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.
Good morning obiterdictum,
Good Morning not one red cent,
you'll have to contact an Administrator. I did forward it to them but the request has to come directly from you.
Sorry I couldn't help this time.
Sent the request to an Administrator. Thank you for assisting once again.
Have a great weekend.
And the same to you NORC.
Thanks for the ideas.
My pleasure.
I think the purchase price is an average.
Ditto. When share quantity is divided into share cost the purchase price rounds to what is listed. The order size, type of order, time of order, price, and execution method are not available. The total number of shares purchased on one day also is not the major portion of shares traded on that day. Tough to sort it all out.
I am trying to figure out how to take advantage of their actions, instead of seeing the price being manipulated.
Your research can help. Please share. What trading platform do you favor? Do you use a stock market simulator to practice?
You are always welcome ano!
I tried to work out how they manipulate the price for share accumulation. They will test the market with some loaded selling (say 12K). When they find out at a certain price, there is no buying. They will push the price down as much as they can. Sometimes, this can be 3-4%. Then, they will start buying at low volume at that price. It works in last few days until Friday.
To further support your calculations, consider the daily share purchases by four subsidiaries of William Ackman's Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. Trading Data is listed below and taken from sec.gov SC 13D filings.
The day, the quantity of shares and price per share for the quantity purchased is given.
A selected day or days on an a minute, 5 min, 15 min, 30 min, or hourly chart can be examined to see when the price matches Ackman's share purchase price and how long the price remained. Then the lower and higher prices before and after the purchase price can be examined to see price movements. Some of the purchases are large in the millions of shares by all four subsidiaries and thus the price action can be noted using actual large share accumulation over a number of days.
Tick data is also useful but seems a bit hard now to obtain for free as it was a number of years ago.
One observation made about this specific trading data (Ackman) is that with large accumulation of shares on consecutive days of trading the price increases as accumulation goes forward.
FNMA Trading Data
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dex992.htm
FMCC Trading Data
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000119312513443208/d630961dex992.htm
FMCC SC 13D Filing
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443208/0001193125-13-443208-index.htm
FNMA SC 13D Filing
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443212/0001193125-13-443212-index.htm
SEILA LAW LLC V. CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU
The motion of United States House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time is granted. The motion of Alan B. Morrison for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
obiter, thanks for the post I'm replying to and my early post on possible settlement talks.
You are welcome, Sir.
If I may continue to respectfully ask for your time in this matter, and more specifically to your reply to ano, do you believe the GSEs can be released from conservatorship, allowed to operate privately with FHFA oversight, with outstanding legal issues being pursued in parallel?
So the GSEs can moved forward to normalcy re business operations, normal business valuations, etc., while court cases continue to resolution.
Interested in your reply and thanks as usual for your time.
The FHFA and Treasury in mutual agreement can release the GSEs from the conservatorships, and the GSEs will be able to operate under an FHFA consent order and their federal charters while there are pending legal proceedings.
Are you sure about this date? that's tomorrow
so because
OBIT:
Do YOU think this can be settled either using ADR, or otherwise?
No. The case continues with the Defendants fighting tooth and nail against the Plaintiffs and both parties agreed to go to trial. Barring miracles, both parties will fight to the end.
I suggest that it can. While each side has its own agenda, there could well be a happy medium where both the government and shareholders are happy.
Example: Shareholders are interested in 2 ultimate outcomes, bottom line:
1. Increase in PPS.
2. Likeliness of future dividends to shareholders.
The government has a different agenda. While the governement's preference is to simply use FNMA as a forever piggy bank, that possibility seems to have ended with recent decisions, such as the fifth circuit, and Mnuchin agrees, permitting the GSE's to retain 25 billion in capital. Munchin has publicly stated when the GSE's reach that 25 billion, they meet the threshold for release.
