's only going to get worse.
IMHO, less personal attacks & trivia and more GTC would be better.
Will it hold or will we see more preprogrammed selling?
That would be selling programmed before the programming.