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.
We be cool. More hot air for DC. No alternative works.
This stock is ready to big time any day now.
This is Houston. FNF III, you are cleared for take-off.
TRUTH: The market cannot price FIMC!
Where from here?
Agreed Tallude. This is a great stock.
A good week ahead.
Right place, right time, right products, right place to load big time.
Follow the big boys ....
FNMA Fannie Mae 2013-05-31 Buy 0.23% $0.29 - $4.08 ($0.95) $ 1.56 64% New holding, 7042000 sh. 7,042,000 FMCC Federal Home Loan Mo... 2013-05-31 Buy 0.23% $0.293 - $3.75 ($0.91) $ 1.45 59% New holding, 7218200 sh.
There are no alternatives to FNF. The less bright ones are now starting to see that reality. Watch Watt - he will appointed in Dec. Time is on our side.
FNF will rise again!
The time has come to bring these federal pirates before the bar of justice. No man is above the law. FNF will resume their key function again.
One step at a time. Great news. Look forward to the day they open their fifth production center.
REFORM IS EASY: Get rid of or limit FnF investment portfolios, up capital to say 4%, keep the Raine and Mudd out and well off you go.
Cements to me that there ARE solid plans to keep FNMA and FMCC king pins of housing. Yep - they will need to be rehabbed but they will be back. It is a great business model.
A few rumors that the Senate might move on the Watt appointment next week. Makes sense to me. The august upper chamber will act sooner rather than later.
With what act? Wake me in 2016.
Rehab FNF!
Remember these guy just want to get the ball moving. Gravity will pull them at the end of the day to a retooled FnF. This mismatch is where and how real cash can be made.
Here it is! This is the agenda. Good for all. Sound Federal policy.
BUY FNF -- THE REAL PLAN: Obama FHFA Pick Mel Watt's Radical Vision For Fannie
By Paul Sperry, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 07/26/2013 08:05 AM ET
President Obama announces his nominee for the Federal Housing Finance Authority director, Rep. Mel Watt, on May 1, 2013, at the White House. AP
President Obama announces his nominee for the Federal Housing Finance Authority director, Rep. Mel Watt, on May 1, 2013, at the White House. AP View Enlarged Image
A pre-crisis bill written by Democratic Rep. Mel Watt — President Obama's nod to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency — reveals that his ideas for regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are more radical than he lets on.
On the eve of the financial crisis, Watt actually proposed the creation of the regulatory agency he now seeks to run — only, he designed it not to reform Fannie and Freddie but to pressure them to underwrite even more affordable housing, exposing them to even more risk.
The bill he co-sponsored with then-banking panel Chairman Barney Frank — the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 — would have forced the federally backed mortgage giants to meet even tougher quotas for affordable lending, while contributing to an "Affordable Housing Fund" to rebuild blighted urban areas.
"The real benefit of this bill is that it will provide a big stimulus for more affordable housing," Watt said at the time, ignoring concerns the agencies already were overexposed to low-income loans.
Such affordable housing quotas, set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, led to the insolvency and $188 billion taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, now nationalized and under the control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
As President Obama's nominee to head FHFA, Watt has dodged questions about what he would do at the helm of the powerful agency. A career politician once voted the most liberal member of Congress, Watt has gone on a charm offensive to win over Senate Republicans, who have expressed strong reservations about his pick and plan to block a floor vote on his nomination.
During a recent Senate confirmation hearing, Republicans complained Watt offered few specifics in response to questions about his plans for Fannie and Freddie.
At one point, while probing his position on mortgage principal forgiveness, they questioned his sincerity. Watt implied he would follow FHFA's current stance against loan write-downs, even though he's publicly argued in favor of them.
If Senate Republicans want to know what he might actually do, they only need to read his proposed legislation, H.R. 1427. It's at least a partial blueprint of his agenda.
In March 2007, Watt said he co-authored the bill to create a new regulatory apparatus that "will provide a means to achieve our ultimate goal of expanding the supply of affordable mortgage credit across the country."
At the time, Watt was a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and had just stepped down as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, where he'd pushed the government to boost minority homeownership.
