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.
On heels of AirCorkerOne TN flight, interesting. Maybe a little worrisome even, so soon after the love fest with Corker.
Just by seeing his share count and dollar amount invested and doing the math. It's probably close but not 100% accurate and these are delayed reports anyway
Ackmans's avg price= $2.72 now, apparently.
That's how congressmen use their (legal) InsiderTrading abilities.
A few yrs ago they passed a law disallowing themselves from insider trading, in an election yr. Then a few months after the election, they changed it back to the way it was prior to the election, meaning they could once again perform insider trading without fear of any consequences other than getting rich off of trading on tickers in industries affected by bills proposed in...congress! This is (partly) how and why they are truly criminals. And c'mon? Do you think Yellen, for example isn't doing the same thing? Putting on positions before announcing interest rates and regulations policies? The minutes just released from a Fed Reserve meeting 5 years ago features new chairman Powell explaining that the Fed ITSELF has a "short volatility position" and raised questions about moves that would threaten that position! The Fed is trading derivatives like volatility, when they have only a simple two pronged mandate. Criminals. If anyone here has studied Roman history, you will recognize our entire government as a completely failed mess of pure, saturated corruption to the point where it's a joke. They don't even read the bills! They trade the markets based on scary bills THEY propose! They are immune from prosecution for laundering foreign money or being "grossly negligent" with national security information. They use OUR money to settle sexual harassment claims! They routinely get caught spending campaign money on themselves. They rig markets. They use their power to enrich themselves. They create entire branches of government that are unconstitutional (CFPB was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal judge, FHFA has same structure and is thus also unconstitutional, I've heard arguments Homeland Security is also). They double and even triple tax the same earnings/income (they even tax you for dying). They spend our great grandchildrens' tax revenues before they're even born! And they use social issues and soap-opera style drama and "narrative" to distract us from seeing all that, and knowing what they do, and to divide us so they can conquer us. Wake up, those of you who haven't yet. Oh and I almost forgot, they also are in the middle of pulling off one of the biggest thefts of all time by stealing the GSEs from their shareholders. Has anyone here heard about that whole fiasco?
TransactionSizesHealth, but not enormous. Largest I think I saw was around 80k. Most of the bigger sizes seem to be around 5-15k.
PreMarketGaveNoClue. Maybe it's just big traders shorting. Maybe there's no proper news today causing this. I haven't found any. Has anyone else?
Logical approach. For the last yr or so, whenever i've felt like adding, i've decided to only add preferred. I had hit my modest position limit in common. I think I have enough preferred now to hedge away about 1/3rd of my at-risk $ in commons, presuming the preferred aren't shafted. I am almost comfortable enough with that partial hedge to just do nothing from here on out. Not totally sure about that yet. But I think it's advisable for GSE shareholders to take an approach that limits some risk at this point, whatever approach one takes.
Corker's Communication Director Caught: FakeTwitterAccount,PushingTBTF agenda! Amazing, the depths to which those in power will sink.
Thanks a lot for the link. Reminds me of a little-known fact; lots of activist groups and political parties hire people to post aggressively on social media, to steer public opinion and to mock opponents' ideas into oblivion. There was an article recently somewhere describing how Facebook has been even developing Artificial Intelligence bots to do those jobs, and has been working for foreign dictatorships, putting those bots into action to defend their clients' corrupt regimes online.
"Skynet" doesn't even begin to describe the propaganda-rich world we are seeing develop around us.
I had typed "objective" before reading that Maloni comment, which is definitely encouraging! Thanks for posting it.
I swear this is how these elected criminals use their position to enrich themselves and their cronies: they'll propose legislation that they themselves know has no chance of passing, but which do succeed in scaring the market and moving pps in a direction that favors their insider-trading-capable brokerage accounts!
Summed it up! But I'm hoping you also got to see a US president give a hastily written speech poo-pooing the GSEs and attempting to influence the market on the eve of a GSE earnings announcement that the market had been greatly anticipating as a sign of how close the GSEs had come to "paying back" the gvt. THAT was a doozy! Speech probably written by Buffet himself, or perhaps the Senator from Wells Fargo.
it's the most telling aspects of the fraud. Shares still remaining on the market for buying/selling every day. The fact that the criminals kept the shares available for trading is, to my mind, maybe the one thing that truly reveals the obvious intentions of thieves/fraudsters.
