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'm gonna say you're smarter than you're acting here. You just like typing crap so you get a respond. So I leave you with this
No the loan wasn't needed, and who doesn't want to pay back the loan. That loan repaid plus a few billion dollars continued to be stolen on top of that.
...and this post underscores your twisted two-sided concept of reality. In Post #321773 you state these two companies are 'claiming to be profitable', and in this post u say the swept funds being 'returned' the gov't is fair. First SWEPT FUNDS is just another way of you acknowledging the PROFITS are going to gov't. And 'returned' is a lie, how can anyone return to the gov't what the gov't never had, those profit are just being taken from the companies. You must've been a master at the game TWISTER, probably still the grand-wizard.
"...claim to be profitable.
That is so stupid, sorry I meant, STUPID. That's not even a twist that's just plain VERIFIABLE nonsense.
Even you have l have mentioned that the Government has a right (which they don't) to take/sweep/steal the FNMAs & FNMCs profits.
What's your next fabrication?
Why the federal government now holds nearly 50% of all residential mortgages
Published: Oct 16, 2015 5:46 a.m. ET
Borrowers seeking large mortgages or with weak credit may struggle Bloomberg
By Daniel Goldstein
Personal finance reporter
Mortgage lending levels are beginning to recover from the real estate crash of the Great Recession, but a large number of potential American homebuyers are still being locked out of the mortgage market.
That’s because although you may be able to get a mortgage from your bank, few outside the government want to buy it. And that makes your bank less likely to write additional loans.
When big mortgage buyers like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assume the risk of a loan, the bank or lender that makes the loan no longer has to carry the risk on its books, which means it can go out and make more loans. In addition, when private buyers, like investment banks and hedge funds, buy riskier loans that pay higher interest, known as private label securitization, the banks that originally sold the mortgages can continue lending to less-than-perfect borrowers.
Most Americans might not know a mortgage-backed security from a credit-default swap, but they probably know why the mortgage market helped cause the crash in the U.S. economy in 2008. Banks sold risky home loans that should never have been drawn up to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggest backers of residential mortgages, as well as private investors like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. When those mortgage loans defaulted, the collapse of Fannie, Freddie and the private investment banks soon followed.
Now, nearly 10 years after the start of the collapse, the mortgage market is on more solid footing, with foreclosures down and lending up, but the private buyers of mortgages, such as hedge funds, bond funds and investment banks, are still wary from being burned in the last crash, so they’re buying less than 10% of the mortgages they did a decade ago.
Stress in the office? Try yoga and massages(2:48)
As a result, government-sponsored enterprises have to buy up the majority of the loans to create liquidity in the market. According to the Housing Finance Policy Center of the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., the private label securitization market was valued at $718 billion in 2007 and plunged to just $59 billion in 2008. It is valued at just above $64 billion today.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can only buy residential mortgages up to $417,000 for most of the country (and $625,500 in certain areas), so for larger loans and subprime loans, banks must hold the remainder of the residential mortgage market, and thus are less likely to make riskier loans.
That means the federal government is shouldering more than $5 trillion in mortgage risk out of a residential mortgage market of about $11 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. That’s close to 50%, and up from 40% in 2007. By comparison, only 7% of residential loans were federally guaranteed in 1981, according to the New York Fed.
“Many investors don’t believe there is enough protection to make it worthwhile to invest in mortgage-backed securities,” David Stevens, the president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, the main Washington, D.C., lobbying group for the mortgage industry, said in an interview.
The continued disinterest in private label mortgage backed securities in today’s environment is contributing to the slow recovery, he said, because banks are unwilling to write riskier loans that can’t be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. ‘What that means is that the community bank that has a long relationship with perhaps a self-employed businessman who they know well, they can’t get him a loan, because nobody in the private markets wants to purchase that loan.”
And Laurie Goodman, the director of the Housing Finance Policy Center, wrote in a blog post last week: “The loss of the PLS market could render mortgage securitization an exclusively government-sponsored activity and lock borrowers who need larger loans or have less than pristine credit out of lending.”
