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.
What a ridiculous it is !!! It's plundering people property in a broad day light !!!
Are we hitting $2 today.
What a well description myogenix. Thanks.
Thanks for your information Jay. Please keep posting.
Agree with you. But there may be nothing wrong in informing the board about the true potential of the stock. Just IMHO.
Anyone noticed ?? FMCC volume is higher than FNMA !!!
Appeal court arguments held on April 15th. It's been 4 weeks today. So can we hear the ruling on it in the next 1 or 2 weeks ?
Thanks for the information Jay. Please keep posting. Thanks.
So I think in other words it's $150/share.
$150/share may not be an exaggeration if warrants are invalid. Just IMHO.
Please find the current market share of FNMA mortgages and compare it with before 2008. Then calculate the actual worth of the share price.
The other way and easiest way to calculate this is, as per Ackman's prediction the pps will be about $25 to $40 thinking that warrants are valid. Assume warrants are not valid, so 5 times the worth. So $125 to $200. Thanks and This is just IMHO.
Have you known the percentage of total houses Fannie has loaned before 2008 and now ??
$150/share may not be exaggeration. Just IMHO.
Clark, thanks for the clarification.
Sweeney unsealed more docs for MDL hearing just hit
Posted on May 11, 2016
05/11/2016321 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designations from Documents Referred to in Amended Complaint and in Merits Briefing, and, in the Alternative, Motion to Modify the Protective Order to Permit Reference to these Materials at Oral Argument , filed by ARNETIA JOYCE ROBINSON.Response due by 5/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – List of the Documents, # 2 Exhibit B – Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C – Email, # 4 Appendix Volume 1 (Exhibits 1-15), # 5 Appendix Volume 2 (Exhibits 16-27), # 6 Appendix Volume 3 (Exhibits 28-40), # 7 Appendix Volume 4 (Exhibits 41-55))(Orr, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
Liked by 1 person
From www.timhoward717.com comments section.
I think AIG ruling is precedent regarding warrants. When they are not valid there how can they be valid here. ??
Looks like we are about to finish seeing these below $2. Just IMO.
Haven't Stansberry’s investment advise that they would buy till the price is $2.25 ?? So I think the base price now is $2.25.
I meant to say, I sold all of my Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac shares, which are less than 1k shares in count, in 2009.
Tyamont, I sold few of my shares, which are less than 1k shares in count, in 2009 thinking it wouldn't go up and missed buying at 0.30s during 2011 and 2012 mistaking that it wouldn't go up. But it proven I was wrong. So I consistently buying since 2013 just like you doing. I am holding this for years now and adding more when ever I have some dry powder. Please keep posting Taymont. Thanks.
From the IU conference it looks like not all claims would benefit commons . Only Perry claim would benefit commons along with all other class share holders. The remaining claims, for example breach of contract claim, would benefit preferds share holders only. ??? Can any expert here please throw some light on this as if commons have only one claim for them ???
Thanks in advance.
From the IU conference it looks like not all claims would benefit commons . Only Perry claim would benefit commons along with all other class share holders. The remaining claims, for example breach of contract claim, would benefit preferds share holders only. ??? Can any expert here through some light on this ???
Thanks in advance.
TOMORROW at 2pm: Hamish Hume joins IU for teleconference
From that link :
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Section 4623(d) does not bar any of plaintiffs’ claims in this case. That is
why FHFA never raised § 4623(d) before the District Court or in its briefing before
this Court. Moreover, no matter how this Court interprets § 4623(d) with respect
to equitable relief, the statute cannot be read to bar plaintiffs’ claims for damages.
The plain text of § 4623(d) bars jurisdiction for claims that would “affect”
certain actions taken by “the Director.” The statute is unambiguous that the
actions protected by § 4623(d) are only actions taken “by the Director” under
Subchapter II of Chapter 46 of Title 12. Subchapter II unambiguously provides
that the actions of “the Director” are actions to regulate the Companies, and are
different from the actions taken by “the Agency acting as conservator or receiver.”
12 U.S.C. § 4617(a). Subchapter II consistently and unambiguously treats actions
by “the Director” as different from actions taken by “the Agency,” which is
referred to only its capacity as “conservator or receiver.”
Class Plaintiffs advance common law claims for breach of contract against
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA in its role as conservator for both
Companies. Class Plaintiffs also advance breach of fiduciary duty claims against
these same defendants (and Treasury). The principal remedy Class Plaintiffs seek
for these claims is the payment of damages directly to the Class. Since § 4623(d)
says nothing about claims for damages against the Companies or against FH
Hi Jay, can you please post your views on the current trading pattern. Thanks in advance.
Aren't you the one who preached so long that no one is fighting for commons so commons are worthless. Lol .
400 volume by 9.03 A.M
90 day average volume is 4.9 million
10 day average volume is 11.5 million
Today's volume is 9.7 million.
Yup, volume is picking up when compared to 90 days average.
From www.timhoward717.com
Fergz on April 19, 2016 at 11:34 am
I found this comment on wsj, does this hold true?
HERA gives FHFA immunity from judicial review only in regards to Capital Classification. Since chapter 46 is all about the GSE’s and subchapter 2 is about capital classification. Hence, USC 4623 or chapter 46, subchapter 2, section 3 where is immunity wording resides is only applicable to Capital Classification of the GSE’s. This is a game changer. The FHFA does not have immunity from judicial review under HERA after all!
Almost all these days we seeing pre-market trading. Just like it was around March 2014 when it hit above $6. Just IMHO.
Almost all these days we seeing pre-market trading. Just like it was in 2014 when it hit above $6. Just IMHO.
120k traded in the first one minute of market opening.
10,000 traded in pre-market,before 9.30 A.M.
Thanks for your time Obi.
Hi Obi, thanks for your great insight. So if incase the plaintiffs lose the case based on procedural law, can they refile or go to higher court on the substantial law. Sorry, I am a layman in this. Can you please throw some light. Thanks in advance.
Legally Obi. Thanks.
Can you please provide this board with your views on the current situation of FnF. Thanks in advance.
It's still 8.06 A.M, 450 already got traded. Too earlier than the recent early tradings.
Thanks for the insight. Much appreciated.