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 think it depends on how you are positioned.
I actually have my shares at .28, which in a sense has me locked into staying long if I plan to stay with FNMA. If I sold now I would have taxes that would eat a decent amount of my profits. If I tried to rebuy after taking out what I would owe in taxes I don't believe I could replace the number of shares I have. However, if you are positioned in the $3 - $4 range then trying to flip for more shares might make sense. That would take a ton of luck to hit the high and low just right.
There are a few on this board that profess to doing just that,...to the penny. I don't usually believe them though.
I agree. I also think we are seeing a larger group that are willing to "ride the ride" until it concludes one way or the other. Just remember to keep your hands and arms inside FNMA until it comes to a complete stop.
These periodic shakes are becoming more annoying than something to fear.
More fun than riding "Tower of Terror", similar adrenaline rush though.
That was never held over AIG's head by the government. They were deemed to big to fail and there was every intention of propping them up. FNMA/FMCC has had the threat of deliberate "winding down" thrown in their face over and over.
You are missing the bigger point of what we were discussing,...they HAD to litigate to try to get fair treatment. AIG and others DID NOT. You have implied that the noble govt. would have treated them fairly if they had not gone to the courts. That never has been the case. The govt. had no intention of dealing with them fairly. This was their chance to rid DC of FNMA for a variety of political reasons. I for one hope they fail miserably.
I guess you weren't listening to the string of this conversation. AIG was NOT threatened with "winding down" which is why there is a huge difference between the two. FNMA support has been forced to litigate to get fair treatment. AIG did not have to do this.
They were never threatened with losing it all! Never threatened with "winding down". Never had to litigate because the threat wasn't there. AIG and FNMA is NOT a fair comparison. Both handled very differently by the gov't.
Yes, I do....and it is slanted.
Again, your assumptions are that the government was planning to act nobly and only take what was theirs, that has clearly not been the case since this started.
Forgive the hedge funds for stepping in to make a profit where the gov't was planning to keep it for themselves. I'm sure the gov't. was NOT motivated by money, only hedge funds are,... right? The noble gov't. would have given it all back after they were done, right?
Your argument is so slanted toward sticking it to the hedge funds and investors and rewarding the gov't. it makes me question your motivation.
They will not negotiate with hedge funds.... but they will negotiate with terrorists. How sad!
You are hopeless.
If you can't see their intent, then best of luck to you. It is fairly obvious to most of the rest of us.
Let's try this one.... it was said today. I bolded the part that shows their intent, that is to NEVER give back the companies or the profits but to instead wind them down.
MW Treasury official pushes back on idea to privatize Fannie, Freddie
Jun 13, 2014 09:22:00 (ET)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- A senior Treasury Department official pushed back on the idea of privatizing Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) in a speech delivered Friday morning. Mary Miller, the under secretary for domestic finance, told the National Housing Conference that much of the recent profits at the mortgage-buying giants have come from tax-related one-time gains and legal settlements as well as income from retained portfolios, which are being wound down. "In short, adequately recapitalizing the GSEs would take longer than many realize or would admit," Miller said. "Only legislation can protect taxpayers by responsibly winding down the GSEs and replacing them with a system where a government guarantee is transparent and explicitly priced," she added.
So you are suggesting that the government is now doing this to FNMA/FMCC as some sort of "screw you" for suing us? We'll show you?..... really?
No way! The actions of the sweep and everything that goes along with it WERE stated multiple times. Never was that stated with AIG. The only alternative left to avoid it was litigation. I supposed you think that the government was going to say, thank you for the profit sweep, here is your company back. That was never even implied. Just a TON of rhetoric about taking and winding down.
The way you compare these tells me you just don't get it and likely never will.
You can't compare these they way you have,...AIG had no threat over them! The intent was always to return to shareholders. FNMA/FMCC has NOT had that luxury, they have had no alternative but to fight.
Then you are clearly not listening to the rhetoric out there.
The threat is real and has been made on multiple levels. To sit back and wait for it and then respond would be ludicrous. The preemptive response is to litigate and avoid what was being SPOKEN as the final desired outcome. Their ACTIONS have spoken loud enough and to not respond would be passive permission to continue on their path.
Truly, you are either ill informed or simply being belligerent for sport.
You have got to be kidding... you think the litigation has caused this? The litigation was initiated after they were told, "We are going to wind you down"
How do you think the shareholders of AIG or the others would have responded to this message? Your thinking is beyond flawed.
I would suspect a difference could also be where many of our legislators retirement accounts reside. I would bet AIG holds a good number of these. JMO
Fairly obvious answer. However, I don't think it matches what you have been saying recently. I wanted to know what YOU thought should happen to me, not what is going to happen by default.
I expected you to say something like, How dare you want to make money off of such a "peanuts" investment. Or, how dare you take advantage of the very notion of capitalism and want to make money. Or maybe, The government is entitled to your money, because they provide the backstop, blah, blah, blah...
If you can't see what the govt. has done as wrong, I guess we very little to talk about.
Why won't you answer my question? It's an easy one.
I bought in 2009,...by your reasoning what should happen to me?
Wow! Your a real Nostradamus!
I suggest you put everything you can into shorting this stock. When your prediction happens you will be so fricking rich! I wish I had your insight.
(Sorry Risky, this was meant as a reply to ALONG4Z-BLUE-YANK, they seem so interchangeable lately)
If it hits $5.00 will you go away for real this time?
You still haven't answered my question. I bought in 2009. Based on your arguments, what should happen to me?
I truly want to know, in your analysis how should my investment be handled?
Says the He/She who promised to never post on this board again.
They did that willingly. It was set up to make housing available to the masses, however, I would argue that this is not what is in question.