BUY FNF -- THE REAL PLAN: Obama FHFA Pick Mel Watt's Radical Vision For Fannie
By Paul Sperry, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 07/26/2013 08:05 AM ET
President Obama announces his nominee for the Federal Housing Finance Authority director, Rep. Mel Watt, on May 1, 2013, at the White House. AP
President Obama announces his nominee for the Federal Housing Finance Authority director, Rep. Mel Watt, on May 1, 2013, at the White House. AP View Enlarged Image
A pre-crisis bill written by Democratic Rep. Mel Watt — President Obama's nod to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency — reveals that his ideas for regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are more radical than he lets on.
On the eve of the financial crisis, Watt actually proposed the creation of the regulatory agency he now seeks to run — only, he designed it not to reform Fannie and Freddie but to pressure them to underwrite even more affordable housing, exposing them to even more risk.
The bill he co-sponsored with then-banking panel Chairman Barney Frank — the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 — would have forced the federally backed mortgage giants to meet even tougher quotas for affordable lending, while contributing to an "Affordable Housing Fund" to rebuild blighted urban areas.
"The real benefit of this bill is that it will provide a big stimulus for more affordable housing," Watt said at the time, ignoring concerns the agencies already were overexposed to low-income loans.
Such affordable housing quotas, set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, led to the insolvency and $188 billion taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, now nationalized and under the control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
As President Obama's nominee to head FHFA, Watt has dodged questions about what he would do at the helm of the powerful agency. A career politician once voted the most liberal member of Congress, Watt has gone on a charm offensive to win over Senate Republicans, who have expressed strong reservations about his pick and plan to block a floor vote on his nomination.
During a recent Senate confirmation hearing, Republicans complained Watt offered few specifics in response to questions about his plans for Fannie and Freddie.
At one point, while probing his position on mortgage principal forgiveness, they questioned his sincerity. Watt implied he would follow FHFA's current stance against loan write-downs, even though he's publicly argued in favor of them.
If Senate Republicans want to know what he might actually do, they only need to read his proposed legislation, H.R. 1427. It's at least a partial blueprint of his agenda.
In March 2007, Watt said he co-authored the bill to create a new regulatory apparatus that "will provide a means to achieve our ultimate goal of expanding the supply of affordable mortgage credit across the country."
At the time, Watt was a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and had just stepped down as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, where he'd pushed the government to boost minority homeownership.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/072613-665261-mel-watt-blueprint-for-socializing-fannie-freddie-mac.htm#ixzz2aEeSKmJF
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
5.30M - Nice demand on Friday
Good deal. Remember Mr. Liscouski on our BD. Heavy, heavy DC hitter....
Robert Liscouski
Director
Mr. Liscouski is the CEO of Content Analyst, a software company that automates the analysis and categorization of large volumes unstructured text and data. He served as Assistant Secretary of Infrastructure Protection for the Department of Homeland Security, appointed by then Secretary Tom Ridge. There, he coordinated authority over the protection of all sectors of the nation's critical infrastructure, including agriculture, food, water, public health, transportation, and hazardous materials. Previously, he was the Director of Information Assurance for The Coca-Cola Company
You can not reinvent an ocean. The Securities Seas of Fannie and Fred will remain.
The field is now clear for a great run. Saddle up.
Think of the dudes at IMSC cutting new deals as we post. Go baby.
The field is now clear for great a run. Saddle up! Buggler, sound the charge.
Nice try. Guess you should have bought in earlier. Sorry dude.
This stock is like Christoph Waltz. Great but slow for that greatness to be realized. Time to buy more.
we need a sustained cash flow. we aren't their yet. soon come. all good mon.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Government Guarantee
Scott Simon
JUL 24, 2013 12:00pm ET
. .
"Let's get the government back out of housing" the cry goes. Back out of housing? Like when? The government has dominated housing policy since World War II and mortgage finance for 40 years. The only time the government didn't dominate mortgage finance was in the mid-2000's and that experiment nearly took down the entire global financial system. Is that what the privatizers want to return to?