Thus, banks that make these types of loans have but two choices: Keep the loans on their books (so-called portfolio lending), which increases risk for the bank if the loan goes bad, or find a private buyer who will trade the higher-risk of poorer quality loans for the higher interest rate payments, which even today can be as high as 7% or 8%.
So what has to be fixed? Goodman laid out some suggestions in a report last month, which included, among other things, better servicing standards, meaning that the investor knows when a loan is modified with a new rate or when delinquent payments are piling up.
And when it comes to buying mortgage-backed securities, investors should: Read. The. Fine. Print. “When investors bought a deal before the crisis, they read the deal summary but not the prospectus,” Goodman said.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-federal-government-now-holds-nearly-50-of-all-residential-mortgages-2015-10-16?link=MW_home_latest_news
Did they say Fannie or Freddie? or hint the GSEs were part of the bank group?
Here's One; Not that it'll make a difference to you...Maxine Waters
Your Answer/Understanding/Reasoning is Rubbish...
Paragraph 1, you state FNMA doesn't provide mortgages; it isnt the originator of the mortgages. (Banks complete the mortgages then sell the 'paper' to FNMA)
Paragraph 2, you said people that 'qualified' for loans before the bubble burst really couldn't afford them. So you DO understand that the BANKS gave mortgages to unqualified people then KNOWINGLY resold those worthless 'papers' to FNMA to get them off their book so they don't have the worthless 'papers' when they explode. This was done when the Gov't force FNMA to accept the worthless 'papers' because the Gov't feared that if the public knew the actual condition of the banks the economy would've been in a worst state.
Stop reading old data, update your research. The GSEs did NOT need a bail out!
Ben Bernanke will be on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert tonight.
Ben Bernanke: More execs should have gone to jail for causing Great Recession
WASHINGTON — This season, Ben Bernanke was able to sit through an entire Nationals game.
During the financial meltdown in 2008, the then-chairman of the Federal Reserve would buy a lemonade and head to his seats two rows back from the Washington Nationals dugout, a respite from crisis. But often he would find himself huddling in the quiet of the stadium's first-aid station or an empty stairwell for consultations on his BlackBerry about whatever economic catastrophe was looming.
"I think there was a reasonably good chance that, barring stabilization of the financial system, that we could have gone into a 1930s-style depression," he says now in an interview with USA TODAY. "The panic that hit us was enormous — I think the worst in U.S. history."
With publication of his memoir, The Courage to Act, on Tuesday by W.W. Norton & Co., Bernanke has some thoughts about what went right and what went wrong. For one thing, he says that more corporate executives should have gone to jail for their misdeeds. The Justice Department and other law-enforcement agencies focused on indicting or threatening to indict financial firms, he notes, "but it would have been my preference to have more investigation of individual action, since obviously everything what went wrong or was illegal was done by some individual, not by an abstract firm."
He also offers a detailed rebuttal to critics who argue the government could and should have done more to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy in the worst weekend of a tumultuous time. "We were very, very determined not to let it collapse," he says. "But we were out of bullets at that point."
Still, he does acknowledge some missteps by the Fed. Analysts were slow to realize just how serious the economic downturn would become, and he faults himself for not doing more to explain to Americans why it was in their interests to rescue the financial firms that had helped cause it.
"Every time I saw a bumper sticker which said, 'Where's my bailout?' it hurt," he told Capital Download.
© Provided by USA Today
That is a rare admission of emotion. Former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once described Bernanke as the Buddha of central banking, his demeanor impassive even during disaster. In the 2011 HBO movie Too Big To Fail, actor Paul Giamatti won a Screen Actors Guild award for his portrayal of the Fed chairman as restrained in all things, from his soft-spoken speech to his choice of oatmeal for breakfast. In comparison, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson seemed almost volcanic.
Not that Bernanke, who retired from the Fed last year, would know about that. He hasn't seen the movie. "I read the book, but I like to say I saw the original, so it wasn't necessary to see the movie," he says.
