Thank you for that response. We are on the same team. I'm not as privy with the legalities of this situation, and I always appreciate what people have to say in bringing to light what I am unable to process on my own.

I'm just sick of the sociopaths. But you're right that there is no sense in me posting about it; it won't change a darn thing--just like the squabbles of this board have zero influence on the outcome of what really occurs with Fannie and Freddie.

I don't ever chant prices. I just like to call out the dirt on the board.

I'm just a random, normal person who has invested in this stock and peruses the board. I don't use weasel words like you to try to psyche people out.

You're full of it. You're the one trying to manipulate.

It is correcting... upwards, no?

Even with dilution, the stock price is discounted. We have the stock price of a left-for-dead company. Dilution or not, the upside is massive.

I believe it is the exact words of Otting transcribed from the newly acquired audio of last week's meeting. Rumor now confirmed as truth.

Shabam!

Just stahp.

Yeah, I still couldn't find what I once saw, so I have no support for my statements in the end. The more I read again, the more I see the government did set themselves up to steal a ton of ownership away.

One thing I saw that was peculiar was this (from the 2009 Fannie Mae 10K - bottom of Page 27):

"If the market price of one share of our common stock is greater than the exercise price, then, instead of paying the exercise
price, Treasury may elect to receive shares equal to the value of the warrant (or portion thereof being canceled) pursuant to the formula specified in the warrant."

Can someone explain this to me?

I disagree. The warrants were never meant to be exercised. I really wish I could find what I read once-upon-a-time on fhfa.gov. They truly did say it themselves. They were collateral against the loan amount.

Where does it talk about the warrants in HERA? I was trying to find it right now and couldn't find the word "warrants" anywhere. Maybe they state it another way? I would like to read that part. Thank you!

What I saw was also on fhfa.gov. I can't find it now, and with the narrative they currently have, I'm sure they removed it. The verbiage stated that the warrants were only as collateral if the businesses failed so that the government could recoup losses. This was probably back in 2010 or so and was one of the main reasons I invested.

Invest as you see fit. I have.

I don't believe that FAQ you shared for one second; it's another manipulation piece just like these last 10 years have been. The narrative has so many layers of manipulation that even people on our side (Ackman, Rosner) state that the warrants can be exercised, not knowing that they themselves have had the truth twisted within them.

I still chuckle at the people arguing against this. This was the way the warrants were designed from the VERY BEGINNING. There was even verbiage stating this exact fact. EVERYONE and ANYONE saying otherwise are/is only playing a game to manipulate the stock price.

If you recall, during this run-up, some of us posters were saying that someone knows something. Well, they did; they knew about the Otting statements/intentions before they were public. I have never seen so much insider trading. They bought the rumor, sold the news. The run should be occurring now, but I guess it already happened for this news. I'm hoping it still bakes into peoples' brains next week, and then hopefully we get some new statements.

You should read up on it (investigate it) before posting about it. I'm pretty sure this whole board has, so it makes your comment a bit naive.

You just proved your irrelevancy by posting this.

You probably should have posted this earlier... would have been relevant for a few minutes.

I have to agree with you. Some of us are pointing out that this is all speculation, but, what we forget is that in the past the speculation has gone the other way as well. This stock's price began to plummet from highs before announcements of lawsuit decisions were made. The speculation was in the direction of the unknown news. Someone always knows before the public.

Just an ascending triangle, no? Could definitely continue.

He does not do that, technically or otherwise. He should not be a mod.

We all want a direct statement from Trump regarding this situation, but it's pretty obvious that is a form letter. Someone who said he/she wants to provide all feral cats access to clean water receptacles would have received the same thing.

Come on. You two have been watching this stock as much as anyone. It can gain 20 cents in hours just as fast as it can lose it in those same hours. It goes both ways, equally. It went from under $2 to over $6 in a matter days once, while the bleed back down under $2 took weeks.

No one is dreaming; it is fact that the prices are there to see. Whether they mean anything or not is a completely different speculation.

Schwab has FNMA close at $1.64 and FNMAS close at $6.83 as well.

The MSN Money after hours uptick continues. 15% up on the commons and 20% on S preferred.

Fairholme Funds case will be brought to the Supreme Court conference on 2/16/2018.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-591.html

No one answered my question or seems to have seen this last night. Does this mean the Supreme Court will issue an opinion on the case?

So this means the Supreme Court will issue an opinion on this case?!

I'm not kidding, and it hasn't done this all of the time. It has done this a ton in the last month--more than I ever noticed before.

What's going on when the price keeps bouncing up and down around 1 cent? It looks like it is being suppressed.

This same thing was happening on our drop from the high $2 area until the huge drop. There were several days where this type of action was occurring.

I've been watching this stock since 2014 and I don't remember this happening before.

June 2, 2017... Why post this?

Anyone else think there may be news after the close today?

Here's that Business Insider article:
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-20-companies-with-the-most-profit-per-employee-2017-12

That's like saying you are still single once you get married because they were both true at one time. Times change. Thoughts change. Intentions change.

It is not relevant--and severely misleading--when Mel Watt more recently (September 29, 2017 specifically) mentioned the possibility of a buffer.

Mel Watt's letter to Sherrod Brown:
https://twitter.com/donotlose/status/913821295443415040

August 10, 2017...

We need housing reform, not GSE reform... Watt and the GSE CEOs have said multiple times that the GSEs have already been reformed.

This is all a stupid dog and pony show.

There is housing reform, there is GSE reform, and there is the matter of the GSEs exiting the conservatorship. The AJP is about the GSEs exiting the conservatorship and has nothing to do with GSE reform (which is done) or housing reform (in the broader sense).

New letter from Watt about the buffer and--separately, but also today--testimony from Ben Carson.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents//SOHUD_Testimony_House_Financial_Services_Committee.pdf

"We are now entering the 10th year of the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, being placed into conservatorship, which is much too long for this issue to remain unresolved."

Movement today explained.