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.
How come others can trade this pre-market and the little guy can't?
The problem is Mark, taxpayers did not "have to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" in the first place. Stop saying that already.
Can anyone explain in simple terms what happened with this ownership change? Thanks. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fuwei-films-enters-securities-purchase-115900852.html
Well, I found this- https://www.hstoday.us/federal-pages/department-of-defense-contracts-for-aug-5-2019/
But no mention of directed energy. What contract are you referring to and why do you think Aerg has a "good chance" to be involved? Do you have a link? Thanks.
The post of the article was truncated. To get the rest of the article go here. https://tucson.com/business/tucson-tech-applied-energetics-looks-for-rebirth-in-directed-energy/article_3df208ab-8130-5a25-aac2-2366b5659df5.html
Can someone bring me up to speed? Haven't looked at this for a long time. One reason this is going up is because it has technical momentum and Zacks is touting the heck out of it. Is there any reason of the fundamental variety that is sending it up? Thanks.
Anyone think that maybe the shareholders are just preparing for a shareprice-rocketing event so they can already be registered to sell? Just trying to remain positive. Sometimes that has happened.
Ha! Now I understand. You were saying 56 cents. I thought you were talking about some NASDAQ trading designation (56c) that I hadn't heard about, that we would be graduating to once we met certain requirements.
The rise to 50 cents was un- sustainably steep. But with today's reset, we're good to go for trending up again, imo.
Wow. From $0.37 to $0.20 in one trade. Someone not hiding the fact they want to take down.
Can't get the video to play.
Am I missing something? It looks like the date on that was 2014. And when I fiddle with the column headings, trying to have a column list the data in a certain order, a little message pops up saying "Real Time Picks after 2018-12-31 are displayed for Premium Members Only "
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgages-big-banks-may-be-throwing-in-the-towel-2019-04-16?siteid=nwhwk Mortgages? Big banks may be throwing in the towel
By Andrea Riquier
Published: Apr 17, 2019 4:47 p.m. ET
‘Non-banks’ made over half the mortgages taken out by American consumers in 2017
Courtesy Everett Collection
Mortgages aren’t looking wonderful to the nation’s largest banks.
You can kiss George Bailey’s mortgage market goodbye.
As the small-town banker in Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Bailey epitomized an old-fashioned world in which bankers know every borrower personally. In the mortgage market of 2019, borrowers can do just about everything online, never meeting the lender behind the process.
And as comments from executives of America’s biggest banks made clear last week, that person – or institution – making the loan is increasingly less likely to be a banker.
In an earnings report last week, JPMorgan Chase JPM, -0.73% said that mortgage originations were down 18% compared to a year ago in the first quarter. For Wells Fargo WFC, +0.06% , which reported earnings the same day, mortgage lending was down 23% compared to the year earlier. (Wells Fargo is still the largest originator of mortgages in the U.S., with a 10.7% market share in 2018, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.)
Earlier coverage: Why mortgage lending at Wells Fargo, Chase and Citi plunged
Jamie Dimon, JPM’s CEO, said this in his shareholder letter released at the same time as Q1 earnings:
“In the early 2000s, bad mortgage laws helped create the Great Recession of 2008. Today, bad mortgage rules are hindering the healthy growth of the U.S. economy. Because there are so many regulators involved in crafting the new rules, coupled with political intervention that isn’t always helpful, it is hard to achieve the much-needed mortgage reform. This has become a critical issue and one reason why banks have been moving away from significant parts of the mortgage business.”
Because of post-crisis capital rules, “owning mortgages becomes hugely unprofitable,” Dimon lamented later in his note. On a call with analysts, he called mortgage servicing – the bookkeeping for regular customer payments – hard. “You got to look at that and ask a lot of questions about whether banks should even be in it,” Dimon said.
If not banks, then, who should be “in it”? “Non-banks are becoming competitors,” Dimon told analysts.
Read: The average adjustable-rate mortgage is nearly $700,000. Here’s what that tells us.
In contrast, Wells Fargo executives sounded hopeful for a pick-up in mortgage lending, at least in the short term. “We expect to see a higher origination volume in Q2 due to typical seasonality for home buying as well as some additional refinance activity resulting from the recent decrease in mortgage interest rates,” they said in prepared remarks on an earnings call.
“Mortgage lending is core to Wells Fargo,” CFO John Shrewsberry said in response to an analyst question. But moments later, he added, “I think non-bank competitors both on the origination and servicing side are here to stay.”
See: Wells Fargo readies its first post-crisis mortgage bonds
What exactly is a non-bank? That term generally describes any lender that does not hold deposits, like a bank does. Non-banks lend mortgages that will be guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, or other agencies. In contrast, many banks still hold some mortgages in their own portfolios.
Banks’ retreat from mortgage-making isn’t new, and MarketWatch has covered the issue in the past. But the executive commentary this quarter seemed particularly stark.
Some housing industry participants have raised concerns about the non-bank business model. In 2016, MarketWatch profiled Ted Tozer, who was then head of Ginnie Mae, the massive government entity that includes FHA and other mortgage agencies.
One of the biggest concerns shared by Tozer and other analysts is that while non-banks must hew to the same lending standards, they must depend on banks for short-term financing. “My big concern is starting to have a contagion, similar to 2008, where people quit lending to each other and at that point the whole system had issues because no one knew who to lend to,” Tozer said at the time.
In response, Bill Emerson, CEO of the largest non-bank originator, Quicken Loans, said, “When I think about access to governmental funds, history hasn’t proved that that’s been a great solution for anyone.” (Quicken Loans had 5.1% of the mortgage market in 2018, according to Inside Mortgage finance, making it the number-three lender in the country.)