"Conventional wisdom" says that housing finance needs to be reformed to bring back private capital, and push out the government and government-sponsored enterprises. I favor pragmatism over conventional wisdom, and therefore believe that government guaranteed mortgage backed securities and a strong GSE are not only "good" but necessary. They are good for the middle and lower classes, housing and the economy. And they don't require a massive taxpayer liability.
Let me come clean: I'm an old-fashioned Reagan Republican. I believe in small government and free markets. I also recognize the importance of initial conditions. Would I design a system from scratch that the government dominated? No. However, voters continuously elected politicians who backed the "American Dream" of homeownership, making it deeply entrenched public policy. The mortgage finance markets not only responded to this, but were explicitly designed for it.
For 40 years, the GSEs financed the rise of middle class homeownership by leveraging their implied government guarantees. The GSE's ran two businesses: guaranteeing "prime" mortgages (most people thought this was their entire business) and managing their portfolios (essentially levered hedge funds). Pressured to achieve earnings growth and maintain market share, the GSEs went off the reservation and bought hundreds of billions of garbage for their portfolios. These toxic loans caused massive losses. The GSEs didn't lose money guaranteeing prime loans. Their prime MBS guarantee business remains very profitable and is why the taxpayers who bailed them out will get their money back.
The GSEs saved the day in 2008 and 2009. Most financing markets shut down but the GSEs allowed $1 trillion of mortgages to be made. Without the GSEs, the housing collapse would have been far worse. Thanks to the government guarantee, the "agency" MBS markets continued to function when most markets seized up.
The markets we have today are set up to make and invest in guaranteed MBS. Large fixed-income investors are constrained by guidelines and ratings. As a result, government-guaranteed MBS trade at much lower yields than non-guaranteed MBS and are infinitely more liquid. This gets the homeowner a much lower mortgage rate and much better credit availability. The government guarantee also ensures a reliable source of funds to the housing market, even during crises.
Some problems with non-government guaranteed MBS: Foreign investors won't buy them; money managers are constrained by guidelines from buying them; and banks are discouraged from buying them by the capital charges under Basel III. I see no current way to restructure the housing finance market that would not require a government guarantee on MBS.
However – and please listen, fellow Republicans – a government guarantee on MBS and risk-sharing on the loans are not mutually exclusive.
While not perfect, the Corker-Warner bill in Congress brilliantly calls for government-guaranteed MBS with risk sharing on the loans. This allows the MBS to trade at very low yields, ensuring a low mortgage rate for the homeowner. It also allows the government to lay off the first-loss credit risk. Who should like this? Homeowners, mortgage investors, politicians who want the middle class to have access to reasonable mortgages and politicians who don't want the government on the hook for massive losses. This concept should garner strong bipartisan support and is a solid basis for honest reform talk.
The competing House GOP plan is disappointing. It would end mortgage availability to the middle class, end the 30-year mortgage and crush home prices. The only winners would be ideologues. To remove the guarantee without crippling damage would take decades.
There are non-debatable, economic facts in housing finance math. All other things held constant, the more the mortgage finance market is funded by private rather than government-guaranteed MBS, the higher mortgages rates, required down payments and credit scores will be; the scarcer credit will be; and the lower the homeownership rate and home prices will be. In a non-government-guaranteed MBS world, everyone from the middle class on down will pray they can get a Federal Housing Administration loan. There will be no other reasonable mortgages available.
The biggest reform hurdles are ideology and economic self-interest. The other big issue is that many involved have zero understanding of how mortgages are made and priced. The reform issues do not have "right" or "wrong" answers. They are public policy questions with foreseeable results. However, many involved seemingly don't know or don't care about those results. Ask yourself this: "beyond your political, ideological or financial self-interest, why do you want to shut down the GSEs and why do you want to end government-guaranteed MBS?"
The GSEs have massive information, skills, systems and efficiencies. They also have an incredibly profitable core business. If you want to shutter the GSEs because they lost a ton of money (for which the government will be repaid), remember that they did not lose the money on their core prime business. I would fold Freddie Mac into Fannie Mae, leaving one GSE with a single security and securitization platform and no investment portfolio, and run that GSE like a utility. The gas, electric or water companies are too important to be unregulated, as are government-guaranteed mortgages.
