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.
Re the new news today
yuk - and now its late
but - it does seem like nonsense - seriously IMO nonsense in terms of proving ill intent or whatever
Personally - what bothered me for a while - but I did nothing - is Girsky was there for the shit Milton did
So I thought Milton figured he had nothing to lose and was going to go back and back and back in time
This is ugly - but the relative recency and the wording that management scapegoated MILTON says this is very distracting unfriendly SMOKE -- to me
At this point - I can hold as it is already viewed by me as 100% 2-3 years out speculative that can go to zero
Holding back on my instinct to add more - based on similar history experience with dreams
But what I have in it - that stays -- FOR ME (retired with Social Social Pension and enough in cash and index funds to last us)
and yes - when I said "preparing - fiduciary" ---- I mean NKLA knows the first round will be a no vote and then may or may not be needed by then
Thank you - I think you or ? did post a link and I copied a key part
Bummer
It could be NKLA preparing - fiduciary level preparation - but it is ugly to read
Hey -- is that an accusation of "motivation"
?
I own both FNMA and FMCC - common and JPS
I worry about dilution of massive proportion or I would be all common
Not trying to influence anyone - but I do consistently note that WTS are not the overhang to worry about
take care
Our refocused business model and financial discipline has focused on the efficient allocation of resources, reduced expenses, and increased liquidity. But there is work to be done. And as we move forward into 2024, we must focus on resetting our financial foundation. We need to eliminate the distraction of delisting and position ourselves to raise capital more effectively.
To achieve these goals, after extensive research and modeling, we are recommending that the stockholders vote FOR a reverse stock split of our common stock at a ratio ranging from 1 share-for-10 shares up to a ratio of 1 share-for-30 shares. Additionally, commensurate with the reverse stock split is a reduction of the number of authorized shares of our common stock from 1,600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000.
(Thank you)
I can not walk the steps of reducing to 1B ---- but I guess if they go 1-30 -- they have 300-400 MM shares so 1B is a huge amount of space ? Is that it ?
link please to official announcement of such vote (I do not mean to insult - but I just read where the CEO said that is not on the table now )
Hey
if I thought such conversion dilution was very likely - I would not own any FNMA and FMCC common
I do own common - on BET there will not be a conversion and massive dilution --------- but it can happen . The biggest logic for no conversion of SP to common is ---- as simple --- as it is NOT needed !!! It is just as doable to note 300B for 190B - paid off - gone . I think of it as 50-50 on most days
THE ACTION
The finding of GOV acting illegally was the key and maybe a building block to build on
The cash is a rounding error
link for 200B without verification
GOV did allow -- as I secured some $75,000 for a not for profit - those below 99K - who attested to doing it right (in essence 85% or so to workers not fired because this money was available) - did not VERIFY --- whatever that word means -- ? VERIFY? And that would be about 20B as i recall with IMO 95% of it kosher . There were some major thieves and the trials are under way - 100% fake/bogus and in millions
the money for immigrants -- suggested in context as payments to them - ???? EXCEED Social Security ?
Are people crazy --- that is 660 Billion as with a B !! 660 Billion ------- (and some 80% from a dedicated tax and the rest from a dedicated trust fund ) . Where would anyone fin 660 B
And then VA budget -330B for this year ---- so the comment says - without hesitation - more than 1 Trillion dollars
Come on people --- I am >70 and I know how to look up things on the net for honest simple answers. Those much younger = posting in a world where data is a click away - should find truth before spreading lies that anger people with bull --- we are spending 1T on immigrants
anyone with an idea for the really bad open?
How ?
2021 ?
Interesting
Let me add a tiny bit
re the phrase - copied - Per wiki (best and quickest reference I have), because the agency is run by a single director and not a panel, the agency is no longer an independent federal agency
While I think that the sentence from Wiki takes a few "steps of logic" that may be misdirected
I do remember - WHERE an agency has a panel (committee - commission) the President does not have direct authority --- and FHFA did not and does not have such committee-panel and thus it was "incorrect" to also not allow POTUS hire and fire
to be re listed we need to be a "free company"
you have every right to be skeptical of the GOV #s
I trust them when they said 9% and now when they say 3.5%
Re GOLD as the anti inflation ---- I agree that Gold is considered a hedge against inflation, but as I understood it the correlation was not very tight
Here is the "answer" from Co Pilot - Edge AI search --- on Is Gold a good inflation hedge
Gold’s Historical Track Record:
1970s: During the U.S. inflation surge in the 1970s (average annual inflation around 8.8%), gold delivered an impressive 35% annual return.
Post-1970s: However, gold’s performance since then has been mixed:
From 1980 to 1984 (average inflation 6.5%), gold prices fell 10% annually on average. (DNU - I guess there was no inflation ??)
From 1988 to 1991 (average inflation about 4.6%), gold prices declined approximately 7.6% per year.