Will he ever watch it? "If there's nothing else on," he shrugs, "maybe so."
© Provided by USA Today
The Paradox of Shoes
Bernanke has been interested in the Great Depression since his grandmother told him stories about it from her front porch in Charlotte, N.C., during quiet summer evenings. Her family had been living in Norwich, Conn., where some children went to school in worn-out shoes or even barefoot because their fathers lost their jobs when the shoe factories closed. That meant their families didn't have enough money to buy shoes — which presumably would have kept the factories in business and their fathers employed.
"Even a small boy could see the paradox," he says.
He grew up in tiny Dillon, S.C., a farming town on the Little Pee Dee river. His mother taught school. His father was a pharmacist in the drugstore his grandfather had opened after moving there from New York City in the wake of the stock-market crash of 1929. Bernanke went to Harvard, earned his doctorate at MIT, taught at Stanford and ended up heading the economics department at Princeton.
President George W. Bush named Bernanke to be a governor on the Fed in 2002, then appointed him to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2005. The next year, Bernanke was back at the Fed, succeeding Alan Greenspan as chairman. President Obama appointed him to a second four-year term as chairman in 2010.
Balding and with a neatly trimmed beard, Bernanke has never lost his professorial air and modest mien. He still lives on Capitol Hill with his wife, Anna, who founded the non-profit Chance Academy to help city kids who are being home-schooled. He walks the dog, does crossword puzzles and reads three or four books a week on his Kindle — books of all sorts. In the previous week or so, that included a new annotated edition of Alice in Wonderland; Beyond Words, on the social lives of animals; and the latest Lee Child thriller, Make Me.
© Provided by USA Today
His scholarly interest in the forces that caused and prolonged the Great Depression wasn't the reason Bush picked him to come to Washington, but it turned out to be serendipitous.
"When I became chairman, the first thing I did was ask the staff was to dust off the playbooks and see what we had and what the planning was," he said in an interview at the Brookings Institution, the Washington think tank where he is now a distinguished fellow. At the time, few saw a financial calamity on the horizon. "Once we identified what was going on and understood how to take into account (the fact that) we were in a very different financial system than we had been 100 years earlier, that history was very helpful for me in thinking about having to address the panic."
He wrote the memoir by collecting and reviewing the emails he sent and received during the crisis, perhaps 150 of them a day, a real-time reminder of what was happening. (As chairman, he used a Fed email account but with a pseudonym, Edward Quince, a name that was then listed in the Fed phone book as a member of the security team.)
It reminded him of World War II's North Africa campaign that author Rick Atkinson detailed in An Army at Dawn.
"The main impression you get is how complex and chaotic warfare is, how many things go wrong, how many things fail to work the way you expected them to," he says. "At the end, of course, what counts is ... did the allies succeed in taking North Africa? Looking back on the financial crisis and the period after the crisis, it was a very chaotic period; lots of things went wrong. But I guess in the end we obviously did stabilize the system and the U.S. economy is now growing."
The decision about whether to prosecute individuals wasn't up to him, he says. "The Fed is not a law-enforcement agency," he says. "The Department of Justice and others are responsible for that, and a lot of their efforts have been to indict or threaten to indict financial firms. Now a financial firm is of course a legal fiction; it's not a person. You can't put a financial firm in jail."
He would have favored more individual accountability. "While you want to do everything you can to fix corporations that have bad cultures and encourage bad behavior — and the Fed was very much engaged in doing that — obviously illegal acts ultimately are done by individuals, not by legal fictions."
What the Fed was focused on was trying to prevent the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. His academic studies concluded that the Fed's failure to act more decisively and creatively worsened that crisis nine decades ago. This time, he was determined take any steps he could fathom to try to keep a devastating downturn from getting even worse. That approach prompted Time Magazine in 2009 to name him "Person of the Year" and "the most powerful nerd on the planet."
One early step, in 2008, was to push interest rates nearly down to zero — which is where they have stayed ever since. The current Fed, led by successor Janet Yellen, last month pulled back from indications it was ready to begin raising them again. "We didn't think it would take that long," Bernanke says — that seven years later, interest rates would still be near zero.
