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.
You don't understand. I don't understand. Those billionaires do understand what they are doing. All we need to understand is that if we hold we can eventually ride hedge fund coat tails to $30.00 per share or higher !
I will refrain from comment. It would be a funny joke but It would indeed be racist. LOL I don't want to go there.
Only in the verbage of Lamberth's ruling. He says there could be a 4th and 5th amendment at some point in the future. No solid evidence thatI know of.
25 mil.vol.
Get out while you can. LOL
We are at the HOD so far. $1.82
Agreed! All MUST read.
17.5 mil.
Thanks
Ok thanks. It won't happen until it happens unless it doesn't.LOL
Thanks for the help
The gap thing confuses me. Did we leave one at the opening today? And must it fill?
12 mil. Vol.
10 mil.
Fannie (FNMA), Freddie (FMCC) Stockholders Hold Out Hope as Investors Press On With Government Suits
Article Related Articles (3) Stock Quotes (2) Comments
After getting lambasted over the past few sessions after a judge threw out an investor suit against the U.S. government, which sought to compensate equity holders, speculators in Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) common stock are gearing up again on hopes the suit will fare better in appellate court or others suits will gain traction.
Yesterday afternoon, Perry Capital filed a 'Notice of Appeal' in its case which was recently denied. In a statement to StreetInsider.com on the matter Perry Capital's attorney Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP said, "The district court’s decision overlooks important points of law and improperly resolved key questions of fact based on the government’s cherry-picked record. The merits of this case deserve to be heard in court. Today’s filing brings us closer to that objective."
Meanwhile, Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme said he will press on in his suit. In a statement to investors Wednesday he said, "While we strongly disagree with the court's conclusions, we remain steadfast in our belief that – at a minimum – shareholders are due just compensation for the Taking that has occurred." He added, "That is, the D.C. District Court judge is either wrong or the law is unconstitutional – the issue is now quite simple. In this respect, our ongoing litigation in the Court of Federal Claims seeks to remedy this matter. " He promised investors to continue his fight. "We will continue to pursue our legal rights with the same conviction held in our other G-SIFIs (global systemically important financial institutions) – AIG and Bank of America – deemed essential to our way of life," he said.
Bill Ackman's Pershing Square in another hedge fund involved with an active suit against the government on Fannie and Freddie.
Common shares of Fannie and Freddie are each down approximatly 44% since news the suit was thrown out on Tuesday afternoon
http://www.streetinsider.com/Hedge+Funds/Fannie+%28FNMA%29%2C+Freddie+%28FMCC%29+Stockholders+Hold+Out+Hope+as+Investors+Press+On+With+Government+Suits/9884195.html
Yea, feeling better today!
That author should be retained by all of the plaintiffs in all of the law suits.
Yea, I can not believe he would have to refi. unless he wants to take out his equity and buy FnF !
After the crash: Even Ben Bernanke can’t refinance his mortgage
Michael Babad
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 03 2014, 7:18 AM EDT
Lending troubles
In a country that gave us the housing crash heard ‘round the world, even Ben Bernanke is finding mortgage refinancing difficult now.
According to Bloomberg News, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve told a Chicago conference yesterday that “I recently tried to refinance my mortgage and I was unsuccessful in doing so.”
More Related to this Story
Federal Reserve to keep interest rates near zero despite fears of inflation
Bernanke confident U.S. economy on the mend
Time for banks to step up, Bernanke says
As Bloomberg tells it, the audience chuckled. To which Mr. Bernanke responded that “I’m not making that up.”
In his talk to the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing and Care, the former chief of the U.S. central bank, which to this day still holds its benchmark interest rate at effectively zero, spoke of how it’s quite possible that mortgage lenders “may have gone a little bit too far on mortgage credit conditions.”
The big question, of course, is why Mr. Bernanke couldn’t refinance. And he didn’t disclose that.
The Dow Jones news service, however, speculates that his mortgage may be too fat to qualify for government support.
According to the news service, he and his wife bought the Washington home for $839,000 (U.S.) a decade ago and have since refinanced twice.
In 2011, when they last refinanced, Dow Jones said, they owed $672,000 and closed the deal just before the maximum to qualify for government backing was cut to $625,500 from $729,750.
Which means that Mr. Bernanke would need to pay down if he “hasn’t substantially paid down” the principal.
The New York Times, in turn, put it this way: Lenders now have to meet the loan requirements set by America's government mortgage concerns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and this amid heightened regulatory scrutiny.