They structured the GSE, they accepted the risk knowing how it was distributed, they built the incentive to bring in private investors, they knew this ahead of time. This is about their recent actions, they are simply wrong, immoral, and illegal. They can't take what they have taken and simply say,.... its ours because we say so, oh and we'll change a few laws to make it "fair".
Its about a government that would prosecute anyone else who acted in the way that they have behaved. They would never let someone else do this and get away with it.
You still haven't answered....I bought in 2009. What do you believe I am entitled to?
I bought in 2009 because I believed the companies would survive. Under your thinking, what should happen to me? I should get nothing because the gov't. so graciously allowed the companies to exist and create a mortgage market available to the masses?
No offense, but I still say you are being one-sided in your view. The GSE is a business model they agreed to years ago. The sudden change in how the profits are directed is plain wrong and illegal. They have no additional right explicitly or implied to take the profits.
This should be dealt with in the exact same manner that the other businesses have been dealt with. If the business model is objectionable then address that through reform. Governmental piracy is not right no matter what your rationale might be that you feel "justifies" their action.
Do you apply this same argument to AIG, GM, or the many banks that have been returned to shareholders? Or do you save the opinion just for FNMA/FMCC?
Using your argument, why shouldn't the taxpayers now own those companies and keep stealing their profits?
Let's just socialize anyone who has ever received support from the gov't. It's not like they stepped in to all these TARP activities to do something larger.... like save the economy as a whole!
I thought you promised to never post here again due to some prior price action. Is your ability to read this stock as bad as your ability to keep a promise?
At least bow out because you embarrass yourself so often with ridiculous rants.
S&P Doesn't Expect to Change Opinion on Fannie, Freddie Anytime Soon
Jun 03, 2014 15:06:00 (ET)
The following is a press release from Standard & Poor's:
NEW YORK (Standard & Poor's) June 3, 2014--In recent weeks, U.S. federal
policymakers have sent several strong signals on their plans for providing
ongoing policy support for U.S. housing markets, Standard & Poor's Ratings
Services' said today in an article published on RatingsDirect titled "Back To
The Future: Why Fannie And Freddie Remain Key Players In U.S. Housing." One of
the most significant comments on housing finance, in our view, came from the
new director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Mel Watt. In his
speech on May 13 unveiling the FHFA's strategy for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that support federal housing finance,
Watt indicated a break from previous years. In 2012 and 2013, the FHFA
indicated its main goal was to lessen the impact of Fannie and Freddie in the
marketplace, but this year, Mr. Watt has indicated that the FHFA's priority is
to instead maintain the support Fannie and Freddie provide to housing finance.
"We believe this shift will contribute to further entrenching the role Fannie
and Freddie play in U.S. housing finance and bolster their role in government
policy," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Matthew Albrecht.
We continue to view Fannie and Freddie as having a critical role within
federal housing policy and having an integral link to the U.S. government.
Despite ongoing debate in Congress about their reform and potential wind-down,
we do not expect to change our opinion on Fannie and Freddie anytime soon. In
our view, the FHFA's latest policy stance is a meaningful change aimed at
solidifying the presence of the GSEs in the U.S. housing market and
departs--in many ways--from past years' goal of a more limited presence. We
expect the FHFA's plan to maintain Fannie's and Freddie's role will support
the housing market recovery. Finally, we expect the GSEs' financial
performance to reflect continuing fundamental improvement in the housing
market. In our view, their ability to maintain business as usual as a key cog
in U.S. housing finance will be paramount to the market's stability unless and
until broader reforms finally happen.
The report is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at
www.globalcreditportal.com and at www.spcapitaliq.com. If you are not a
RatingsDirect subscriber, you may purchase a copy of the report by calling (1)
212-438-7280 or sending an e-mail to research_request@standardandpoors.com.
Ratings information can also be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site by
using the Ratings search box located in the left column at
www.standardandpoors.com. Members of the media may request a copy of this
report by contacting the media representative provided.
I am wondering if you are OK with all the profits that have been made by other companies from the bailout and have since been returned to private hands.
If so, why? The safeguards are not fully in place there...shouldn't they have to wait to profit using your logic?
But under your thinking then AIG, GM, and banks galore should still be under government control. How dare they expect to gain a profit when it was the gov't who bailed them out.
I just want them to play by the rules. It's like we kicked a field goal but the rule was changed that field goals no longer count while the ball is still in the air.
I understand what you are saying, but feel it is more about the "regular" investor. Sometimes I fear that having the big dogs in the fight is as much a curse as it is a blessing. There is so much being said that they want to keep them from profiting, that I get screwed by default. I bought in 2010 because I truly believed they would get it right and get it fixed. (I know, since when does the gov't get it right.) But I did. Now that it is doing well, they sweep the profits from me because of their own greed as a gov't.
I do still believe the rule of law will win this one, but do acknowledge that corruption knows no bounds and will continue to fight. I just wish that our leaders weren't as corrupt as their actions show them to be.
Time to get into this stock before it heads above $10.
What an "ASHinine" thing to say... at least give some DD to back it up.
Great article! Shame the title makes it sound negative. My favorite part echoes what has been said here many times:
Can the government have its cake and eat it too, getting away with owning 80 percent of Fannie and Freddie but claiming 100 percent of the profits? We certainly hope not. If the government were able to get away with this, why would any private capital come back to the mortgage market to fund future investment?
I am in San Diego too. Gotta love this weather!
You shouldn't be hanging around the bathroom stalls like that...:)
Still holding from .28
Let's see... bid at $3.41,...ask at $3.38,...sold at $3.36....no manipulation going on here officer.
In summation...If FNMA goes up you will make money, if it doesn't then you will not.