Not Always a Perfect Hedge:
Informative EDITORIAL
As I remember it - Sallie Mae was a quasi GSE of sorts - doing tons of brokering of loans (by banks) and charging 1% on each (charging the GOV 1% for the brokering)
but - as even the article notes - the GOV did the guarantee now Sallie Mae
So Sallie Mae (which likely at some point took on risk??) kept on being part of the lending but made 1% for doing nothing that direct lending could not do --- as GOV always had the liability !!! and by the time BO made the changes all Sallie Mae did for 1% is broker (where no one needed a broker)
Editorial plays around with this point but beats up on BO by noting how much the direct lending went up ---- without noting the main reason DIRECT LENDIGN went up which is the GOV got out of the indirect business of paying others to find banks to loan money ---- and making 1% for being a worthless non risk taking middle man
Somewhere between the above and the editorial lies the truth but it almost sounds like some EXEC who lost their Sallie Mae cushy job due to BO saving all of 1% of a Trillion
bogus numbers --- as the inflation rate should be next to growth in wages
E.G. Last three years inflation is 18% and growth in wages is 15% - net 3%
(far more painful if inflation for 3 years is say 9% -- but wage growth is zero)
And if anyone invested their retirement in any one equity - then they need to share the blame when and if it blows up. Way too many stories of death of company equity - tons of stories. I have not looked for this exact 15 year period -- but what if you were 10% in F and F of various sorts and 45% in S and P and 45% in QQQ
answer - you would be rich
Warrants not important RELATIVE to potential forced conversion of 200B LP unto common
so no one can answer
WTS take us from 1B to 5B - all ok as we likely have PPS of 15-30
but imagine 100B common shares due to LP conversion to common stock ?
no
I think it super wise politics --- same as stoking anger against minoirities
BUT --- I also suggested a way to reduce housing carrying costs
And if you think those students are gettting something you do not get ---- then please stop riding on FEDERAL roads or buying from Small Businesses or LARGE AG companies ----------------------- as all of those were paid for mostly by others
tell me you are in the top income tax bracket - max - and I am wrong . All the rest - the 95% - are subsidized in some visible and non visible ways ---
You have the internet - go searching for who subsidizes who with F and F working - with FDIC ? in general The top bracket pays a ton in taxes --- but still - relative to pre Ronald Reagan it is not much of a burden (i.e. it would not reduce work or output if we moved rates up on the top bracket ---- even if they are already subsidizing the rest - 95% - of us. In all events F and F have been stolen and somehow neither D nor R fix it. And many of us would be glad to go back to honest debate of deficits and taxation and if F and F should be public utilities and such --- but we are stopped by the noise of political tricks and made up crisis.
equivocation ??? (maybe a softer friendlier capitalism?)
anyway - you are correct -- at some point in time --- especially !!! if such increase can be hidden - prices rise
But - to believe that is 100% - is to argue that lower interest rates ---- FED action etc. - does not help borrowers
That prices went up when interest rates were 3% to fully compensate for the lower interest rate
That did not happen --- the cost to carry a purchase of a house goes down when interest rates drop ---- as we have free markets in housing and mortgages - and some one will not INCREASE price to the max (equivalent) --- and cost goes down (and then competition comes in)
Yes - I 100% believe that lower INPUT costs reduce end prices ----- albeit not a 100% transfer
How about a loan to buy a house ---- available only because GOV created the Fannie Mae Agency --- which created the 30 year mortgage
Imagine if that GOV idea and agency had never been helped along
NOPE
I assume RE prices do not (as a result) increase
The cost to carry -- the monthly burden of cash and the hurdle a borrower needs to go over - will decrease and as a result - owning - at same price - is true real dollars cheaper per month
ok ?
B x A (size) over at otcmarkets suggests next 30 minutes are green?
TIME --- Today where it was clear CPI is stubborn here - and shelter is one major reason - TIME FOR Executive ORDER - good for us in long term and good for America now
Many here - ok - SOME here - argue JOE should use F and F to fight shelter inflation etc.
Some like me argue it does not have to be (an honest) HUGE impact move --- but make the PR and NEWS LARGE and LARGER !!! on some real move (let the debate rage after the headlines!!)
What pushed me today - is reading today where one bank economist said in a report ---- time for FED to lower interest rates - now and in size - to lower the cost of shelter via the lower mortgage rates ---- as that is one of the most stubborn parts of the CPI not coming down
interesting - contrarian - but logical ? - argument --- WE NEED lower mortgage rates now is the take away !!!! ----- come on WH !!!
So - with F and F seriously profitable --- (i.e. able to absorb a few flat or even red quarters) ---- JOE (r u listening at Treasury and FHFA?) should eliminate the FEE that F and F charges to "transact" (to buy the mortgage paper they make into MBS paper). I forget the exact amount of that fee in % - but I think that is about 1/2% or ?
So - since this "stuff" is hyper sensitive to a tenth of a percent ----- why not announce a NEW FEDERAL initiative using the GOV's conservatorship powers over F and F --- to suspend (no retroactivity) the FEE - the entire FEE for 12 months !!! and do huge massive and larger PR ??
Really?