I turn to the issue of "velocity of money". Remember, when shareholders profit, they pay taxes on profits. Further, these shareholders will spend some of this money, invest the rest. These funds spent, will again be taxed. More on the velocity of money is here: https://inflationdata.com/articles/2011/09/17/velocity-of-money/
If velocity of money is 7, this means that a billion dollars to shareholders would be taxed 7 times in a year. If the average taxpayer pays 15 percent to the IRS, this means that the government would actually profit.
In this example, 1 bn times .15 equals 150 million. And 150 million times 7 (velocity of money) equals 1050 million (1.05 billion). This means the government actually profits, in a year, by returning at least a portion of the monies confiscated in the NWS.
Given the velocity of money, its clear the government should settle with shareholders. And, my guess is that SOMEONE in the government is smart enough to figure this out.
think it is this one https://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-cv-01053-0089-10-30-18.pdf
Case 1:13-cv-01053-RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18
(4) Whether there is a realistic possibility of settling the case.
Plaintiffs’ Position: This is an action for money damages, and Plaintiffs believe that there is a realistic possibility of settling the case.
Defendants’ Position: Defendants do not believe there is a realistic possibility of settling the case.
(5) Whether the case could benefit from the Court’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures (or some other form of ADR); what related steps should be taken to facilitate such ADR; and whether counsel have discussed ADR and their response to this provision with their clients.
Plaintiffs’ Position: Given that they believe there is a reasonable probability for settlement, Plaintiffs believe the case could benefit from ADR procedures such as mediation. Plaintiffs’ counsel have discussed ADR and their response to this provision with their clients. While Plaintiffs believe that ADR procedures could be useful, they do not believe that proceedings in the case should be delayed during the pendency of any such procedures.
Defendants’ Position: Defendants do not believe ADR would be productive
1. This document is clear evidence that there is no settlement in progress for this case.
Defendants’ Position: Defendants do not believe there is a realistic possibility of settling the case.
Defendants’ Position: Defendants do not believe ADR would be productive
2. This joint document agreed to by the parties, proposed that the Court set a firm trial date of October 19, 2020.
3. The Parties proposed an amended schedule on July 30, 2019:
1. Fact discovery shall close on November 26, 2019
2. The deadline for seeking leave to add additional parties or amend the pleadings in 30 days after the close of fact discovery.
3. Regarding expert discovery:
a. Plaintiffs’ expert witness reports shall be produced by January 31, 2020.
b. Depositions of Plaintiffs’ experts shall be conducted by February 28, 2020.
c. Defendants’ rebuttal expert reports shall be produced by March 31, 2020;
and
d. All expert discovery, including depositions of Defendants’ experts, shall be completed by April 30, 2020.
4. Regarding class certification:
a. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due on January 31, 2020.
b. Defendants’ opposition is due on March 31, 2020.
c. Plaintiffs’ reply is due on May 14, 2020.
5. Regarding motions for summary judgment:
a. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment on or before May 29, 2020.
b. Plaintiffs’ response and cross-motion for summary judgment is due 30 days after the filing of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment;
c. Defendants’ reply and response is due 30 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’
response and cross-motion for summary judgment; and
d. Plaintiffs reply is due 14 days after the filing of Defendants’ response.
6. Trial is set for October 19, 2020, or at the Court’s earliest convenience thereafter, with a pretrial conference 30 to 60 days beforehand, the exact date to be set later.
Source:
JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
https://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/13-mc-01288-0112.pdf
How can your fifth amendment right be dismissed by a court without hearing the dispute first?
The dispute has been heard and has been ongoing with amended complaint and case consolidation since 2013. A Defendant motion to dismiss is not uncommon. During the upcoming oral arguments, Plaintiffs and Defendants arguments will be aired verbally.
Why would procedural rules of the court trump a fifth amendment claim?
These are ordinary procedural rules that civil cases pass through. US Court of Federal Claims also has rules. See Rule 12 for basic procedural rules - https://bit.ly/35NwWmG
The claims have been presented in briefs. The Defendants presented their opposition in briefs and both can request motions for summary judgment or dismissal...