Has anyone checked Icahn's 13F? Ackman's? Though they are delayed significantly, does anyone here know if the latest 13F reports for each of them show an unchanged amount of GSE shares? Or an increase/decrease?
Good point. Shareholder portion not written yet. But to be objective, that could mean they're just waiting until the last minute to publish the screw job they've already agreed to give us. I hope not. But these are criminals we're talking about.
Enough of FHFA already! Unconstitutional entity! Why hasn't its structure been changed already, after Federal court ruled in Fall of 2016 that its structure is unconstitutional? The case was about the CFPB, but it has the exact same structure as the FHFA. Why has neither been forced to change or disband already? Simply waiting for the appeal to go through SCOTUS or something?
Couldn't POTUS make this change himself, citing the Fall 2016 Federal Court ruling in doing so?
How can you tell what's a buy or sell order going through? Are you referring to level II? I usually glance at the ongoing share transactions going through but that data alone doesn't really make it clear which transactions are sells and which are buys. I mean...yes they are colored red and green. Simplistically, a red transaction of 500 shares at $2.25 is supposedly someone selling 500 shares at that price. But the buyer is whom, exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't know from any data i'm aware of whether the Market Makers are the buyer of those 500 shares or if an investor is the buyer. Or if it's a bit of each. If we're seeing large sell orders (i did today), and if the Market Makers were doing the buying, then they've now accumulated a large inventory of FNMA. How long do they typically hold such inventory? If it was Market Makers doing most of the buying, then wouldn't it make sense that they'd need an approx 20 cent rise in pps to be able to sell all that inventory for a profit? And if it was individual investors and institutions buying, there's no telling what will happen to pps in the near term. And if it was largely institutions selling and buying, a lot of that transacting could've been done in dark pools and we'd not really see them at all! I'm really not sure the question of whether a transaction was really a sell or a buy (or both) always has a clear answer. Please let me know what I'm missing.
Any doubt remaining that Bloomberg "journalists" are shills?
Or whoever wrote the most recent Gse Hit piece. WSJ? Bazinga? Don't get me wrong. There's plenty to be fearful of here at this particular juncture. But anyone following this particular ticker for years knows full well that the media is the mouthpiece of those in power who are trying to spread their desired "narrative" on any particular day or week. Finding out that it would take 60 days to pass the C/W bill, the very bill which has been causing the majority of the fear here for weeks now, is potentially information that completely invalidates the latest big time hit piece articles from the mainstream financial media.
Typo: "control what the major parties do or don't do" is what it should've said. Not "donor dont do".
That makes sense on surface, but it is the banks who control what the major parties donor don't do when they're in power. So there is, I would guess, zero percent possibility that the biggest donors to both parties (big banks) would allow their paid-for employees (politicians in both parties) to sit idle and let the banks collapse, if it ever came to that. Proof of that is seen in '08 when the politicians did NOT let the banks collapse, as some would have done without political interference. So I think banks or any financial entity would not hesitate to jump into the 2ndary market bc they are the ones controlling their political risks by donating and lobbying constantly. They're in no danger from suffering any downside that might happen if markets were free. For them, they don't play in a free market. They play in a controlled market, from the issuance of currency, to ad-hoc laws such as HERA written hastily and sloppily, passed by human beings who did not even read it (in most cases probably) and who would not even fully understand it if they did. Those voting on the laws have an expertise in convincing masses of people to vote for them, not in understanding basic free market principles or complicated legalese and highly regulated markets.