Is it time to raise them?
"You know, the last thing I want to do is second-guessing Janet Yellen, who I think is doing a really good job and making some tough calls. But clearly there are some tough decisions to make on how to manage policy at this point, and this is a very important juncture."
© Provided by USA Today
'He Won't Swing'
Bernanke loves baseball for the same reason he chose economics as his profession: the power and clarity of numbers.
"The numbers are so concrete," he says in a conversation in the Nats press box before a game against the Miami Marlins on a sunny afternoon last month. "In baseball, you've got all the data going back to the 1880s for all the players, and if you understand how to use numbers, it makes it come alive."
He watches the game with the same impassive manner and attention to detail that must have marked his tenure at Fed deliberations. Wearing jeans and a worn blue-gray Nats cap, he doesn't shout and rarely cheers, but he does politely clap when a Nats player gets a hit or the team leaves the field.
"He won't swing," Bernanke predicts as Yunel Escobar faces a 3-2 count. Escobar, who led the league in batting into double plays, has been excoriated in baseball blogs in recent days for doing just that even though star hitter Bryce Harper would have been up next. This time, as predicted, Escobar doesn't swing and gets a walk.
"It's time for Harper to get something," Bernanke says in the next inning as the right-fielder comes up to bat. Done: He hits a home run.
In 2012, in a favorite moment as Fed chairman, Bernanke was invited to watch the Washington Nationals' batting practice on the field before a game. He was surprised when right-fielder Jayson Werth asked him, "So what's the scoop on quantitative easing?" the Fed's effort to boost the economy by pumping in new money. Bernanke writes, "Then I recalled that Werth was playing under a seven-year, $126 million contract, which gave him some interest in financial matters."
At this game, as Werth heads into the dugout after the top of the first inning, he gives Bernanke a tip of his cap.
Bernanke beams.
Oh, and the Nats won, 5-2.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ben-bernanke-more-execs-should-have-gone-to-jail-for-causing-great-recession/ar-AAf5liQ?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=mailsignoutmd
Ed Demarco’s Fight Against Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/ed-demarcos-fight-against-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/2/
Is that 'read' pronounced REED or RED...
I'm assuming RED as in past tense, because no one is talking about wind down, NOW. So as usual your talk of FNMA is wrong, and referencing OLD political talking points, not OLD facts just OLD political talking points. FNMA is going no where, your comments/predictions have been wrong from the beginning, BTW, my .25 still look pretty. Why don't you do like most ppl who are 'along4zride'...just sit back, zip the lip and enjoy the scenery....Cause its getting prettier by the day. Down days are just buying opportunities in my mind.
Hey 'along4' how many weekends have passed since we were at $.25, yet FNMA is still here.
Time will show you're not along4zride, you're just wrong4zride
Holding tight to my .25s 26s & 28s, this extended holding is easy once you know you shall prevail.
WOW...I just peeped and my .25, .29 and
.30 look lovely also.
I think 'they' are watching my orders to mess with me. Order in for 2,95 from yesterday. this morning it touches 2.96 and head back up. If I change to $3+ it'll probably fill then drop to $2.93 then I'll scream. Ok, its still early so let me go to the basement for my crystal ball to see if its working or needs upgrading
LOL...Too Funny
They don't want to look for the truth
They don't want to accept the truth
They are to lazy to do their work, but they accept the song of their 'leaders' (political or otherwise)
Who Thinks Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Can Become Adequately Capitalized?
Posted By: VW StaffPosted date: February 11, 2015 12:02:56 PMIn: PoliticsNo Comments
A managing director at Graham Fisher & Co. has authored a paper that makes clear the stunning the knots U.S. Treasury and Federal Housing Finance Agency officials are tying themselves into to keep Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) undercapitalized and under the government’s thumb. Joshua Rosner, one of the first analysts to sound alarms about the GSEs a decade ago, tears apart all the double-talk and assertions that have been made lately.