Here are the Plaintiffs counts and the Defendants argument titles used to mount their dismissal motion - https://bit.ly/35GDRhg
Seems a motion to dismiss a fifth amendment claim shouldnt even be allowed. After all its not a real court, there is no trial. The judges are not even in the judiciary. They work at the pleasure of the administration.
US Court of Federal Claims is a court with federal judges nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate and who serve 15-year terms. There are also Senior Judges who are retired, federal judges.
The USCFC judges are appointed under Article 1 of the US Constitution (not Article III) and thus do not serve in the Supreme Court of the United States, the thirteen US Courts of Appeal, the ninety-four US District Courts or the Court of International Trade.
Article 1 judges serve in the:
US Court of Federal Claims
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
US Tax Court
US Bankruptcy Courts
US Territorial Courts in the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Yes, there are no jury trials.
See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-7
The Court of Federal Claims should be unconstitutional.
May it be asked what is the reason for that judgment?
So much for checks and balances for citizens.
Yes. Legal raw deals are abundant. And then, consider the judicial conditions, the civil and criminal justice systems, in other countries.
Probably get another ruling of no damages like in the AIG warrant ruling. Judge Sweeny was nice to give us discovery, but the idea that we are still waiting to see if she will dismiss the fifth amendment right of the plaintiffs is a miscarriage of justice.
Judge Sweeney cannot dismiss a constitutional right. If she dismisses the case, she is dismissing a claim against the US. The 5th amendment right for not taking property without just compensation remains. Besides, the case can be appealed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Takings claims arise from the Constitution itself no need for all this nonsense. The discovery should have been used by the Judge to decide the claim already. The 1980s law that created this monstrosity needs to be struck down as soon as possible as unconstitutional.
Here is the law mentioned:
The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-96/pdf/STATUTE-96-Pg25.pdf
Here is the Amended and Redacted Fairholme et al. Complaint
PUBLIC REDACTED AMENDED COMPLAINT
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0404.pdf
Here is the motion to dismiss:
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-465-0421.pdf
obiter, thanks again
You are welcome.
- one last q for the night. Do you believe settlement talks are currently happening...
I do not know. At the moment, there are no empirical, observable indications that there are settlement talks occurring. Are there any empirical, observable indications that currently there are settlement talks are in process? Which case or cases are having settlement talks?
...and do you believe if there is a settlement common shareholder’s via existing legal representation will have significant influence on a settlement structure?
Which common shareholders? Common shareholders who are currently plaintiffs making claims and requesting specific and different prayers of relief in different courts vs. common shareholders who are not plaintiffs in any of the current cases?
Please clarify the question. Please add specifics.
obiter, thanks!
You are welcome.
Collins has received an appellate opinion via the 5th circuit. Bhatti will probably require ~6 months for the 8th circuit to render an opinion. What is the anticipated timeframe for Fairholme and which circuit are they in?
Yes. However, Collins did not receive a final ruling. Collins has been remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for summary judgment or trial by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc.
Fairholme is scheduled for oral arguments in the US Court of Federal Claims. Chief Judge Sweeney ordered oral arguments to be presented on the motion to dismiss on November 19, 2019, at 9:00 AM. Time to completion can be considered after a verdict is rendered on the Defendants motion to dismiss.
The US Court of Federal Claims has a nation-wide jurisdiction over monetary claims related disputes. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
obiter, do you think the “may” vs “shall” interpretation can be determined outside the scope of conservatorship vs receivership responsibilities?
Yes. There are cases where “may” vs “shall” has been interpreted outside the scope of conservatorship. However, there does not seem to be a judicial precedent that decides the meaning of the words for all cases. The meaning and interpretation of use depend on context and the intelligence of attorneys and judges. Contrary arguments are made.
In the 5th Circuit En Banc opinion, they represented the argument of “may” and “shall” within the context of conservatorship and receivership responsibilities.
