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.
I side with irregular things. The $3.18 put it exactly at the old resistance/new support we had since January.
Calabria already stated that the commons will continue to trade and will be treated fairly in an interview a few months ago. Got to keep up!
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/20/fhfa-chief-wont-wait-for-congress-to-take-frannie-and-freddie-public.html
How can Treasury reap the rewards of the appreciating value of Fannie and Freddie if they are on judicial record suppressing and extinguishing the value of those same companies?
It's like the deadbeat dad that wasn't there for his son all his life, but all of a sudden shows up when the son is making millions as an MLB player.
This is my alternate way of looking at the warrants.
You need to look at the decade-long chart. The gap is not filling. We are in a continuation breakout from 2014.
I think we should all be very cautious listening to this guy and stop sharing his views. He is not a friend of the common holder.
Look at the bull flag from January 2019. Look at the falling wedge from late 2013/early 2014. We broke out of them all.
We are looking at over $9 based on these technicals.
The hill was $3.45, thus the launch.
We already have the good news.
It isn't going to grow on a consecutive day basis. You can't expect each new day to have more volume than the last, but as a trend, with this breakout, it will grow. There will be days coming up with more; I can't say one of those days will be tomorrow, but it will be soon.
We are going back up to $4 and beyond. This run has just begun. We are going to see daily volume much greater than yesterday very soon. We don't need new news. The news we have is plenty enough to send the pps much higher from where we are.
I was going to post yesterday to expect this type of price action today, but didn't get around to it. We broke through two HUGE resistance points yesterday: one at $3.18 (from a pattern forming since January of this year) and one at $3.45 (from a pattern forming since early 2014). Typically, when resistance points like this are smashed through, the price action loves to then bring the pps back down to test the once-was resistance as support. That is what we saw today.
In NO WAY was there a change in the trend. We are going up to $5, at the very least, near term. We had a massive breakout yesterday and volume will only continue to grow to confirm it.
I'm going to leave this right here. :) I don't know about the rest of the day, but my opening may be on! $3.45 is on a multi-year resistance line from the descending peaks of our previous surges. This is the news we have been waiting for to break through.
This literally IS all in the charts! The charts have been predicating this move for months!
9 cents away from my prediction of $3.45!
Yes, I think that is likely.
It turns out you had the wrong cut of meat. This may be the right one:
"Shareholders could theoretically obtain full relief under Count I alone." (42)
Key word: FULL
As an investor, this is now a likely possibility. There is now MUCH less risk in achieving a windfall on these shares and so the PPS will reflect that risk adjustment.
Click, click, boom.
Edit: It was pointed out that this was the dissenting opinion.
I say a 40-50 million day.
I think it will gap up huge at the opening and trade from there for the day.
Since I've been in from 2013, highest has been $6.20 or so (without net worth sweep funds available towards pps). I say we gap to $3.45, touch $5, and then settle in the mid $4. We'll continue up on Tuesday based on testimony.
There are now 7 years of unrealized $$$ per share on the table!
Moelis plan does not account for damages relief, so you can't go by those numbers.
Thank you so much for that in-depth explanation.
Monetary compensation aside, at what point--and with what verbiage--would that law-violating authority be halted by the courts (i.e. when would the courts tell the government to immediately stop the net worth sweep)?
That's right! I forgot about the additional draws incited specifically because of the net worth sweep. That is really going to complicate things! What a mess that has to be sorted. What a stupid game the government played.
All of that rage was just rekindled from when those articles came out about taxpayers being on the hook when Fannie and Freddie had to draw more money from Treasury all while Treasury was stealing all of their money in the first place!
How can the En Banc panel rule FHFA exceeded its statutory conservator authority implementing the net worth sweep, but then that same net worth sweep not be held illegal? Or could/would it be declared illegal once the District Court rules with the plaintiffs?
Is the conservatorship illegal or just the third amendment? Or is the conservatorship nullified because the third amendment is illegal?
I think some are basing it on the over-payment above the original 10% dividend, which is what the relief will be based on, right? Not on the over-payment above the total draws from Treasury?
Hey, negative Nancies, why you tripping?
To facilitate recapitalization of the GSEs, Treasury and FHFA should consider adjusting the variable dividend (also known as the “net worth sweep”) required by the terms of Treasury’s senior preferred shares, as well as the other approaches set forth in this plan.
In parallel with recapitalizing the GSEs, FHFA should begin the process of ending the GSEs’ conservatorships. Although applicable law does not prescribe a specific end point for the conservatorships, no conservatorship is meant to be permanent. An eventual end is also necessary to reduce the far-reaching Government influence over the housing finance system inherent in FHFA’s management of the GSEs through the conservatorships.
This plan is literally giving a green light to FHFA. Go!
Where is that Treasury document? That is the one I have been trying to find again. People always throw stones when I and others talk about that.
Yup! It's neither a contraction nor a possessive usage.
Another improper usage of the apostrophe is when people say 90's (as in the 1990s); it should be '90s. The apostrophe acts as the marker for what is being omitted like with any contraction.
Wishful thinking, and apostrophe not needed.
Why are these journalists such imbeciles? Same as before? Really, Jon Shazar? Did you maybe want to do one ounce of research before writing that headline and article?
That volume today, wow.
CryptoNator, haha
Yeah, that did not age well at all.
It is a lot percentage-wise of a company with a massively suppressed stock price.
I'm guessing Rick thinks it affects the En Banc because Calabria sent in that letter re-opening the terminating of the single director for cause issue.
Could this drop be the result of the Federal Reserve interest rate cut? I think that is probably it.
Noted, but incorrect.
You are describing clear-cut unconstitutionality.
It keeps timing out on me (multiple browsers) and when it does happen to load, there are no opinions posted.
Looks like http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov has a server error. Is that what everyone else gets?