So it all gets computed based on a variety of inputs. Thus, a computer would see Mr. Bernanke as having ended a long spell of employment, and so maybe he's deemed a greater risk. No matter that he's got a book deal and earns a bundle for his speaking engagements.
The whole point of his talk yesterday, Dow Jones said, is that even solid borrowers can run into trouble in the post-crisis era.
“The housing area is one area where regulation has not yet got it right,” he said. “I think the tightness of mortgage credit, lending is still probably excessive.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/after-the-crash-even-ben-bernanke-cant-refinance-the-mortgage/article20906823/
Six Years Later, We’re Still Litigating the Bailouts. Here’s What We Know.
By NEIL IRWIN
October 3, 2014
When Wall Street imploded in the fall of 2008, a few things were apparent at the time: that the economic consequences would be dire; that the financial industry was in need of major reform; that the impact of the crisis would be wide-ranging.
But here’s what was not at all apparent, or at least not to me as a reporter covering it all: that six years later, we would still be litigating, metaphorically and literally, who was at fault and what ought to be done to create a stronger financial system.
Were the policy makers who led the fight against the crisis — principally the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and the New York Fed chief, Timothy Geithner — heroes who rescued the global economy through creativity and bravado? Were they stooges of Wall Street who funneled hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the financial industry? Did they wield power with a vindictive, arbitrary approach that left them picking winners and losers? Should the policy makers have been more stingy? More generous? More consistent?
With the economy still not fully recovered from the recession brought on by that crisis, those arguments can seem as raw and relevant today as they were in 2008.
An electronic ticker at a Bank of America branch in New York carried grim tidings about A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, 2008.
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
This week, A.I.G. shareholders went to court to argue that the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the company was an illegal taking of private property; the three chief engineers of the bailout are to testify next week.
Meanwhile, my colleagues James B. Stewart and Peter Eavis reported that, contrary to the longstanding contention of the officials involved, the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, which set off the most intense phase of the crisis, might not have been inevitable. Some analysts at the New York Fed, they wrote, concluded that fateful weekend in September 2008 that Lehman might have been solvent and a plausible candidate for a bailout.
And in a less prominent story, a court tossed out claims by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two housing finance firms taken over by the government a week before the Lehman bankruptcy. Investors in the companies said the government shouldn’t be able to hoard their now-huge profits.
The events of the fall of 2008 and the factors that led to them have been rehashed in numerous books and scrutinized by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. But after all these years, America remains deeply conflicted about what our government did on our behalf.
How should the new legal proceedings and press reports shape our perception of this crucial time? Here are some key questions, and my best guesses at the answers based on my years of reporting and my reading of a range of journalistic accounts, memoirs of those involved, and internal documents released through litigation.
Could the government have saved Lehman Brothers? Mr. Geithner and the others involved have long claimed they had no legal tools to rescue Lehman Brothers and prevent its bankruptcy filing because the company was insolvent (with financial obligations greater than its assets). The provision of the Federal Reserve Act that the Fed used to bail out Bear Stearns and A.I.G. allowed it to make loans against good collateral, not to give money to a financial institution willy nilly. And indeed some later analysis, including one by William R. Cline and Joseph E. Gagnon, has tended to confirm that Lehman was insolvent, not just temporarily short of cash.
Does the latest reporting by my colleagues change that view? It does. Inside the New York Fed there were teams who concluded that Lehman was narrowly solvent, and thus potentially eligible for a bailout. (Interestingly, Mr. Geithner pretty much acknowledged the accuracy of the recent Times report in his memoir, writing, “Even some of my former colleagues at the Fed and Treasury still think we could have rescued Lehman.”)
Here’s an attempt to reconcile these seemingly contradictory versions:
By the weekend of Sept. 13, 2008, there was bailout fatigue. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been taken over by the government a week earlier; Bear Stearns was rescued a few months before that. There was a “no more bailouts” consensus in the Bush administration and in both parties in Congress. Going into the weekend when Lehman Brothers failed, Mr. Paulson pre-emptively leaked to the press that there would be no bailout (this was first reported in Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book “Too Big to Fail” and confirmed in Mr. Paulson’s memoir).
The mind-set was “we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere is here.” Against that backdrop, one can imagine that Mr. Geithner, once it became clear there was no private sector rescue of Lehman in the offing, turned his attention to containing the damage of a bankruptcy.