RegardingTimHoward'sReply, specifically his point that new capital for the new companies that would be competitors entering this market would be hesitant or afraid bc they see how the gvt has treated the capital structure of the GSEs, I'm not so sure they'd hesitate at all. That's a big concern of mine. I fear/predict that the banks that would enter this market really just are dying to get a chance to enter it, no matter how poorly the gvt has treated previous capital in this market. I think they've been plotting/working/lobbying for this chance for seemingly 15-20 yrs or so. I don't think they'd care if the gvt stole the GSEs' capital in some live-for-tv event right in front of everyone's eyes. In fact, it is the very same banks who were the CAUSE/INFLUENCE for the original crisis AND the original actions against the GSEs, as well as the 3rd amendment, and the lobbying behind Corker/Warner. Would any of that garbage have happened without the lobbying and influence of the big banks? I think not. So to suggest that now, if they finally got a chance to enter the 2ndary market, they'd hesitate for fear they could be treated the same way seems to miss the mark. I think they'd look at the gvt's treatment of the GSEs' capital structure and say to themselves, "Yes! We got em to do it! It worked! Now let's jump in to take the GSEs' place, now that they've finally been eliminated!"
The relevant portion of Tim Howard's reply:
"While I don’t know if that’s actually what C-W 2.0 is trying to do, if it is a major issue will be how you attract capital into these new entrants. They will be businesses operating with bank-imposed handicaps—including unnecessarily and unjustifiably high capital requirements—and they will need to raise their new capital at a time when the government continues to insist that it has the legal right to appropriate all of the capital of the two existing credit guarantors the new entities are being enticed to replace. Good luck with that."
They're in the middle of getting away with it.
That's almost worst case!
I think Ackman's already profitable on this. If I recall correctly, his avg price is in the low $2s, below today's price. He could slowly sell all his shares for a small profit. I don't have any reason to think he's doing that. But I guess if he's privy to the negotiations on resolving this, and he starts to see that it appears certain that commons will get screwed beyond his threshold of tolerance, he could start selling.
But he owns so many shares, you've gotta wonder if, once he decides to sell, he could sell 'em all fast enough to beat the announcement of a final political/legal resolution yet also slowly enough to avoid tanking the pps below his break-even avg share price!
Is Hindes the new Ralph Nader, then?
Now THAT is an interesting point! I never thought of that but of course, as the supposed "fiduciary", the gvt, after becoming conservator, would be interested in acquiring cheap warrants, but the fiduciary role would prevent them from doing so. That is, if the gvt actually acted as a fiduciary. It did not ever do so. No equity holder would submit himself to such dilution and at such an incredibly low strike price.
My prayers and condolences to you and your family, Jeff.
Agree 100%
Thanks. Agreed. Going off gold standard let loose the jackals who saw a chance to put this country into an unlimited debt situation.
When people scream "PayFor" TaxCuts, We'veGot even biggerProblems!
When a person gets a pay cut, that person's "revenue" goes down. Simple, right? The person must then adjust his spending accordingly. The person would make ZERO sense if he started saying "how am I gonna PAY FOR my pay cut?"
But when the gvt is asked to reduce its revenue by reducing our taxes, they and the media and everyone, even the best conservative commenters and most informed businessmen ask "how will the gvt PAY FOR the tax cuts"! LANGUAGE therefore leads to hundreds of millions of people COMPLETELY being separated from logic. There is no "paying for" tax cuts! There is only "adjusting the gvt's spending to better deal with the change in revenues." And of course most of us know that when taxes are cut, revenues to gvt actually increase, so there is yet another layer of separation from logic embedded in this whole issue and how it's discussed. Not to get into that layer specifically. But the "pay for" thing drives me crazy! It's even become a NOUN if you listen to congressmen, who often ask "well where are the pay-fors?" Idiots, all of them.
offer Pardon to entire congress if all resign? Wouldn't THAT be incredible? The most crooked ones would BEG the less crooked ones to resign. They'd offer them all sorts of crooked deals and sweatheart cushy jobs. The less crooked ones would probably take the offers. Who wouldn't want that pension, eh?
Then a clean slate and over 500 special elections. I think I'm onto something here. I'm not saying the new ones would be any better. But it would take them a while to get their own corrupt schemes up and running smoothly. And that respite from an utterly corrupted DC would be worth the whole trouble.