I believe the government should keep the GSE, though it could be privatized. I'm a conservative, but as a taxpayer I'd rather see the government make the money than a private equity firm. The MBS should be guaranteed, but the GSE should lay off the risk on the loans. This would maintain the ability to sell MBS at low rates (getting the consumer a low rate) without creating a potential governmental black hole. With a non-guaranteed MBS, the rate to the consumer would be high, and the availability low. Housing finance must serve people other than those in the upper class.
GSE and mortgage reform needs to be done in a way that makes sense, helps the country and helps the people. My conservative philosophy guides my thinking on this, it doesn't blind it. Let's hope politicians from both sides of the aisle adopt this approach.
Scott Simon retired in May after 29 years of trading all types of mortgage backed securities, the last 13 years spent as head of mortgage-backed securities at Pacific Investment Management Company
Honest Mind has lost it for now at least. Rehab is on the way!
You can't reinvent an ocean. FnF will survive!
You can't reinvent an ocean. FnF will survive!
calm down mind. read the words. rehab is coming. this has to be. FnF reputation in DC was horrible. they need rehab. and then! The model works.
THE NEW PAGE: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Government Guarantee
Scott Simon
JUL 24, 2013 12:00pm ET
. .
"Let's get the government back out of housing" the cry goes. Back out of housing? Like when? The government has dominated housing policy since World War II and mortgage finance for 40 years. The only time the government didn't dominate mortgage finance was in the mid-2000's and that experiment nearly took down the entire global financial system. Is that what the privatizers want to return to?
"Conventional wisdom" says that housing finance needs to be reformed to bring back private capital, and push out the government and government-sponsored enterprises. I favor pragmatism over conventional wisdom, and therefore believe that government guaranteed mortgage backed securities and a strong GSE are not only "good" but necessary. They are good for the middle and lower classes, housing and the economy. And they don't require a massive taxpayer liability.
Let me come clean: I'm an old-fashioned Reagan Republican. I believe in small government and free markets. I also recognize the importance of initial conditions. Would I design a system from scratch that the government dominated? No. However, voters continuously elected politicians who backed the "American Dream" of homeownership, making it deeply entrenched public policy. The mortgage finance markets not only responded to this, but were explicitly designed for it.
For 40 years, the GSEs financed the rise of middle class homeownership by leveraging their implied government guarantees. The GSE's ran two businesses: guaranteeing "prime" mortgages (most people thought this was their entire business) and managing their portfolios (essentially levered hedge funds). Pressured to achieve earnings growth and maintain market share, the GSEs went off the reservation and bought hundreds of billions of garbage for their portfolios. These toxic loans caused massive losses. The GSEs didn't lose money guaranteeing prime loans. Their prime MBS guarantee business remains very profitable and is why the taxpayers who bailed them out will get their money back.
The GSEs saved the day in 2008 and 2009. Most financing markets shut down but the GSEs allowed $1 trillion of mortgages to be made. Without the GSEs, the housing collapse would have been far worse. Thanks to the government guarantee, the "agency" MBS markets continued to function when most markets seized up.
The markets we have today are set up to make and invest in guaranteed MBS. Large fixed-income investors are constrained by guidelines and ratings. As a result, government-guaranteed MBS trade at much lower yields than non-guaranteed MBS and are infinitely more liquid. This gets the homeowner a much lower mortgage rate and much better credit availability. The government guarantee also ensures a reliable source of funds to the housing market, even during crises.
Some problems with non-government guaranteed MBS: Foreign investors won't buy them; money managers are constrained by guidelines from buying them; and banks are discouraged from buying them by the capital charges under Basel III. I see no current way to restructure the housing finance market that would not require a government guarantee on MBS.
However – and please listen, fellow Republicans – a government guarantee on MBS and risk-sharing on the loans are not mutually exclusive.
