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.
BMAS = BMA Securities http://www.bmasecurities.com/
he said float not AS eom
The JV is all speculation, there is no promise of news tomorrow, the random PPS calls people are making are way out, while I agree that the future looks good for this little stock its these types of comments that cause people to buy, and while that is good in the short term it is bad in the long term. These are the people who jump in expecting news the next day when it does not come they sell, they are normally looking for a quick flip and most of them will buy a significant number of shares, this will drive the price up, however when they do not see the news or its not what it's been hyped up to be by people who do not know facts about whats going on they end up jumping out just as quick, this stock is thin on the way up, its also thin on the way down.
Lets stop with the random musings of $1.00 PPS and JV with Vale until something comes to fruition, you can call me tonight and ask me if I am in a JV with Pepsi I will not deny or confirm this rumor does it make it true?
They are sitting on good stakes it seems, they seem to be moving in the right direction, lets only talk facts and not what we think. Speculation is a killer in the pink sheets and its what makes people start screaming scam this and scam that which actually drives others away.
Be careful with this stock read more about the business model they are using at http://www.scamtimes.com/?s=pacific+webworks I am not trying to sway anyone as the earnings look good but you gotta think about how they earn the money
Only if the run is sustained.
(FYI I am long at .30 average so don't think I am in a short position)
Some shorts are done 52 week high is 2.88 some shorts are still fine. Shorts are in at all types of positions. I don't believe we have seen the big cover yet.
05/04/2009 * 18:00 Q1 2009 Fannie Mae Earnings Release
Is that Universal Energy Corp or Universal Energy Group
But what if he handed you a bottle of cleaner no shares just a bottle of cleaner :) I bet that reaction would be different
Are you married because a cleaning supply is NEVER a "great gift to wife"
Yes, they are issuing 32k preferred for 800M to trusts
It will now 800M from trusts
no 37 but 36 and 38
I am going to keep accumulating that's all I know when the selling is done I want to have a very large holding
I know nothing to the point of one too many trades 2 weeks ago got me hit with PDT (pattern day trader) and a 23k margin call. I love trading in a cash account :(
I know nothing...
Thats awesome of you, I wish I was in the position to do the same
0.045 x 0.046
It moves fast when it moves.
bid: 0.038
ask: 0.045
.032 is the bid .038 is the ask if you want shares you will probably have to buy at the ask of .038
0.032 x 0.038 1x1
Just not seeing enough buying today unless they are just not filling
0.029 x 0.04 1 x 3
So thin on the ask it seems, a little more buying pressure and this will move nicely.
All I can say is thank you traders today, I just got back from the Cayman Islands after buying a starter at 0.0145 a week or so ago and come home up nicely after a good vacation. What a way to come home
only 10k
I did at 0.0145
I did not say they where, just saying they can to create market swings if they want too. They are not bound by the Short Ban
I personally think the MM's will try to hold it back today so they don't loose complete control but thats just me. Remember Market Makers can short still
But the loans that were given to these people where not by organizations that where covered under the CRA.
Basically if you could not get a checking or savings account at the organization that they get a mortgage at they are not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act.
The CRA was created to say that if you can setup a branch and take deposits from these people you should also reinvest in the community by providing loans to responsible people in the area.
1 in 4 sub prime loans where originated from CRA bound institutions. The CRA was weakened in law in the 2000-2004 session and the sub prime boom was in 2004 when the CRA had less impact.
Most of the sub prime mortgages where written by organizations that where profit based only.
I was a licensed mortgage broker in NC for a long time and I seen these loans had a first hand experience with who was and was not covered by the CRA and let me tell you out of the 100+ mortgage companies I could get a sub prime mortgage underwritten maybe 10 of them where bound by the CRA and those people needed a 600+ credit score to get underwritten by them.
Sub prime at that time was anything under a 660 fico.
However I can get a loan backed by FNM and FRE for someone in bankruptcy. FNM and FRE are not under the CRA either.
This video pushes blame but does not state true facts. Everything in this video blames the Community Reinvestment Act which basically states that if you take deposits from the poor you should also lend to them if they meet the requirements.
Now. Sub-prime mortgages are to blame for this you say. Great and I will agree to that fact however the sub prime lending was not done by the banks governed by the CRA the CRA only applied to FDIC insured banks.
Sub prime lending by break down of covered by CRA and not covered by CRA.
50% of all sub prime mortgages came from companies not bound by the CRA meaning private companies not FDIC insured. These are mortgage companies only and not deposit banks meaning I can't have a checking account from the place my mortgage is created. These companies where driven by profit margins not laws that forced them into lending.
Another 25-30% came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates that are loosely tied to the CRA.
This leads us to 1 in 4 sub prime mortgages are created by banks covered by the CRA. This does not lead us to say the CRA is the problem.
"Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.""
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
"But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened."
Here is the time line (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2815755/Timeline-The-sub-prime-mortgage-crisis.html)
"That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did."
I am all about placing blame where blame is due, however just because you don't like people who modified it does not mean you can blame them.
The blame lies in the spending of America, being driven off profit margins, living on debt instead of within your means etc. There is plenty of blame to go around but the numbers do not lie
The video you have been spamming around the past few days blames the CRA for the housing crisis. Is that your stance as well?
Good premarket up .21
I'm not going to say there is or is not manipulation but I am positive a lot of emotional trading went in
Does blame bring fixes? No, however if you want to point the blame finger that is fine blame all you want after the problem is solved.
I think the saying goes, If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
And that goes for all sides of this.
I am long too and not because I am red because I am still green but I believe this today was more emotions then anything. FNM and FRE have already been given a bailout package and FNM has not taken anything from it yet but it's still around if needed
You cant blame the CRA for everything in fact
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
http://www.imfpubs.com/issues/imfpubs_irs/19_1/news/1000008369-1.html
"The Community Reinvestment Act:
A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis
Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending
in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas"
Pretty large blocks at 1.95
4215
5785
4215
1534
1000
1000
9720
Nice volume on 1.95
Technicals are not really at play here I think technically we should have had an green day from what i am seeing but I'm not the best with charts. I think this is a news play really