The FHFA is unconstitutionally constructed/organized, as decided by a Federal Judge who made that ruling about the CFPB, which has the exact same structure. So the FHFA itself might vanish entirely, or its structure might be forced go change significantly. Sooner the better.
Agree 100%. But even with people like us screaming at MSM about the truth of the GSE saga, all we get is an occasional appearance by someone like Bove on one of the financial TV networks. That's about it. It really adds up to nothing because Bove has no power, no lobbyists (as someone here pointed out). The idiots that run the MSM and the talking heads they put in front of the cameras have no clue about anything, and never check the original sources or anything like that. They only propagate "the narrative" that the network and its editors decide they want to push.
My point is; I think the jackals and TBTF would be able to successfully put whatever "narrative" they want into the bloodstream of "mainstream" water cooler talk, news opinion/analysis talk, and OpEds in the major papers. I don't think the actual truth would have much of a chance at getting a lot of attention or coverage.
Yeah that's a good point. Thanks.
I haven't sold a share. I just like to objectively consider the various risks and concerns and seek and share opinions about them here with all of you. I am neither pessimistic or optimistic. Just hopeful and worried. I've been long since early 2013.
Ok agreed. But that extra year's dangerous. Gives more time for the TBTF to engineer the final movements needed to fulfill their dreams.
Jackals want zeroCapitalDay. Enables their PR attack. They'll use zero capital and the draw from Treasury to scream "bailout" from the top of the hills via every MSM channel possible, and the GSEs will be sold as enemies of the state, and huge swaths of citizens will gobble up that interpretation, and call their representatives demanding they shut down the GSEs. Suddenly everyone will be an uber-opinionated expert on the GSEs just like they are on NetNeutrality today.
Are you happy about another 1yr's Capitalization delay?
Or do you think recap will still be able to occur via some other mechanism?
I'll be thinking about you tomorrow, then! I'm sorry to hear that news about your health. I'm glad you're getting seen and getting treatment. Hang in there!
I recall learning about these title problems back in '08. You're right: hardly anyone or any news sources were talking about it! But as I understand it, for some of the mortgages that ended up in securitized bundles, the banks actually had zero proof that they held the title! Of course even without securitization being an issue, some simple but unfortunate situations happened where the homeowner defaulted, and went to foreclosure, and some of the clever lawyers working on behalf of the homeowners figured out and proved that the banks didn't even have proof of title, etc! And yet many judges still had no problem ruling in favor of the banks, even though the banks couldn't produce the paperwork! Again, courts, judges, can't be counted on to protect property rights, unfortunately.
Good questions! I'm no expert on the details of how titles are stored and tracked. But it does seem a bit fishy sometimes isn't it? I do understand very well how the function of title verification and checking could be disrupted by blockchain technology, though.
But this article gives a good example of where the government's sloppy and wrong handling of land deeds can be easily better handled by a blockchain.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-05/new-york-city-processed-fake-property-deed-innovative-country-won%E2%80%99t-have-problem
In that case, NYC actually processed a counterfeit land deed! The real owner of the land lost her property because someone presented a fake land deed to the city and the city processed it! Then, even worse, the courts ruled that the city is NOT responsible! The courts said the city shouldn't be responsible for detecting fake deeds. So the land owner is simply out of luck. How's that for a government? Totally failing to protect property rights, just as we are experiencing with the GSEs.
Amen! Over 8500% returns for me, too. But that's not why I'm interest in it. The technology is potentially capable of disrupting tons of industries. Legal industry, escrow, RE title insurance, trade settlement (France and Australia are already doing that), government functions (the country of Georgia is already using the blockchain to support gvt functions), land deeds, basically any contract, video game and creative industries (music industry has some artists issuing "coins" based on blockchain and this helps them raise $ and helps fans make $). It is a freely distributed, transparent public ledger system. Why would you need to pay a title company to check a RE title if the title had been originated on a blockchain and had been verified by millions of users and couldn't have been messed-with without some of those users flagging it? It couldn't be transferred without permission, etc, and there are basically millions of "witnesses" continually preventing any funny business from happening with your title. The trust we put in many financial institutions could very well be rendered obsolete by blockchain-based technologies.