While not perfect, the Corker-Warner bill in Congress brilliantly calls for government-guaranteed MBS with risk sharing on the loans. This allows the MBS to trade at very low yields, ensuring a low mortgage rate for the homeowner. It also allows the government to lay off the first-loss credit risk. Who should like this? Homeowners, mortgage investors, politicians who want the middle class to have access to reasonable mortgages and politicians who don't want the government on the hook for massive losses. This concept should garner strong bipartisan support and is a solid basis for honest reform talk.
The competing House GOP plan is disappointing. It would end mortgage availability to the middle class, end the 30-year mortgage and crush home prices. The only winners would be ideologues. To remove the guarantee without crippling damage would take decades.
There are non-debatable, economic facts in housing finance math. All other things held constant, the more the mortgage finance market is funded by private rather than government-guaranteed MBS, the higher mortgages rates, required down payments and credit scores will be; the scarcer credit will be; and the lower the homeownership rate and home prices will be. In a non-government-guaranteed MBS world, everyone from the middle class on down will pray they can get a Federal Housing Administration loan. There will be no other reasonable mortgages available.
The biggest reform hurdles are ideology and economic self-interest. The other big issue is that many involved have zero understanding of how mortgages are made and priced. The reform issues do not have "right" or "wrong" answers. They are public policy questions with foreseeable results. However, many involved seemingly don't know or don't care about those results. Ask yourself this: "beyond your political, ideological or financial self-interest, why do you want to shut down the GSEs and why do you want to end government-guaranteed MBS?"
The GSEs have massive information, skills, systems and efficiencies. They also have an incredibly profitable core business. If you want to shutter the GSEs because they lost a ton of money (for which the government will be repaid), remember that they did not lose the money on their core prime business. I would fold Freddie Mac into Fannie Mae, leaving one GSE with a single security and securitization platform and no investment portfolio, and run that GSE like a utility. The gas, electric or water companies are too important to be unregulated, as are government-guaranteed mortgages.
I believe the government should keep the GSE, though it could be privatized. I'm a conservative, but as a taxpayer I'd rather see the government make the money than a private equity firm. The MBS should be guaranteed, but the GSE should lay off the risk on the loans. This would maintain the ability to sell MBS at low rates (getting the consumer a low rate) without creating a potential governmental black hole. With a non-guaranteed MBS, the rate to the consumer would be high, and the availability low. Housing finance must serve people other than those in the upper class.
GSE and mortgage reform needs to be done in a way that makes sense, helps the country and helps the people. My conservative philosophy guides my thinking on this, it doesn't blind it. Let's hope politicians from both sides of the aisle adopt this approach.
Scott Simon retired in May after 29 years of trading all types of mortgage backed securities, the last 13 years spent as head of mortgage-backed securities at Pacific Investment Management Company
THE NEW PAGE:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Government Guarantee
Scott Simon
JUL 24, 2013 12:00pm ET
. .
"Let's get the government back out of housing" the cry goes. Back out of housing? Like when? The government has dominated housing policy since World War II and mortgage finance for 40 years. The only time the government didn't dominate mortgage finance was in the mid-2000's and that experiment nearly took down the entire global financial system. Is that what the privatizers want to return to?
"Conventional wisdom" says that housing finance needs to be reformed to bring back private capital, and push out the government and government-sponsored enterprises. I favor pragmatism over conventional wisdom, and therefore believe that government guaranteed mortgage backed securities and a strong GSE are not only "good" but necessary. They are good for the middle and lower classes, housing and the economy. And they don't require a massive taxpayer liability.
Let me come clean: I'm an old-fashioned Reagan Republican. I believe in small government and free markets. I also recognize the importance of initial conditions. Would I design a system from scratch that the government dominated? No. However, voters continuously elected politicians who backed the "American Dream" of homeownership, making it deeply entrenched public policy. The mortgage finance markets not only responded to this, but were explicitly designed for it.
For 40 years, the GSEs financed the rise of middle class homeownership by leveraging their implied government guarantees. The GSE's ran two businesses: guaranteeing "prime" mortgages (most people thought this was their entire business) and managing their portfolios (essentially levered hedge funds). Pressured to achieve earnings growth and maintain market share, the GSEs went off the reservation and bought hundreds of billions of garbage for their portfolios. These toxic loans caused massive losses. The GSEs didn't lose money guaranteeing prime loans. Their prime MBS guarantee business remains very profitable and is why the taxpayers who bailed them out will get their money back.
