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.
Back when I followed the GSEs more closely the CFPB structure was very similar to the FHFA and so a win against the CFPB would have been a win against the FHFA. Again, this was back a few years ago and I am currently not up to speed on the legal statuses of issues like this.
I just saw the headline and rushed to post it here.
Supreme Court rules Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding structure is legal
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/16/supreme-court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-funding-structure-is-legal.html
Not sure if this still had any relevance to the GSEs. Either way still isn't good news.
Anyone get their Myles Garrett NFTs yet?
Raise your hand if you bought one of the Simoa Rugby League Team NFTs! lol
I apologize if the message board already covered this last week and I know I am way out of my league here but does the ruling on Musk's compensation with the wording of "Sanctity of the shareholder franchise," help or cause at all in any of our remaining legal cases?
Just a shot in the dark I suppose.
https://twitter.com/_SFTahoe/status/1754825816062693578
FNMA last had volumes of 11 million+ August 16th - 21st. By the 21st and days following that it was about 20% higher from where it originally began. That was because of the jury trial verdict.
If this is any indication then the there should be a continuation on Tuesday.
I will concede you make a good point there. Even if it was Otting as director instead of interim, Mnuchin wasn't on board and neither was Congress so things probably wouldn't have gone very far no matter who it was.
After watching this play out for so many years (not as long as some on here but still about a decade) my belief that release will ever happen is at an all-time low. I bought Palagria's book and read it with great interest hoping one day justice will be served. I read many posts and was glued to this board with the discussions that made me learn so much more about a variety of topics than I would have ever known.
I held my shares for years riding the highs the Collins en banc win and finely giving out with the SCOTUS decision on appeal. I sold everything minutes after the SCOTUS decision came out because it wasn't the win we were looking for. We needed the NWS ended and we got unconstitutional director. I recently bought back in on the Lamberth case win managed a small profit and took it after listening to the Collins live stream.
All of this is to say that I always wanted to believe there was a path forward and someone (Trump, Otting, Calabria) would finally give us the straight answer we are always looking for. It never came, and in my opinion, it probably isn't ever going to come.
If you read what I posted I said it was the guy in between Watt and Calabria that opened his mouth - Joseph Otting. Here is your link:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/24/federal-housing-finance-agency-overhaul-1111874
Otting was all ready with a plan to put in motion but the Treasury put the breaks on it if you recall. That was what I was referring to in my prior post. Otting I feel was very proactive in getting them out of conservatorship and if he had been the director and not Calabria things would have turned out very differently. Its a darn shame.
I have no position at the moment (see my post #766975). There are other factors in the current litigation that occur between now and then but I was merely highlighting what could be. Every time there is reason to have hope this stock finds a way to destroy that hope is what I have learned, as others have as well. And yes I know hope isn't an investment thesis but is there really any kind of thesis with $.70 stock?
I agree trump didn't trust Watt but I think that would only play into defense's argument. Their excuse would be "You can't tell if he trusted him or not because Trump never gave him any orders or directives so he never gave him a chance."
I hope I am wrong, but this argument is too weak for even En Banc to side with us. When the interim (after Watt fired, but before Calabria, I forgot his name) opened his mouth about having a plan and release he was quickly silenced, and we never heard a word from him again about it. If this was really important to Trump and high on his list of priorities it would have gotten done but I don't think it was and I never really believed in this argument.
Was that memo issued when Watt was serving as Director of FHFA? (I honestly don't remember) but if so it would have made all the difference in proceedings today before the court.
I only remember Watt doing nothing but getting caught in sexual harassment during the Trump administration. He did absolutely nothing. It wasn't until Mnuchin and Calabaria came along that a plan acutally did start to form but my memory is a little fuzzy as it was 4 years ago.
The letter came after Trump was no longer serving as President. The Judges had asked in their question for something from during Trump's administration.
The Barnes (Plaintiff) did but the judges wanted something from during his administration that was of concrete value (my opinion). Barnes could only point some obscure references during the Trump administration but again in my opinion it didn't do enough.
I liquidated my holdings again once I heard the questioning by the judges and Barnes weak answers.
Calabria really did screw us. This case is a lose in my opinion and no point to wait in anticipation of verdict. I have to wait now for some of the other cases pending.
Listening to Collins vs Yellen live stream now. Barnes concedes that there is no direct statement from the President Trump while he was President stating he would end conservatorship.
The judges don't seem to see a plausible allegation that the lack of removal Watts prevented the end of the conservatorship. Plaintiff can't point to any concrete plan that the Trump administration was thwarted from implementing because of the inability to remove Watt.
In my opinion this case on these merits is toast.
It is not shorts that drove this down. I think there was some profit taking early in the session. Look at the volume near the open and look at the volume at the end of day. People sold at the open and the machine algorithms took it down further.
Volume has dried up.
Not sure if this was posted on here already:
Watch Cavuto on FOX this afternoon around 4:45pm EST when I’ll be on set to discuss the housing market and the victory for GSE shareholders
— Tim Rood (@tim_rood_) August 18, 2023
And by the way hello everyone I am back in again and will be buying more at the open!
Pagliara was very straightforward, and I think he was working off of bullet points.
He didn't present any negativity at all. He stated that right now the Gov. could release them and have billions ($100+ billion? I think he said) to be used to help build more housing when there is a 5,000,000 unit shortage in housing available.