People are refinancing say 8% mortgage interest rate lock ins?
WTF --- where were they for 10 years ---
Not attacking you --- but the logic of that article is not clear to me ---- NOR is the rise in the data which is real ?
Were people asleep for 5++ years ?
yup
fair is fair
I like the GOV program to reduce or kill TOO MUCH interest that has accumulated on loans
And the same IMO should be doable - with an EO - for us !!!
That is because - putting aside dividends and interest "owed" --- it is 300B to Treasury for 200B to F and F
God Damn it - just declare paid up -- (someone from somewhere will sue - so fight that in court for 10 years while F and F PPS is 5)
FEDERAL ?
I think - in Chicago - the mayor is trying to combo private sector and private $ with some GOV ease of regulation and $ to convert 4 specific buildings downtown
No article about this effort mentioned FEDERAL GOV
Good info from the last --- stock review - ?
for example if correct - losing 100MM a quarter with 400-500MM cash - so one more equity raise? (What might BEV inventory sales do to monthly loss)
and - this - ?? ~400 total truck deliveries this year, - WOW
At first - I thought - unfortunately a great way to set up for failure !!! But the word TOTAL likely includes BEV --- so maybe the true target most want for NKLA this year is 300 H trucks - or at minimum 75 in last quarter?
There is some cost to the ACA ---- mostly by expanding Medicaid. I can easily see 12Billion
It is not universal health care in the Bernie or Elizabeth or even HRC way --- as the non Medicaid side is 20 million people insured by private companies. And on the Medicaid side - almost all of it is private HMO and PPO run stuff
Now ---- how many rural hospitals have been saved ? And how many associated jobs ?
Now re that 12B cost in a sentence that suggests the ACA (which on the non Medicaid expansion side is 95% individual coverage of people who work) -- let put that in perspective
Medicare last year cost well over 900B !!!
if the ACA is costing 12B ? ---- the odds are that the internal paid for insurance via taxes and premiums is likely 300B
300B care for 12B -- not bad. That is why more than half the R states that said we will never expand Medicaid to working people have done so.
And that just about finished up the money left in the Medicare Trust Fund from prior years. About 60B or so
Summary - ACA has helped a lot of people get good health insurance without surprises of --- oops there is a $5K limit on benefits or oops - we do not cover that disease. The subsidies and then the Medicaid expansion cost money but a TON of taxes were enacted . Compare that to Republican Part D - the Rx insurance for >65 Medicare beneficiaries that had zero taxes associated.
oops
that makes more sense for 1.3Trillion
Yet - one wonders - given that amount to invest ---- how they find NKLA ---- but likely it is from their focus on climate
Stay Optimistic
100% wrong
ACA got a ton of funding -- massive
HUGE CANARD that refuses to die
Kill it
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-changes-did-the-affordable-care-act-make#:~:text=Tax%20changes%20were%20an%20important%20component%20of%20the,budget%20deficit%2C%20and%20the%20distribution%20of%20after-tax%20income.
so
great
time to exit the reorganization
Research analysts at Wolfe Research began coverage on shares of Nikola (NASDAQ:NKLA - Get Free Report) in a research note issued on Tuesday, Benzinga reports. The brokerage set a "peer perform" rating on the stock.
Other research analysts also recently issued reports about the company. Robert W. Baird began coverage on Nikola in a research note on Wednesday, January 24th. They issued an "outperform" rating and a $2.00 price objective on the stock. DA Davidson reaffirmed a "neutral" rating and issued a $1.00 target price on shares of Nikola in a report on Tuesday, March 5th.
Read Our Latest Research Report on Nikola
I love it
Do you think "they" even know they have $109,000 in NKLA ?
(the other amounts ---- seriously larger but bluntly not that impressive for 1.3T?) How do you invest 1.3T and have "only" 40MM $ of value in something like MSFT?
Summary
1.4 TRILLION !!!!
Very interested in "climate"
thus - a bunch of NKLA?
To me this is the most interesting institutional holder --- by size and ?
Norges Bank • 12/31/2023 • 107,033,812 Shares
A bunch of the other large holders - a lot - produce ETFs or Funds with all stocks or such and MUST buy and the amount grows with the # outstanding
but this Norges Bank - unless it has some time to European ? index type funds -? ---- STANDS alone
If anyone has their report or evaluation - that would be great to read
True
But - why should that matter
Honestly --- the PPS is pushed up or down by Supply and Demand - based on factors we do not see !!
Through the CRT Program
I thought that broke even ----- and that the "value or logic or correctness" of such a program can ONLY be determined say 2-3 years later (if some one keeps track) by how many loans (now NOT insured by FNMA which is "out of it") - go bad ?
Again - I assume a set of loans - likely not so great ones - are sold at DISCOUNT to third parties to transfer the risk
So there is some hit on a BS basis upfront if the above is correct --- but a whole bunch of risk of loss is moved away from FNMA
so it then becomes loss on sale at discount ---- v savings by not holding the risk on bad loans that turn up in the Tranche?