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.
Foss you picked a great video to view! I also recommend that same video to a lot of people. There's yet another one called "money as debt", if i recall correctly, that's also pretty good.
Best video on Fed i've seen. I recommend it all the time. Best thing is- it was made in the 1990s, before absolutely everything in our pop culture and education became so hyper-policized and combative. So its tone and content doesn't suggest much about either party, per se. This video also does the best job of tracing this central banking cartel and its behavior (i.e. stoking wars) back a few hundred years, giving the viewer a better context for where we are at today. Fascinating and important. There was a coup in the U.S. in 1913 and probably only 0.001% of our population today even knows about it.
Thanks Mrfence! Goodnight. Feel free to elaborate more tomorrow or whenever if you have extra thoughts. I'll be posting more ?s I'm sure.
Thanks Mrfence! Goodnight. Feel free to elaborate more tomorrow or whenever if you have extra thoughts. I'll be posting more ?s I'm sure.
Any idea how I could place an order in dollar amounts rather than based on share amount? If I could just have a dollar amount ready to go, then buy when i see the ticker symbol, it'd be nice. By the time You calculate pps and number of shares to buy, you miss a lot of the uptrend! Does your trading platform allow for ordering in dollar amounts (automatically converting it to share amounts)? I've seen some institutional fund web portals that allow that, but I haven't seen it in TDameritrade or Etrade, for instance.
If you place conditional orders for these right at open, with orders to sell automatically after a certain % gain, you can increase your odds of not getting caught. Don't be greedy.
Questions. THIS discussion about the potential dilution and legal decisions is of great interest to me. Thanks for all of your info so far. My questions:
1) Is there any chance a judge might throw out the initial Cship agreement in its entirety, since there is a big takings issue with it, etc? If so, wouldn't that potentially lead to the judge throwing out (dissolving) the entire senior preferred class of shares (which were invented as part of the cship agreement)? After net zero is reached, I could imagine a judge saying that since the GSEs have essentially given the gvt a return on the money it injected, AND since the judge rules that (in this hypothetical judge's decision) the way the cship agreement went down was unconstitutional (takings, contract signed under duress, gvt deliberately misleading shareholders by declaring publicly that FNMA was in sound shape and not at risk of collapse just before they rammed cship down FNMA's throat), then the senior class shall be dissolved, Cship ended, and FNMA returned to its shareholders with no more financial obligation to the gvt. Maybe even with back dividends paid to preferred shares.
All bias aside, honestly, wouldn't that be a pretty fair and neutral kind of decision? In this scenario, there'd obviously be no dilution. And we could see something closer to that $300 / share figure, I imagine. Am I crazy?
2) When, and after what trigger event, does the smart money expect the gvt to actually start exercising its warrants for the 79.99% of shares?
3) If a judge only throws out the only 3rd amendment (the Aug 2012 amendment to cship), and net zero is reached, will the gvt likely exercise its warrants immediately?
4) Will Bernanke indeed eventually have to testify even if the Prez appoints a new Fed Chairman before Bernanke "has some free time in his calendar" to testify? Or will the "new guy" be the one on the stand for some strange reason (I heard that rumor somewhere)?
5) As we come closer (hypothetically) to a judge ruling against the 3rd amendment or the cship as a whole, will the gvt start negotiating? Or will the gvt maybe start exercising its warrants quickly, to suck on last heap of wealth out of shareholder's equity before losing the case? Would the gvt go "Scorched earth policy…leave nothing behind for shareholders but 5 x dilution" on us?
I could ask more, but if anyone would like to chime in here, please do. Thanks for al of your valuable insight, again.
He never taught conventional constitutional law. He taught how to subvert and sidestep the constitution as a way of accomplishing / furthering radical political beliefs. Do some real DD on this prez (not relying on media). Ask anyone who was in his classes. Listen to his 2000 NPR interview. The man is fundamentally disdainful of the constitution. It's what drives him. He's especially angry about how the constitution puts restraints on the gvt.