Humbl:
3 years later still nothing to show for itself. That's all everyone needs to know.
Its kind of because the giant herd still hypes this as a legitimate long-term investment when it is clearly not. How is someone wrong for calling out a stock that has plummeted ~99%? We should be thanking those who are critical of this company and its dismal performance. All evil cows should be called out not just this one and this isn't the most evil cow out there.
NEW: The retrial of @FannieMae and @FreddieMac shareholders' DC court claims against the @FHFA for improperly amending stock purchase agreements,allowing the Treasury to sweep up the companies' net profits, is scheduled to begin July 24, according to a new court entry.
NEW: The retrial of @FannieMae and @FreddieMac shareholders' DC court claims against the @FHFA for improperly amending stock purchase agreements,allowing the Treasury to sweep up the companies' net profits, is scheduled to begin July 24, according to a new court entry. pic.twitter.com/DE6UuKQW9n
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) February 7, 2023
This show is over. Foote is going dark by moving to his small audience social app.
They aren't delivering and having delays like this are poor way to show the company can be taken seriously.
https://twitter.com/perry314181/status/1618810900756021248/photo/1
No because you still have probabilities for all variations of possible outcomes.
Originally there were 9 jurors so I will use that in my example:
9-0 in favor = win
8-1 in favor = hung jury (loss in my opinion)
7-2 in favor = hung jury (loss in my opinion)
6-3 in favor = hung jury (loss in my opinion)
5-4 in favor = hung jury (loss in my opinion)
5-4 against = hung jury (loss in my opinion)
6-3 against = loss (hung jury)
7-2 against = loss (hung jury)
8-1 against = loss (hung jury)
9-0 against = loss
Maybe my logic is flawed but that is just how I see it. Only one outcome in produces a verdict in our favor. So, 10% is how I see it. Again, I am not entirely sure about how the judge would view the situation of a hung jury if only one or two jurors were holding out. Someone with more legal experience could produce better odds.
With full case presented only 50% were favorable. You could get a better group next time of 6 or 7 but still how do those that were against change their minds. Last time not single one changed their mind (both ways) despite the 4 of either side trying to convince the other.
If the jury has to be unanimous then it is most definitely not 50/50 and odds would still be against shareholders winning.
In @$5.63. Lets get this party started!
And just like that the show was over! Well that was exciting and now we can go back to sleep and bickering about Preferred over common and vice-versa.
What's going on?!?! Up 20% on no news?!?
Preferreds are still flat.
Call it what you will but Humbl has wasted a ton of time and money on failed products. The track record is pretty poor. So as a perspective investor watches the train wreck and asks themselves why they would invest in Humbl one can only come to the conclusion not to.
Failed ETX product.
Failed HumblPay app
Failed NFT launches a la Myles Garrett, etc...
Failed mining acquisition
That is a lot of failures for a startup.
If the CIA (government) can get away with telling the truth about killing President Kennedy for 60 years this is child's play for them in comparison.
They wanted us all to believe it was nothing but magic bullet conspiracies just like they want us to believe these companies were bankrupt and couldn't survive without the governments help.
Chat says buying opportunity below $0.40 especially around $0.36-$0.38
Here are facts:
Humbl never raised a dollar by going public. (Pretty stupid if you ask me)
No money raised means no money to develop, market, pay expenses etc...
Most money has been from the form of selling shares via toxic financing.
Banks are not touching this with a 100' pole and they never will.
Only toxic funding available because Humbl doesn't generate any meaningful revenue.
It is a shame that people will buy this stock in hopes of getting a return on their investment. When a lender gets their stock at discount to market price and can sell theirs for a profit before you can spells doom for any existing shareholders. This will be headed lower but by all means if you love Humbl buy all that you can and watch your money vaporize.
I thought (and I could be wrong here) that someone recently posted some wording from a rating agency that kind of hinted at this because that post caused me to reflect and write my own post. Although it did not use the word nationalization (that was my word choice) I still think that is the bigger picture for the ratings agencies to view it as. If there is always an explicit guaranteed backstop by the government for the debt that the GSEs hold why would the debt not be on the government books?
After an unfavorable decision on the unconstitutional funding case before the 5th (or is SCOTUS?) I don't realistically see much hope left in a path forward through the courts. There may be other cases still pending but most of the larger ammunition will have already been spent. At that point the best path forward would be through the ratings agencies (Moody's etc..). I suggested this before shortly after SCOTUS ruled last summer that the shareholders have to suggest, lobby, coerce, the ratings agencies that these are now nationalized companies and the debt be put on the books of the USA. That will light a fire under the government ass to start doing something but still leaves room for uncertainty. Without any impetus the government bureaucrats will do nothing except to move goal posts for capital standards so as to always make the GSEs look undercapitalized. Effectively always keeping the lock on the lockbox.
That is one long list of excuses for a penny stock startup. Mistake after mistake after mistake. I don't think Humbl will ever do anything right.
The announcement of a reverse split is nothing but a distraction from the absolute abysmal performance of management and Humbl as a whole. They have little to no revenues, little to no brand recognition, little to no operating capital to which to build both revenues and or brand.
Why is Humbl even concerned with stock price at this stage of the "startup" phase?
Does a reverse split help generate revenues? No.
Does a reverse split build brand recognition? No.
Does a reverse split mean anything for company as pathetic as Humbl? No.