It remains true that the key policy makers never had a clear-cut plan for how to rescue Lehman. But they didn’t have one because they didn’t seek one.
If they had rescued Lehman, would it have mattered? Would the entire course of world economic history have been changed?
This is of course unknowable, but there’s plenty of reason to think that even if Lehman Brothers had been rescued, sooner or later the crisis was going to spread to a firm too big or too broke to do anything about, particularly in the absence of the bank bailout legislation that didn’t pass until early October — and only after the Lehman failure prompted big enough drops in the stock market to get Congress’s attention.
In other words, even had Lehman been saved, the crisis would have come to a head with A.I.G. a few days later, or Morgan Stanley a few days after that, or Wachovia or Citigroup. Would one of those results have been better or worse than what actually happened? That’s the part that is anybody’s guess.
Why did the government bail out A.I.G.? The most controversial action that the Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke triumvirate took that fall was to bail out the insurer A.I.G. The three will be asked to explain their actions on the stand in the A.I.G. shareholders’ lawsuit.
It must be a strange feeling for the three, after taking years of abuse from Congress and the public for throwing taxpayer money at the insurance company, to now testify in a trial over whether they should have offered even more generous terms. The officials involved have been open about their anger at the decisions that got A.I.G. in trouble in the first place.
A.I.G., besides being a giant company that insured everything from homeowners’ policies to jumbo jets, owed billions to major global banks from their ill-conceived business guaranteeing the value of highly rated securities backed by mortgages.
The Fed bailout of A.I.G. was in no small part about ensuring that those banks would get the money they were owed: $12 billion each for Deutsche Bank and Société Générale, for example. The obvious question, asked many times now, is why the Fed did not insist that those banks take “haircuts” on what they were owed given A.I.G.’s near-bankruptcy and government bailout. That would certainly seem like the fair course.
But the policy makers’ answer is also becoming clear: To demand haircuts from the banks would have defeated the point. The entire goal of the bailout was to avoid a default and the unpredictable ripple effects it would create. Yet to get the banks to agree to haircuts, they would need to threaten the very thing they were looking to avoid — to send one of the world’s largest insurance companies into the same kind of disorderly bankruptcy that had already enveloped Lehman Brothers.
Were policy makers arbitrary and random in their decisions? "South Park” once gave a memorable answer, involving the wanderings of a headless chicken. For the public, the decisions on whom to bail out, nationalize or allow to fail surely seemed random. Bear Stearns? Government-assisted bailout. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Government takeover. Lehman Brothers? Bankruptcy. A.I.G.? Bailout.
To the policy makers involved, the decisions seemed methodical and grounded in the unique circumstances of each firm involved and their legal authorities. Is it a bank? Is it solvent? Is it systemically important?
But the policy makers were reluctant to lay out in advance some framework of what institutions would be rescued and which weren’t, viewing strategic ambiguity as their friend. They didn’t want to pre-commit. That added to the uncertainty of a difficult time, and with hindsight some clearer sense of the rules of the game when the financial system is under stress might make the consequences less severe.
The Great Depression was 80 years ago, and people are still debating the causes and response. Perhaps the 2008 crisis is destined to be the same. To the question we began with — were the financial leaders heroes, benefactors of Wall Street or vindictive decision-makers, the answer that is coming into focus is this: all three.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/upshot/six-years-later-were-still-litigating-the-bailouts-heres-what-we-know.html?_r=0&referrer=
Yea I guess there are still plenty of us on the bus. I sure hope we are not all riding the short bus. LOL
Sorry, I didn't mean it to testy. Just recalling how the day went. Good luck.
I hear you. I agree with you.
Fidelity shows the range from $1.43 to $1.65. That is not a narrow range for such a low priced stock in my opinion. I also saw it trading in a narrow margin at the end of the day. The damage was done at the beginning of the trading day and mid day. It tried to recover but the price kept getting pushed down by mms in the mid day interval. I saw a lot of 100 share blocks going through and I even saw the bid higher than the ask on a few occasions. In the morning it was just panic selling. Big money wants cheap shares and they are getting them. There were huge buys today to the tune of a 1 million share buy and lots of 300,000 share buys early on. like I said before, who has that kind of money? Somebody posted that a buy order was filled for freddie mac for 2.5 mil. I can not confirm that but it was posted on the fnma forum. Draw your own conclusion. I have drawn mine.
