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.
POWER! That's it. Policy is power. Use of our money is power.
JMO
Etrade is $4.95.
Also have Td and yeah, it's 6.95.
At these prices I don't care a bit.
I am waiting on Rop as well. It is clear cut and an easy decision to rule in our favor. It provides great cover for the judges to give us a big win because it is so obvious.
No exceptions past 2 years.
How long was he there when he signed 3rd amendment?
Answer: 3 years.
Pretty simple.
And a horrible precedent if they let that slide because no Senate confirmations will ever be needed. Hell, Sandra didn't need a confirmation I guess.
That is insane. Anyone could serve. Definitely not an independent agency and it is now turned housing into a political weapon if such a ruling would occur.
I'd be very interested in their reasoning if it goes for government and would expect an immediate appeal for such a bogus ruling.
Don't get me wrong, gov would appeal our victory as well.
They got nothing but time.
You're welcome for info.
The above is
JMO
Owl creek
Barrett
Fairholme
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 1st to October 3.
Request on August 5th.
Granted on August 8th.
Guess again! BOOM!
You're gonna do it sooner than you think.
You deserve it.
I don't know the last time I read such a lengthy post from you.
Good job. I read it to the end and yes, you got me.
Thanks for the read
My post that started this was concerning two different things.
One was pertaining to Kelly.
The other was a hypothetical case that were to directly challenge the c-ship.
So my comment about, if ruled upon, courts wouldn't be changing HERA, but instead upholding it, wasn't about Kelly really.
Anyways, just clearing that up.
Thanks for responding
JMO
You read wrong. The courts wouldn't change law, even though, didn't they kinda change it with "for cause" issue?, but anyway.
They wouldn't change c-ship part of HERA. It would be a ruling based on how it was implemented, which was illegal. The imposition of c-ship through coercion was and still is against HERA.
So, in fact, they would be upholding HERA as written when they strike at the c-ship. Allowing the c-ship to stand would be a misinterpretation of HERA and that would be changing the law.
The very thing you said they don't do, would be what they are doing by misinterpreting HERA to allow coercion, which it most certainly does not.
But who am I to think the government could make a mistake?
Or admit to it?
Thanks for your responses
Yeah, so what is your argument for some speak of statute of limitations? Or about Kelly is just for $ for himself and it wouldn't help us?
I read it as Kelly's argument was damning to the c-ship as a whole. Even if his case concerns money for his loss, wouldn't it still upend the c-ship in the pursuit of a victory for him?
Thoughts appreciated Guido.
JMO
Wouldn't the clock start when evidence was available? How would you know to challenge a c-ship that you were told was legitimate and enough years pass to clear of statute of limitations and then you could admit the secret crime?
If you are being poisoned, but are unaware until signs of serious harm and a diagnosis don't occur for 7- 10 years later when symptoms show up, wouldn't that be when you bring a case and the clock starts?
Like talc powder lawsuits? Harm was being done, but not realized until years later. Why that, but not this?
There are countless more examples of similar instances.
Also it's been the same amount of years to challenge takings at the c-ship beginning as it is the c-ship beginning. Make this make sense. Any help from anyone else reading appreciated.
Thanks
JMO
I would prefer a challenge on the c-ship alone and not for a takings because it never should have happened and I wouldn't want some corrupt B.S. to occur and have them say we are worth what it prints and get away with it.
Just a thought, but there is plenty of evidence supporting we didn't need money, or at least a case for govt having been paid principal with a predatory interest on top. So no warrants are required for gov / taxpayer profit. 10 % is more than enough.
Constructive thoughts appreciated.
Thanks
JMO
Easy add .57. Thank you "Smart money". Thank you "Mr market".
I'll be toasting to you in the not so distant future. Hopefully, not so distant.
JMO
Guido2
RE: stockanalyze post# 729992
Post# of 730003 Go
Thursday, 08/25/2022 09:00:38 PM
0
stockanalyze - No, these emails were released in 2017. We read all these back then but some things didn't register. For me the biggest was that Parrott appears to have been reporting to Brian Deese, the current Director at NEC. I strongly urge all shareholders to review them again. I'm going over them a few at a time.
https://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/resources
This is what Guido answered earlier. Should help.
We, FnF, would be paying the damages to ourselves. The gov cannot, only after finding out about damages, try and exercise warrants and steal the damages. I don't care about bs being posted. Even if you argue warrant exercise, you cannot exercise so as to be involved in this lawsuit and damages.
Funny how common owner speculation is considered foolish, but so many other far fetched scenarios out there.
So many if if if if. K.I.S.S. All these bad things are just going to happen without repercussions and while lawsuits are in motion. Oh yeah, all within 7 weeks from now before midterms to sway voters? Now who is dreaming? Not me.
Just use common sense. Pun intended.
Saying government is corrupt and have gotten their way so far is not a valid legal argument.
"Yes, your honor rule in government favor because we can do anything we want". "Ignore all laws and constitution and evidence and common sense." "We're late for tee-time"
Come on, man.
Anyways. There is more I can say, but I'm going to work right now, but wanted to respond to you.