It would more in line with the Plaintiffs' argument to use the words "powers" rather than"responsibilities," which has a different denotation and connotation than "powers". "Powers" also is the word used throughout HERA's FHFA related statutory provisions. So the argument is within the context of "general powers," "directed powers" "incidental powers" "limited, enumerated powers," "statutory powers," "conservator powers," "receiver powers."
Do you believe the 8th circuit will take the same approach and look at the definition of the terms in line with C and R responsibilities?
No. As mentioned previously, Thompson argues that there is no intelligible principle within HERA to guide FHFA in the exercise of its conservatorship powers. For Thompson, Congress failed to articulate an intelligible principle to guide the FHFA and so with that failure in place the FHFA as conservator takes on "sweeping operational authority over the Companies and unbounded discretion to dispose of their assets." The brief argument is made in 20-24, pp. 7-9 (https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Bhatti/17-cv-02185-0027.pdf) and resembles the oral argument noted previously.
Possibly providing an opinion on the conflict of the NWS and conservatorship?
If Bhatti is successful in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel's opinion and ruling can be inserted into other cases, if usable, as was the 5th Circuit en banc decision via filing a Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority or inserted into an amended complaint, if wanted and allowed.
I’m hopeful the 5th circuit opinion representing the conflict of “may” and conservatorship is how other courts will interpret the FHFA charter. The premise being the director “possibly” acting at their discretion instead of “shall” act within the context of the NWS being at odds with the current and historical responsibility of a conservator, which is to preserve capital.
The NWS does not align with the responsibilities of a conservator.
I’m sure there are several approaches to forming an opinion based on the arguments and admittedly I have not read them all. Even if I did I’m not sure it would aid in predicting an outcome. Interested to hear your thoughts.
In the cases discussed, there are three different approaches determined in part by the attorneys' strategies to overcome the Defendants' claims to sweeping, extraordinary, and unchecked conservator powers to do as they like: HERA's lack of intelligible principle to guide FHFA (Bhatti), HERA's context that requires and mandates FHFA to preserve and conserve (Fairholme) and that “may” is a grant of power that enables FHFA to act and so that FHFA as conservator may not exercise a power beyond the ones granted (Collins). Three cases and three future outcomes. Time will tell.
The entire market is not accurate much of the time
That does not negate the way things "get priced "
The market (on average) tries to sense what the future will bring in terms of earnings (rate of growth etc.)
With that guess - estimate - math derived number - for an existing stock the environment is sort of known and the number of shares is known and magi presto - a price
For FNMA this is not possible at the moment in any shape fashion of form which is why I hope for a $20 stock in 2 years and worry - on occasion - that I am overpaying or have too many shares -- at 3.50 a share
The questions asked were not answered.
What will be the market at 4:00 pm EST today? Can that question be answered at this moment 2:30 pm EST? What formula will be used to determine market cap at 4:00 pm EST? What PPS value will be used?
So here is a rant for argument's sake.
The daily price per share on a stock is not a derived number. It is a resultant number that comes from active trading in a market venue over a period of time.
Trading is based fundamentally on what a trader or investor is willing to pay for a share of stock. The price of a stock increases or decreases or trades in a range or sideways or ... based on the sentiment and/or calculations of traders and investors and their trading and no trading actions.
There is no singular entity called "market" that decides. The "market" is simply a mass of individuals who in their homes, on their phones, tablets, and computers in work offices, in corporate offices, etc. make trades at a price they are willing to pay by sentiment and/or calculation. That mass of individuals is moved, more or less, by all the influences and conditions that affect their sentiment and/or calculations and motivating them to trade or not at an observed share price.