It will most likely be appealed to a higher court. The rest of your questions I do not understand.
Not with so many lemmings jumping ship. Remember there is mm manipulation and it so easy for them right Now. I am not an expert. This is my opinion. In the words of Forrest Gump "I am not a smart man". This seems obvious to me. Maybe I am being taken for a ride.
Short covering which means buying. Again who has that kind of $$$$?
More selling than buying in total number of sellers vs. buyers. Chickens (retail)kept selling along with mm manipulation. It made the mms job so easy. They got really cheap shares for their clients. Oh no that would be illegal right? It is the OTC, almost unregulated. This behemoth of two companies is trading on the OTC and everybody is getting screwed right now. I will hold my shares and I will be successful. This is all just speculation on my part but is it really so hard to believe? Therefor as I have previously posted I will hold my shares. Ride the coat tails of the big money.
Maybe but it may also be that Tim Howard took off to D.C. right after the judgement came down from Lamberth and at the same time the heavy (huge blocks of shares)buying today came from scared retail(who has the money to do that) preceeds some big news that comes out after market close tomorrow. Do not be left out. Just a thought. I am not trying to sway anybody. Oh that sounds like I am. My conspiratorial mind just makes me think of these things.
Yes and that tells me that it is not retail buying. Smart money is buying it seems to me. Not because they are so smart but they already have the money to buy the inside information. Huge buys today and yesterday. Big investors. Ride the coat tails. All in my own opinion.
We are like minded. Although you are in a better position than I am. In any case I am long till some time after release and uplist. Yea that seems like a long way off but I am sure we longs will prevail. I wonder how many shares the hedge funds picked up at bargain basement prices just because the weak of heart folded their hands instead of riding the coattails of smart money(hedge funds) yep the same groups that are shorting are also buying (hedge funds). I can not prove it but the buys tell me all that I need to know. There were some huge buys of FnF today. Too big for retail. I do not smoke but I will gladly have a cigar in celebration of say $25.00 a share.
My powder is gone,burned,spent or otherwise blowed up for the week. It was a good time to buy early today and I did. Good luck tomorrow. Man where is the light at the end of this tunnel? I will be here until we either come out the other side or we get caved in. LOL
Lots of big buys yesterday and today. I mean BIG buys. Not retail.
I am only trying one time. It is just that it is taking a long time. P.T.Barnum also has a famous quote which I am sure you are familiar with. "there is a sucker born every minute". Goes right along with my previous quotes. I hope it does not apply to us longs.GLTY
I do not think that he was pissed. Like anybody with brains and money he probably saw the opportunity and bought more from the weak that were selling. Hell he was probably buying premarket below a dollar.
I think that everyone who bought at $6.35 and held through all of the pain and stress will be rewarded the most. They will have shown real fortitude because the fundamental reasons that they bought to begin with have not changed. I say this because all who bought at $6.35 hoping to ride the wave have since sold. Personally I am all over the place from $1.48 to $5.60. I have bought on the way up and on the way down but I have not sold a share. So once again I say "there is a fine line between courage and stupidity". (Johnny Knoxville). "Only time will tell which side of the line I am on". That part is mine as far as I know. Cheers to us longs!
This is fun. I either hold a million plus shares of nothing or they are pretending to be nothing. When will my shares reveal themselves? I wish I was a fly on the wall of VIIC board room. It will be so much fun when rumors circulate about a buyout. Then news is leaked. Then again no news leaked about the bankruptcy. Some of you (Powerbattles, Blanka etc.)did a lot of excellent DD which made it easy for me to research this company(thank you)and nobody(me too) saw the BK coming. Hindsight is 20/20 all of the indications were there but they always seem to be there with startups/penny stocks. Especially when the sh** hits the fan and everybody starts armchair quarterbacking.
Share price is rising again. Is it people with inside info. or is it shareholder speculation? I am down big time right now but so what. This is a penny stock. I knew the risk was high when I bought it.
This a real company with groungbreaking technology and agreements with other established companies. It also has some momentum from the tree hugging left. They are probably trying to buy up the stock just to save the planet. I never thought that I would be rooting for the libs in California. Buisness makes strange bedfellows or something like that. The best thing is that this is a lotto ticket with great odds IMO.
The confused and afraid are selling. The smart money is buying this up. Huge buys in FnF this morning.
I hate to harp on this subject but that was one funny video.
Man it sure is nice when you jump the fence. LOL