I don't need to wait for that to happen. I already "know" this country's leadership has become 100% corrupt. Anyway, just read Hank Paulson's book, or at least the part relevant to fnma and the 2008 crisis. And btw I'm not at all surprised to see very recently some articles and reporting out there saying that in fact, fnma was not as bad off in 2008 as the gvt / treasury said. If true, that could mean there was no definitive "need" for the gvt to do what it did in the first place, when it took over fnma. Our gvt is basically an entirely separate entity that operates to do these 2 things only: 1) grab / take / steal as much $ for the elite interests that it truly represents as their paid advocates and 2) keep in tact just barely enough liberty for the masses to keep them from fomenting revolution. In accomplishing #1 it will also 3) legislate lots of trade barriers, labor barriers and laws, and lots of other junk that is completely unnecessary in a truly free market, all to make sure it "carves out" sufficient market share domination for its donors. For instance, we wouldn't have had a need for health care reform if insurance could be purchased from out of state. Why can't someone in Indiana buy insurance from Wisconsin? Erect phony barriers like that and you raise prices while providing a protected market for your donors, whose customers are held captive by those phony barriers. This crap happens at every level of gvt. And then the gvt just simply uses force and theft to accomplish anything else it needs to accomplish for its donors.
79.9% was in the 2008 agreement / bullying / theft. But as with you, I still have some of the same questions regarding the details of when / how they could be executed. You got some helpful answers last night here. Thanks for asking them. Sure it doesn't make sense that gvt could execute the warrants after net zero. But contractually, net zero means nothing. That's just the way this theft was constructed. Net zero means a lot only bc it will / should out pressure on all parties involved to do the right thing.
Ah, he Berkowitz could've already loaded, yes. Load then announce. That would make sense. Of course his fund doesn't "start" until Aug 18. But surely he can load for the fund before then.
Question: how does Berkowitz's kinda bold announcement (jumping into fnma when the rest of the world and politicians are talking about winding it down) affect the politicians? Does it put any more pressure on them to either finish killing the GSEs quickly or give up trying?
If Berkowitz uses this announcement to dump into a run, then ouch! But he has to hold onto at least some fnma throughout his lawsuit doesn't he? Or would he be in no danger of losing standing?
Depends on whose plan is followed. The range therefore could be $0.00-$100.00 ish.
Has Fairholme announced plan to buy more fnma? Sounds good on the surface. But why would he announce it ahead of time? That'd be a pretty dumb move. And if he did announce it, then maybe we should look back to that old Cramer interview for a sense of why a hedge fund might make such an announcement ahead of time. Recall, Cramer explains clearly how hedges try hard to make the public opinion about a ticker be the opposite of the hedge fund's opinion. They use all kinds of media to do that. Anyway, has Fairholme announced they plan to buy more fnma? Again, why announce it? Just do it. Then maybe announce it afterwords. Is this bad news for us, disguised as good news?
Fully agree. But I tend to think more along the lines of - if people first simply understood what their own money really is, then they would see their own labor and property a bit differently, which would of course lead them to think differently about how they vote. Then we'd have a chance for improvement. But People are totally disconnected from the truth about their money. I mean, they look at you in a totally dismissive way if you even make a casual comment about it (about what our currency really is). It's like you're the crazy one if you point out the truth. And thus we continue to lose freedom in chunks. With people being mostly unbothered by their loss of freedom these days (despite some minor spats about it), however, we're probably not going to see this monetary atrocity changed anytime soon. And the younger population is perhaps even worse. They just expect and want entitlements more than a chance to build their own wealth. Give 'em video games and food stamps and they're happy. And so are the bankers. The internet is the x factor here, because it spreads more info more rapidly than ever before, and if you're curious about this stuff, you CAN become fully informed about it easily. It changes your life once you understand it, really. But we've seen quite a few efforts by the power players to gain control of the internet in the last few years. It'll probably be tough and tougher to preserve true free speech online over the next 10 yrs or so, I predict.
Aug 2012 & Demarco. Curious- does anyone here think Demarco would have signed the Aug 2012 agreement (which basically makes it impossible for Fnma to pay or redeem its way out of cship by means of its own improved profitability) if he didn't understand and agree with the prevailing sentiment / plan in DC to eventually wind the GSEs down or eliminate them?