The GSE stock prices are a result of the sentiment and/or calculations made under changing political, economic, legal, regulatory, etc. conditions and influences. Certainly the current share price does not reflect the financial fundamentals of the GSEs in the same way Apple's share price does not reflect Apples fundamentals. The GSE stock for the past 6 years has been trading in conditions of uncertainty and a price range between $1.00 and $4.00 that has been greatly determined by relevant not baked in positive and negative news and events related to making the future statuses of the GSEs uncertain (e.g. Obama, Corker-Warner "wind down" rhetoric after May 20, 2013) or more certain statuses going forward (e.g. 5th Circuit en banc panel decisions on September 6, 2019). Look at the decreasing and increasing share price changes on stock charts under those conditions of uncertainty ("wind down") and certainty ("court victory").
The highs and lows in trading as seen on the chart do not last but settle into range until there other news and events. Eventually the trading behavior underlying the mountain range and valley deep chart will fade as certainty builds.
Relevant Anecdote
Not buying or selling
In an interview with CNBC this morning, Buffett suggested that Apple is too expensive at current prices for him to be interested in picking up more shares. However, that doesn't mean that the Oracle of Omaha necessarily thinks shares are overvalued or that he's interested in selling some of Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE:BRK-A) (NYSE:BRK-B) Apple position.
"Apple, I don't see myself selling -- the lower it goes, the better I like it, obviously," Buffett told the outlet. Curiously, Berkshire didn't buy any shares in the fourth quarter even as Apple suffered a relentless pullback, losing 30% of its value over the course of three months. "It's really not back to where -- it may have very briefly got there," Buffett said, referring to a valuation at which he would consider picking up more shares. "If it were cheaper, we'd be buying it. We aren't buying it here." https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-thinks-apple-is-too-expensive.aspx
You are welcome JusticeWillWin.
I got a gut feeling, this isn't just shorts covering
Yes. But who is buying, selling, covering short positions, etc.
The OTC Market is not transparent to retail using Level 1 data. It is less opaque when using Level II data since the Market Participant (Maker) IDs (MPIDs) can be seen, but it is not visible as to who is buying and selling by routing through the MPIDs. The OTC market MPs buy for and sell out of their own inventories in addition to being brokers/dealers and intermediaries for brokers/dealers traded and the trades of their retail clients.
For example, last month's total OTC trade volume for FNMA was 320,827,012 shares. We can know the number of shares traded by each registered MP.
Go to https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/monthlyShareVolume
Enter: FNMA
Select Month: September 2019
Select: All OTC
Sort to find largest trade volume - Click MP volume
Choose the MP with the largest number of shares traded (CITADEL SECURITIES LLC 65,510,831 shares traded - 20.4% of the total volume of trades).
How many shares are traded by Citadel for Citadel as MP?
How many shares are routed through Citadel by brokers/dealers trading their own inventory.
How many shares are routed through Citadel by brokers/dealers trading client (your) inventory?
How much does Citadel pay per share to brokers/dealers to route trades to them?
Discover order routing
Search Google - rule 606 report "Charles Schwab" or "etrade" or "TD Ameritrade" or.....
For example, Charles Schwab is paid by MPs (Citadel (CDEL) for order flow to Citadel. Order flow is broker/dealers routing shares to be bought and sold to MPs and various market venues and being paid per share to do so. Send your trades to me and I will pay you an average of $0.0015 per share depending on.....
Charles Schwab order routing https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/important_notices/material_aspects.html
TD Ameritrade order routing
https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/AMTD2054.pdf
Even doing this will not reveal who is trading and how they are trading: day, short-term, shorting, momentum, prop shops, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc.
Actual short interest is found at:
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest. Best to view this on the day it published. It is reported every two weeks and takes about 7 days to appear. Here is the schedule: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/short-interest/short-interest-reporting-due-dates
Many MPs violate FINRA and SEC rules. Do a check.
Find a FINRA broker check File - Go https://brokercheck.finra.org/
Select: FIRM
Enter Name: CITADEL SECURITIES LLC
Select: Detailed Report - find all violations, etc.
https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/firm/firm_116797.pdf
For information on a MP:
Visit their web site. https://www.citadelsecurities.com/
Explore the web site - https://www.citadelsecurities.com/about-citadel-securities/
https://www.citadelsecurities.com/products/equities-and-options/
Hi Obi - I think since 2010 there is a new legal wording rule for the wording "Shall" not to use anymore because it allows two different interpretations as binding and/or optional depending on the individual views and therefore instead to use the wording "Must" to have only one possible interpretation.