The GSEs saved the day in 2008 and 2009. Most financing markets shut down but the GSEs allowed $1 trillion of mortgages to be made. Without the GSEs, the housing collapse would have been far worse. Thanks to the government guarantee, the "agency" MBS markets continued to function when most markets seized up.
The markets we have today are set up to make and invest in guaranteed MBS. Large fixed-income investors are constrained by guidelines and ratings. As a result, government-guaranteed MBS trade at much lower yields than non-guaranteed MBS and are infinitely more liquid. This gets the homeowner a much lower mortgage rate and much better credit availability. The government guarantee also ensures a reliable source of funds to the housing market, even during crises.
Some problems with non-government guaranteed MBS: Foreign investors won't buy them; money managers are constrained by guidelines from buying them; and banks are discouraged from buying them by the capital charges under Basel III. I see no current way to restructure the housing finance market that would not require a government guarantee on MBS.
However – and please listen, fellow Republicans – a government guarantee on MBS and risk-sharing on the loans are not mutually exclusive.
While not perfect, the Corker-Warner bill in Congress brilliantly calls for government-guaranteed MBS with risk sharing on the loans. This allows the MBS to trade at very low yields, ensuring a low mortgage rate for the homeowner. It also allows the government to lay off the first-loss credit risk. Who should like this? Homeowners, mortgage investors, politicians who want the middle class to have access to reasonable mortgages and politicians who don't want the government on the hook for massive losses. This concept should garner strong bipartisan support and is a solid basis for honest reform talk.
The competing House GOP plan is disappointing. It would end mortgage availability to the middle class, end the 30-year mortgage and crush home prices. The only winners would be ideologues. To remove the guarantee without crippling damage would take decades.
There are non-debatable, economic facts in housing finance math. All other things held constant, the more the mortgage finance market is funded by private rather than government-guaranteed MBS, the higher mortgages rates, required down payments and credit scores will be; the scarcer credit will be; and the lower the homeownership rate and home prices will be. In a non-government-guaranteed MBS world, everyone from the middle class on down will pray they can get a Federal Housing Administration loan. There will be no other reasonable mortgages available.
The biggest reform hurdles are ideology and economic self-interest. The other big issue is that many involved have zero understanding of how mortgages are made and priced. The reform issues do not have "right" or "wrong" answers. They are public policy questions with foreseeable results. However, many involved seemingly don't know or don't care about those results. Ask yourself this: "beyond your political, ideological or financial self-interest, why do you want to shut down the GSEs and why do you want to end government-guaranteed MBS?"
The GSEs have massive information, skills, systems and efficiencies. They also have an incredibly profitable core business. If you want to shutter the GSEs because they lost a ton of money (for which the government will be repaid), remember that they did not lose the money on their core prime business. I would fold Freddie Mac into Fannie Mae, leaving one GSE with a single security and securitization platform and no investment portfolio, and run that GSE like a utility. The gas, electric or water companies are too important to be unregulated, as are government-guaranteed mortgages.
I believe the government should keep the GSE, though it could be privatized. I'm a conservative, but as a taxpayer I'd rather see the government make the money than a private equity firm. The MBS should be guaranteed, but the GSE should lay off the risk on the loans. This would maintain the ability to sell MBS at low rates (getting the consumer a low rate) without creating a potential governmental black hole. With a non-guaranteed MBS, the rate to the consumer would be high, and the availability low. Housing finance must serve people other than those in the upper class.
GSE and mortgage reform needs to be done in a way that makes sense, helps the country and helps the people. My conservative philosophy guides my thinking on this, it doesn't blind it. Let's hope politicians from both sides of the aisle adopt this approach.
Scott Simon retired in May after 29 years of trading all types of mortgage backed securities, the last 13 years spent as head of mortgage-backed securities at Pacific Investment Management Company
WRONG. They are turning the page on the old FnF. Rehab on the way dudes.
$6 on the way. Sino stimulus. Always loved it.