Non-banks have taken a bigger and bigger share of the mortgage market, as both Shrewsberry and Dimon acknowledged. They had 25% of overall single-family volume in 2008, and 54% in 2017, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The mortgage industry is adamant that non-banks are subject to so much scrutiny that they could never cause a major financial system snafu. In fact, the MBA points out that some guardrails that ostensibly make banks safer, like the FDIC’s deposit insurance, simply mean that taxpayers are on the hook for failures.
It’s worth noting that there was a lot missing in that Hollywood vision of a salt-of-the-earth community banker, like practices that explicitly excluded people of color from getting bank loans. But the debate over whether it’s safer for everyone if lenders have some “skin in the game” when making mortgages is likely to continue.
See also: Meet the little bank
Mnuchin is going to be on CNBC tomorrow at 1:30 Eastern, I believe it was. Can anyone confirm?
The only thing that's going to add value to this stock is if they have some new technology breakthrough or partner with somebody that does. Going this route today is just an admission that they are trying to put lipstick on this pig. The company is obviously not all of a sudden worth more just because somebody is going to tout it now, after all these years.
If I was in charge of this dismal company I might do this same Hail Mary procedure also, with the plan that if this doesn't work, the next step is bankruptcy.
Unusually high volume (buying) these last few days. Anyone know what might be the driver for this?
Well now that we're negative, let's pull out that innovative subject "the warrants" and beat that dead horse for a few more hours! Yeah baby!
"They are not required to report but Ackman disclosed at his annual." Is that because their OTC? I'm surprised the SEC does not require someone to disclose that they are such a huge shareholder. When was his annual? Thanks.
Thanks for your reply. But that is old information. I haven't been able to find anything up-to-date that says that Pershing holds any common. But a lot of companies that hold a lot less than Pershing is reported to hold ARE listed.
Pardon my ignorance. I'm having no luck finding Pershing Square as a Fannie Mae shareholder. Any ideas? Not listed on these 3 sites nor Yahoo. Since he has a reported huge position, shouldn't it be easy to find? ... http://quote.morningstar.ca/Quicktakes/owners/MajorShareholders.aspx?t=FNMA®ion=USA&culture=en-CAhttps://fintel.io/so/us/fnma https://www.barrons.com/quote/stock/us/ootc/fmcc
Well, that is from 2013. And it doesn't answer my question.
Why would Pershing list some Holdings and not others? Aren't they required to list all of them?...... " In a Feb. 5 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Pershing Square Capital Management lists its holdings, including ADP, Chipotle, Lowes and United Technologies. Fannie and Freddie do not appear in the filing but from what we understand Pershing still has the investment…"
What "massive rumors" are you thinking about? tia
Massive dilution is good for common shareholders?
Less than 9,000 shares traded all day so far? And lost 71 million on 25 million revenues last year? This company has a long ways to go to convince investors they are a viable alternative to the multitude of other investments out there. Somebody convince me otherwise. Please?
Complete nothing Burger
Five years ago he wanted to get rid of them. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/senate-banking-committee-fannie-freddie-vote-end-106719
Thank you.
I find it bizarre that not one person commented on this article. Everyone just continues their bullish babble. No thoughts at all on this?
Not if he's serving in his appointment illegally....
Otting’s Appointment at FHFA May Be Illegal
By Dennis Hollier
dhollier@imfpubs.com
Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting has served as acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for just shy of four weeks. But there’s one problem: His appointment may be illegal.
In a joint letter dated Jan. 25, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH, ranking minority member of the Senate Banking Committee, raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the appointment.
At issue, according to Waters and Brown, is whether President Trump’s appointment of Otting followed the rules of the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which created FHFA. They wrote: “We are concerned that President Trump has chosen not to select an acting director using the process Congress outlined in HERA.”
The language in HERA is clear on the matter. It states that, in the absence of a director, the president “shall designate” an acting director from among the agency’s three deputy directors. For more details, see the new edition of Inside Mortgage Finance.
Other areas of interest: Originations, Servicing, Secondary/MBS, Personnel, Regulatory, Fannie, Freddie, GSEs
"Otting’s Appointment at FHFA May Be Illegal"
By Dennis Hollier
dhollier@imfpubs.com
Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting has served as acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for just shy of four weeks. But there’s one problem: His appointment may be illegal.
In a joint letter dated Jan. 25, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH, ranking minority member of the Senate Banking Committee, raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the appointment.
At issue, according to Waters and Brown, is whether President Trump’s appointment of Otting followed the rules of the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which created FHFA. They wrote: “We are concerned that President Trump has chosen not to select an acting director using the process Congress outlined in HERA.”
The language in HERA is clear on the matter. It states that, in the absence of a director, the president “shall designate” an acting director from among the agency’s three deputy directors. For more details, see the new edition of Inside Mortgage Finance.
Other areas of interest: Originations, Servicing, Secondary/MBS, Personnel, Regulatory, Fannie, Freddie, GSEs
We're toast. Probably a delay tactic they can blame on Congress in order to continue the NWS for many years to come.
"Trump administration is said to focus on legislative overhaul
White House intends to work with lawmakers, spokeswoman says"
Wow! I think the stress of the volatility we've had has caught up to everyone. Extending an olive branch to congress means voluntarily bogging down the whole process for the foreseeable future. Red tape and hoops to jump through galore. There's nothing positive about this development at all. Precisely the opposite, in spades.
They already announced that they won't 24 minutes ago.
It's doing exactly like your scenario, according to my daily graph.
I can't imagine that management would be so stupid as to take the steps they have just taken, so I have to believe there was coercion and corruption behind all of this. It won't be long before everyone in the states will refuse to invest in Chinese companies. They just destroyed their best source of investment money.