The paper is so perfectly titled “FHFA: The Little Agency That Could (But Hasn’t).”
Rosner first tackles two of the biggest underlying currents in Washington, DC: 1, more than year out, the presidential election is already looming large over the landscape; and 2, the outgoing Administration is shifting into full legacy mode and, as Rosner writes, officials are looking to “cleanse the Administration’s record regarding unfinished business on mortgage market reform.” Rosner then pounces on the salient point that the Administration is hiding behind: the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement between FHFA and the Treasury simply cannot trump federal law. That is antithetical to U.S. legal system; also referred to as, you know, the Constitution!
So what part of the law is being violated? It’s a dangerous misinterpretation of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) that requires the conservator (FHFA) to ensure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized. But as Rosner writes:
“Still, six years after the GSEs were placed into conservatorship under HERA, the regulator has made no effort to take the actions required by the statute ‘to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition’ or to ‘conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.’ … FHFA as conservator has become the biggest opponent of such plans to restore the capital of the GSEs.”
But, as we all know, the Third Amendment Sweep is diverting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac income into the general Treasury fund instead of being held for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making it impossible for them to become “sound and solvent.”
And then Rosner hits us with the very real and very scary implications of this willful misinterpretation of HERA:
“[I]f the GSEs were unable to become adequately capitalized, they would be at risk of mandatory receivership when the Treasury backstop agreement ends in 2018. As a result, the entire mortgage system could fail and the ensuing systemic risk would be impossible for financial markets, the government and the country to ignore.”
It’s like bureaucrats never learn their lessons. You can’t take two entities that underpin nearly 20 percent of the U.S. housing sector, lock them up and expect that nothing bad will happen. Aside from the constitutional crisis this sets up with agency officials deciding to interpret laws how they see fit rather than how Congress wrote and intended them to function, taxpayers are at enormous risk the longer this goes on.
LINK
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/02/thinks-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-can-become-adequately-capitalized/
Hearing entitled “The Future of Housing in America: Oversight of the Federal Housing Administration”
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:00 AM in HVC-210 of the House Visitors’ Center
Full Committee
The Honorable Julian Castro, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
LINK
http://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398666
House GOP Wants to Know What DOJ Did With $36B in Bank Fines
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/09/republicans-suspect-doj-gave-money-bank-fines-liberal-groups
Thanks for your insight IGlow. I knew, a few months back, the talk was that RC wouldn't do any 'wrong' cause it may jeapordize his name in the MJ sector since he had more to lose with his Cannibus Institute. Thinking back, the posters for the events/conferences usually had R.C. of CCI.
But with Robert being replaced from GRCU with 'GOOD' parting words plus whatever financial gain he got, I'm sure good gains and GRCU is down significantly.
Oh well only time will tell i guess.
Thanks for the info Delta
GM, I stepped away from the board for several months, what happened to Robert Calkin? I googled his name and it popped up with him teaching a class in California, January 2015, with no mention of Green Cures. Is he gone toatally from the company, if so when?
Thanks!!
Great!!! Most on the board greatly appreciates that, except those that constantly Cheerlead, scream Slap the Ask, scream 'going up now' or renending 'Fins coming out SOON or ON TIME'.
Perfect, I was wondering if someone could go visit the address I got from JAY's own email. The following is our Email and Response. The address I got was different to the one u listed the phone number I had was disconnected and with the phone number from Jay I get some poor old man answering. I never got a new phone number. Let us know what you find. Pics would be nice.
On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:04 PM, j d <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Metroplex Acquisition
Greetings Jay,
Trying to do some research on the newest company that was acquired recently, Metroplex Commercial Pools.
1) Is this company currently operational, the phone number is says disconnected.
2) Are the earnings over $2,000,000 from this award winning company from 2013-2014 or from in the 1990's?
3) What is current physical address of Metroplex Commercial Pools the one I found is
1612 N Yale Blvd
Richardson, TX 75081-2121
4) How much more companies are to be acquired before AVEW is operational building pools, fences?