Yeah unfortunately I'm familiar with that theft. Then it was made worse in the Aug 2012 amendment.
Nation run by a bunch of Marlon Brandos.
Ha does 1.50 zone count as "fear" any more?
I sympathize man! I was in the right place here in early spring. Played it well in one account and not so well in another. Spent the summer holding, reading, and learning.
2008 was massive con job by banks. It was the culmination of a long con cycle. They managed to get the taxpayers to reimburse them for their bad investments, as we all know. And they also had their eyes on taking over the Fnma's business, so they got the 3 criminals to first inject confidence in fnma by saying they're not in danger, then suddenly set up the cship etc. You saw Paulson's comments posted here on this board, regarding his ultimate vision for fnma. We are in the midst of an historically-sized mauling by bankers in this country. It's like they're steamrolling slowly and surely over everything.
Paulson on stand = good for Fnma. But I'm not following why you think C-W (should be called Warner - Corker) would be bad for Hank, Ben, and Timmy. Wouldn't C-W basically accomplish Hank's longer term plans for fnma as described in his book? And wouldn't eliminating the GSEs basically be a way of "moving on" from 2008 and making it impossible to restore shareholders' value?
Are you simply suggesting that more lawsuits would arise if C-W passes, and the 3 criminals would be forced to testify again, and everyone would take a closer look at what they did?
Next possible catalysts: Ben's testimony in AIG case (postponed til who knows when), Friday's expected publicity about Reid's bill, general media chatter about prez's idiotic proposals, shorts covering from last 2 days, more eventual congressional proposals / markups / media blitzes / committee votes, showdown between prez's and Reid's vision, senate and house conference, net zero, Q3 earnings, media chatter after net zero turning against eliminating the GSEs (if media covers net zero logically, that is). Hmm anything else? All potentially happening before the end of the year. Otherwise we're talking long term catalysts, like hedgies' lawsuits, 5th amendment issues, courts.
What are you suggesting are the implications (potential) of what demarco said, and of this 3rd entity? Do you think the 3rd entity will act as the precursor to the FMIC, which has been proposed as the GSEs' replacement?
You might be the only one here who noticed. I had seen some info about the multifamily stuff.
Media says what they're paid to say.
Yes, good point. But c-ship distorts everything about this ticker. In cship, why are commons even worth $0.60? They have no voting power and get no dividends, and no participation IN owners' equity, if you think about it. So anyone looking to calculate true value of commons first must decide whether to consider current cship status or not. Likewise, anyone considering investing / speculating on fnma must first decide whether cship will scare him away or not. Does one anticipate an end to it or not? That's all we seem to discuss here anyway. So yes, let's also start distinguishing between the two possible interpretations of true value of commons. Why not? Result is it's either gonna be worth tens of $ or nothing once the politicians take action on GSE reform.
So, another hi vol short attack today? What do we make of this?
Shorts taking advantage of congressional recess to scare up more cheapies? Shorts doing a quick play before friday's potential news on Reid's bill? Inside knowledge on some truly bad news for Fnma coming down the political pipeline? News of mortgages dropping 50%? Any ideas?
No real fnma "news" right? I haven't seen anything that was big enough to have sparked this huge dump today. Anyone seen any news today?
Sounds like you're a real risk taker! Nice!
Thanks for the reply. We're in a very similar situation actually, if you compare yours to my account that's currently averaged above pps. My other account is below. But I don't have margin either, so I havn't really been able to flip much. I did once for real, but I have been practicing flipping a little in a paper account. I even practiced flipping when its been in those really tight ranges, taking profits of a couple of pennies. I haven't panicked yet either, though! Glad to hear same goes for you. I have very little powder right now so I'm just waiting. It might take some real patience from here to get back to our pps, but I've decided for now to just wait it out. If fnma gets released it'll be without notice. If a run happens it'll probably be due to some subtle piece of news or inside knowledge or Bernanke's testimony if he ever testifies. So much strange activity on this ticker and complicated politics, so it's a bit unpredictable. But I'm holding. Best of luck to you! Thanks for sharing your strategy.