Yes. The above refers to the Plain Writing Act of 2010. This public law (111-274) is only related to federal executive agencies. The act's purpose is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies [Executive] to the public by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.
The law cannot be used in judicial review and is unenforceable by any administrative or judicial action. Thus the act is not binding on the legislative branch that makes federal laws such as HERA or the operations of the Judiciary.
obiter, thank you again!
You are welcome RumplePigSkin.
Thanks Obiter.
You are always welcome Patswill.
Trump stated when he took office that it was a mess, and I guess he was referring to more than just Washington DC
It is not easy to know what is in President Trump's mind. But there is a mess and it will take time to clean it up. At least, the mess is being looked at with some planning to clean it up and some dusting and sweeping is being done. Certainly this is better than in the past.
yes if A = B then B will = A
the job now is to try and estimate total corporate value (NPV of future earnings/dividends) and estimate total number of common shares
then value in dollars is the market cap
and the PPS is the market cap divided by number of shares
at least that is how I learned it
PE is a derived number
PPS is a derived number
Please answer: What will be the market at 4:00 pm EST today? Can that question be answered at this moment 2:30 pm EST? What formula will be used to determine market cap at 4:00 pm EST? What PPS value will be used?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everything is derived (a derivative of) the sum of expected future stream of earnings (some model with dividends but that confuses me) - discounted to today (NPV) (that is why rate of earnings growth estimates are critical to new IPO stocks in most cases) ---
divide the NPV (sum) by shares
So will we have 1.2B or 5B or 10B shares etc.
And what is the scope of work - market - that will be left and what will be the cost of a guarantee or re insurance etc.
Is this materially any different than what has actually happened? There are several cases in the USCFC seeking just what you describe, and the Perry case seems to cover the last paragraph.
In terms of existing complaints? No.
Thanks. So after all that, were they queried in any way regarding the statements of $450 billion and perhaps another $250 billion needed?
No. The judges listened to the oral arguments, asked questions and thanked the attorneys.
Any thoughts on :
This is speculation. No comment.
Nice work, obiter.
Thank you RumplePigSkin.
How did the 5th circuit rule on the interpretation of “may”
The 5th Circuit en banc did not rule on the interpretation of "may." The majority in their arguments for reversing the dismissal and remanding Count 1 to the District Court, provided an opinion. The argument centers on the powers granted to the FHFA, which is found on pages 28-37. The majority concludes explicitly on "may:"
yes. the purchaser aka treasury.. surely is going to throw away $100B+
i think not.
As you know, the outcome of a positive Judge Atlas decision on 6.12 (declare this Agreement null and void...) was not suggested.
What is thought here does not matter. Those with actual knowledge, authority and power to decide to invoke or deny 6.12, in either direction (to void or not to void) will act as they will under the conditions that appear, be that a court order, a lack of one, some necessity or lack of compelling need.
Time will tell.
All of these items, Let's start at ending conservatorship & NWS
Ending the conservatorship and NWS requires 1) sets of political, economic, legal and regulatory processes with many different persons, institutions and external factors that are 2) not under the control of the main determiners, Calabria and Mnuchin. So it is difficult to estimate a calendrical date for the end of the total mess. With consideration of each set of processes involved, a different date can be made. Since those processes are not given here, no end date can be speculated.
The Purchaser can already declare the whole Cship Null and void. Guess who is the ‘Purchaser’...
No need to guess. Treasury is the Purchaser.
Yes, 6.12 is most applicable, and really in the words of En Banc regarding the 3rd Amendment ‘provision’ already 6.12 has been triggered. So.....