Thanks for your responses. I appreciate your posts and input to the board. See you later.
Of course.
JMO
No. Highly unlikely. Nothing is impossible, but that's close.
Doom and gloom.
Jmo
No. Respectfully, no.
Anything is possible. It doesn't make it probable.
JMO of course.
Good to know. Thanks. I have been adding ever since my first entry. When I can and with extra cash. I don't really spend money on anything outside of investing. So maybe one day I'm retired early like you.
Thanks again
Oh, OK. Was just curious. Thanks for responding.
You're good to go buddy. You'll have no problem coming out this mess a winner. Is there any special reason for FNMAT? I've heard that ticker mentioned often.
Thanks
Are you all preferred now or mix?
If we do well in lamb court, then not only will Fannie common run pps, but FNMA common could just file their own same lawsuit. Would be a much easier path when FMCC common just won a case. You'd wait but maybe might receive a summary judgement. Or not wait that long because of the win on same claim.
I still own FNMA commons. Split between FMCC and FNMA.
Maybe 2/3 FMCC , 1/3 FNMA. It just worked out that way over the years. No strategy, but best guess would be I bought whatever was cheapest that day. I didn't have much money and so I wanted as many as I could get. My position is larger now because it is being dragged out. Otherwise I would have a fraction. Good days ahead for us all. Looking forward to it.
JMO
I can grab much more at 56 cents than 66 cents, but even more at 40cents. Do we get there? Good question. When we fell into the 40s from that large selling, I bought while I could. If gets there again, well, you get it. It is just a rare opportunity that I never thought I would get a chance at. Buying at such low prices allowed me to build a better position. I am far from well off. Sadly courts dragging a** and govt wasting time has given some, like me, the opportunity to add. I guess a silver lining.
We'll see. Still holding.
JMO
What is the importance of December 7th? I understand the certification date, and if you hold prior you are automatically in unless you opt out or sell.
But..
What if you bought FNMA PREFERRED, FMCC PREFERRED, and/ or FMCC COMMONS after December 7th?
Wouldn't the rights transfer to the new owner?
Thanks for any clarification
Yes, I'll be there. Eventually it will happen. If I didn't think so then I'd be gone.
Thanks for your reply
See this is why I ask questions. In this case, I'll assume the worst as usual.
I will get taxed 40% as a short term gain/ ordinary income.
Or.
I will get taxed long term gain capped at 20% - 25%.
(I don't know if they changed that tax yet)
Or.
I will get taxed based on some special circumstances. Like it's divided over the years so it looks and it becomes a smaller tax rate.
Or
None at all.
Prepare for the worst and Hope for the best.
JMOs
Thanks. Good news to hear.
Are you saying we wouldn't pay capital gains, short term or long term?
So:
Short term cap gain tax?: yes or no
Long term cap gain tax?: yes or no
Ordinary income tax?: yes or no
If no tax in any category, then even better.
Appreciate any response
I'm 5 for 5. Is that a record? L F G ! Commons 100%.
$6 from 60cents is significant. I never said it was enough or I was happy for $6.
Damages + sitting at $6 instead of 60cents + things should be quicker than a snail pace. Much better than this.
$200 - $300? Yes, now we're speaking the same language.
JMO
For the meantime we'd be in c-ship, but the pps would rise significantly from 55 - 60 cents pps while we wait. Plus, the c-ship coming to an end would be in sight with the win.
Damages awarded means a win. A win means higher pps and a quicker path out of c-ship.
JMO
P.S.
BOOM!
Boom! Guido. Boom!
"Smart money" means what anyway? Ackman is involved already. Is he "dumb money" for not adding? Or "dumb" for owning to begin with? Saying "smart money" isn't involved to push the price is off base a little or premature at the least.
Saying "Smart $" not being involved implies only "dumb money" is and I'm not dumb. If others would choose to wear that crown that would be their choice. Jeddie is frustrated. We all are. Nothing more. Nothing to read Into.
But I will say, if "Smart $" equals rich then we are going to be geniuses when this is over.
Anyway. JMO.
Semantics.
"Investment" ? I don't think so.
Respectfully, no.
Oh yeah, this won't fly. They'll see the emails, memos, and hear depositions/ testimony from witnesses. That will immediately call into question their credibility and integrity. It is a blatant and provable/ proven lie.
This should be good. BOOM!
Scotus ruling was based on lies. Our word vs their words. Lamb is based on evidence of truth. Witness, emails, testimonials. Plus questionable justices vs jury.
Game changer.
You're wrong. It's okay. You've been wrong before and will most certainly be wrong again.
Saying it's MY interpretation of the filing combined with trump letter implies there is more than one way to see it.
Other ways: lp conversion, warrants, both
I chose warrants, then in MY interpretation said "hey guys, since you already got a whole Lotta money you don't need to recoup anything anymore"
The end.
I just said it could be either one but unless you have proof, I interpret my way that's all. Simple.
I mention trump letter because I don't believe his language would have both warrants and sp conversion when calling this socialism. Remember it's how I see it. You don't. It's OK.
That's all. Remain calm.