5) What is being done to raise the pps? It has steadly fallen eventhough some 'shareholders' are very very positive and opptomistic?
I will greatly appreciate a response and anxiously await it.
Thank You,
JD
Re: Metroplex Acquisition
Jay Ling (jay_ling@hotmail.com) Add to contacts 11:23 AM
To: j d
jay_ling@hotmail.com
1. Yes the Metroplex is operational and has sales approximately $3 million, not earnings. The company does no marketing and exists from referrals and an architect and contractor base of clients. We said in the press release we are adding personnel. The new people will initiate a marketing and expansion program for this company.
2. Numbers stated in the press release are accurate.
3. 1400 Summit in Plano, TX is the current address.
4. AVEW currently has 4 pools under construction through Austin Premier Pools & Spas division. Three fence contracts under Austin Kustom Fence and our pending acquisition of Kustom Fence N.B. is running four to five crews doing over 300 jobs/year.
5. We are building a company here and are very young. I would hope that the price of our stock will eventually reflect the values we are building and will build in the future.
Regards,
Jay Ling
'Soon' is relative. Is there a specific date?
Who found info on this 35 year old company; Metroplex Commercial Pools. So far found this...
http://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/swimming-pool-service-and-repair/metroplex-commercial-pools-in-richardson-tx-21002707#
I hear ya, that was just middle of the night laziness on my part. Revisions and new emails will go out. Thanks for the insight.
Let's see what this week has in store for FNMA?
I emailed the following to...
CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley
Face The Nation
60 Minutes
@ CBS Audience Services Feedback
http://audienceservices.cbs.com/feedback/feedback.htm
Greetings...
An issue to consider for broadcast/investigation is the treatment of the housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two publically traded companies were 'forced' to take $187Billion dollars from the federal government at the beginning of the Housing crisis. Since then they have paid the federal government back the $187 Billion PLUS an additional $36Billion and the Treasury continues to sweep ALL the profit from of the companies to the US Treasury.
Why is the Media refusing to even discuss / address the GOVT ILLEGALLY STEALING ALL GSE PROFITS from the SHAREHOLDERS of Fannie and Freddie! Not allowing them to RECAPITALIZE !!! The Govt is IGNORING their LEGAL JOB as CONSERVATOR of Fannie and Freddie !
Sweeping ALL profits into the TREASURY The loan has been repaid in FULL with INTEREST!
STOP the ILLEGAL SWEEP! ... even Maxine Waters has said publicly
THE LOAN has BEEN REPAID to taxpayers
Sincerely,
DJ
Bostonsesco
Unfortunate Opportunity!! Its a Buy Opportunity nonetheless!
I hear ya...He responsible for causing it to go to those crazy high prices...So, how dare he try to take credit for it coming down to the affordable prices right?!!!!!!!!!
Well Said...
$$FNMA$$
Get Ready to Add More?!!! Hey I didn't get the memo to STOP adding. I've been adding whenever possible especially on dips....LOL
$FNMA
__________________________________________________________________
WildTwins Sunday, 12/14/14 01:10:19 PM
Re: None
Post # of 273423
i think we're in a pretty good position right now, possibly one final shakedown before bombshell news, get ready to add more everyone
__________________________________________________________________
Just make sure you write a draft or two, proof-read, then SPELL check your 'scaving' report.
You chose that loss by choice...(kinda redundant). People its only a loss IF you sell, but like the great KING just said other than that its just a FEELING. Some felt bad it want down to 2.02 yesterday but I'm sure they feel better that it hit 2.29 today. Don't let they feeling get in the way, be confident in your position and stay long if that's your CHOICE.
NOTE: Its not a loss until you sell, don't be swayed by the half truths and scare tactics.
Happy for ya, nonetheless on that same joyous note, some, I'm sure quite a few ppl in here got on board at .28, .26, .30 and similar numbers so they are still comfortable and know what they own and are looking for the happy returns down the road. Like everything else in life there are different roads to get to the same destination, Keep driving.