6.12 is not yet triggered. The 5th Circuit en banc gave Judge Atlas the gun and she has not yet pulled the trigger.
Ah, Rudolf Otto enters the Fannie Mae mixer. Takes me back to Comparative Religion and Dante in Latin in my days of old, carrying musty smelling tomes to class.
What a memory!
Well, that personal memory reveals your longevity...certainly to a time long ago when education included learning the classics of human thought.
And yes, Rudolph Otto combined these Latin words into an expression that referred to the encounter with a numinous Diety.
However, these Latin words have no necessary religious or spiritual denotation or connotation in the manner that Otto employed them.
See: https://bit.ly/2Mmu3kQ
Otto's connotation is his making of it, which was then followed by herds of theologians, academics, spiritualists, religious writers, and so on.
Here, mysterium tremendum et fascinans has no religious or spiritual connotation. The expression simply refers to the experience of speculatively venturing into that which cannot be known with certainty (the precise future statuses of the GSEs - mysterium) that can be attended alternately with both awe and inspiration and anxiety or fear (tremendum et fascinans) that one's (significant) amount of cash may or may not go the way of the dodo if the speculation turns out to be either a cash development event or cash extinction event.
Door number 4...
The door leading to mysterium tremendum et fascinans (a fearful and fascinating mystery).
Thanks Rick.
So ,,that's great news......getting close to the end of this total mess?
An answer to that question depends on what is envisioned as the end of this total mess.
What is the end of this total mess?
Is the end when the GSEs exit the conservatorships and are partially capitalized and laboring under an FHFA imposed consent orders, amended SPSPAs, unresolved litigations, and intact federal charters?
Is the end when the GSEs exit the conservatorships, become fully and operational without an FHFA imposed consent order, amended SPSPAs, pending litigation, and federal charters?
Is the end when the Treasury Housing Reform Plan's administrative and legislative actions are completed?
Is the end when......(fill it in).
Each of these speculative ends or others made offers different speculative timelines to completion.
Which one is it?
Thanks then the PPS should get a pretty good bump by the end of the year with more retained earnings from the no sweep and what is projected to be another good quarter on next earnings. Glta
Perhaps. That information is already anticipated. There will be retained earnings by federal fiat. There will be positive earnings by the GSEs. How much is not known. These future outcomes will not surprising or newsworthy when they happen and at that time the GSEs will still be controlled by FHFA and Treasury.
Share price depends on the sentiment and/or calculations of traders and investors.
At the moment, there is a lot talking, complaining, speculating, litigating while the federal government continues with its conservatorships, reform plans, financial interventions, and company controls. These conditions are not attractive.
However, as these poor conditions incrementally change, as the GSEs gradually move away from all this into conducting operations in the secondary mortgage market without government controls, there will be substantial increases in PPS brought on by investors willing to pay more per share than presently and to hold those shares for long term value and dividends.
From 2013 till 2019, the GSEs common stocks have traded in an observable range that momentarily bumped up above $4.00 or down to $1.00 with news and events - earnings reports, political announcements, failed legislative moves, court rulings, FHFA determinations, baseless rumors, speculations, media sabotage, and so on. The same is occurring now with the exceptions that under this administration, unlike the previous two, the freeing of the GSEs is making slow, publicly observable headway. With the 5th circuit en banc decisions, litigation is making headway. There is a reported housing boom and so the GSEs are making headway. So GSEs market tone heard now is better than ever before.
Not dividend. the market cap devided by the number of shares came out to just about the closing PPS today.like I said maybe juke a fluke
Yes, it should come out exactly like the closing PPS.
The market cap number ($4.06 billion rounded up) is made multiplying today's closing price per share ($3.505) by the number of outstanding shares (1,158,087,567).
So if the number of outstanding shares is divided into the market cap number, the answer will be $3.505.
It is not a coincidence or a fluke.
The PPS is simply the result of what traders and investors are willing to pay for a single share of stock, whatever stock there is.