I've got some in one account above current pps significantly too. Also have some in another account below. So i sympathize, man! Still, I'm holding both right now. Just curious- what's your strategy / plan for your fnma shares in the future? Holding no matter what? Selling if / when your break even pps arrives? Selling below that? Waiting for a certain pps number to arrive and give you a profit? Averaging down? Selling in 3rds on way up? Cutting all your losses at a certain date? Don't have a specific plan at all maybe? My plan is to reduce my total holdings in fnma if /when my costlier shares break even. But then hold beyond that. And maybe flip my cheaper shares a bit. But that's not my strong suite quite yet. I currently mostly just hold both accounts. How about you?
Got any link to that info about not having to pay the IRS? I've read / seen similar and find it endlessly fascinating, though I would never test it! But please feel free to IM me some links if you'd rather not post em for some reason. I won't be able to IM you back, but thanks anyway! I'd love to see which source you've come across that sounds like it supports what I've seen on this.
Very interesting. Could you please explain why there isn't necessarily buyer for every seller? Learning more about how MMs work has proven to be quite intriguing and helpful.
I love this topic. Cannot get enough of this kind of research. We live in a world where most are as clueless about their own money as you could imagine. Everyone who's anti war better research why the founders of this nation did put it into the constitution that only congress could control our monetary policy. They were direct victims of the very same central banking cartel we have in place right now. Their best chance at preventing it from happening again (by putting that law into the foundational legal document) failed over time, as the bankers kept trying to nudge their way back into that position. They won (and lost, then won again, etc). Thanks for posting. Feel free to IM me any similar info if you have anything interesting to share. But i can't privately IM you back. Thanks.
Net zero on in house balance sheet? No I didn't hear about that. Please do share. How would anyone know this right now?
That was my suspicion as well. Made me worry that it could have been dumped slowly based on some inside news or leak. Seemed strange after generally positive media articles over the last few days for it to go down so steadily. Reminded me of how last monday it suddenly jumped up, at about 10:30am on NO news!
Guys, that day and today are clear evidence of manipulation. Combine it with last fri how it ended day with vast amounts of shares on the bid and no sells happened even a penny over the bid! Most tickers- their pps moves up and down with that seemingly beautiful randomness of the market. This one moves in a straight line for hours at a time every single day. Is anyone gonna try to say something strange isn't going on here?
Gut says Ben delaying testimony til next congressional session starts. Too risky for the power players involved to have Bernanke testify on AIG, saying stuff that will likely be very relevant to Fnma, while Congress is not in session. If Ben says some certain thing in testimony that makes fnma pps shoot up suddenly, and Congress isn't in session at that time, the big $ players will be caught without the immediate availability of their paid advocates, who will be on vacation and / or at their own computers logging into their Etrade accounts. Big $ probably at least wants congress in session when Ben testifies, so they can order Congress to do whatever they want them to do the next day if need be. Or at least grandstand.
Funny you were right. I just wrote another check for them. They gladly took it without a word. But now they're tying my eyelids back and turning on some video for me to watch. I don't like this... Tell the world my story!
Great questions! I'd love to see a more informed answer on this than I can provide. I'll be checking in later to see if anyone offered one. It's on my list to research those very same questions actually.
Ha what else did you see on that dollar? "This is a U.S. treasury note?" Did they put that back on those yet? Whoops...I'm only joking, of course. I'd never suggest anything un-.....hey, wait, who's that knocking on my door at this late hour?
I've heard that once Ben's replacement takes over, Ben won't be legally compelled to testify anymore, because he's no longer a gvt official. I'm sorry I don't have a link to that interpretation. I heard or saw it somewhere earlier today. The idea was- supposedly Ben's just stalling so that no one from the Fed will ever have to testify, not even his replacement. I hope that theory is bogus and wrong. I would think it has to be wrong. I'm just sharing what I heard in hopes that someone here might be able to confirm or debunk it.
How about forcing someone to buy something when they might not want it? Is that still illegal?