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.
Tell us why you think it should. There was literally no reason for this recent price surge, so the inevitable fall should come as no surprise. Just like the absence of a reason for the rise, there is nothing at all that can be explained to sustain those prices, so this is not unexpected.
So I guess we're not gonna get $5 by Friday. Man...who could have seen this coming?
Thx. I make em and I admit em. Pretty simple process. Enjoy the day.
Thanks for pointing out my oversight, now my day just became a little better as a result of the "other" Paulson. LOL
I just replied to FOFreddie with a mea culpa. All I saw was the "Paulson" name. Mistakes happen, and I admit em when they do.
WOW is right. All I saw was "Paulson". mea culpa because I was seeing red!
Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for the guy who was the one who actually placed them in conservatorship and then told his buds abiout it so they could all cash in on the free fall.
I agree the volume and PPS is no lie, but again it still seems speculation to me. Yeah David Stevens made some hay about it, and yes there has been talk of biden doing something, but having watched the inaction of his administration on housing for the past 3 years this seems knee-jerk. Also, ST was appointed as the successor to Mel Watt and given orders not to rock the boat. She's already indicated that it's not in her purview to facilitate the release the GSE's but it's up to Congress. Most familiar know that the FHFA and the UST could do this over lunch. That is EXACTLY why she was put there.
Your points are all great ones which are not secrets, but they are all based in "what if"...and don't get me wrong, the "what if" is what's needed here because it's not likely to happen in courts.
I always ask the same simple questions, in this case it would be equally as easy:
What is the cause for this run? There is literally nothing that is not is a state of flux with these companies, nor the verdict, nor the allocation plan delayed now these past months. Is it more speculation? IMHO that's all it is, but always appreciate other points of view.
Well, everybody cries when I say that there is no path to end c-ship and thus no path for anything else, so I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon.
$500? That's chicken feed! Probably $750...may even see $1000!
It's a result of covid mandates and the shift to work from home as a result.
"Personally, I don't understand why Lamberth allowed the defendants to chime in on the allocation plan at all. It is none of their business"
Exactly why I stated earlier that him having any type of control over this even if the parties agree is a sobering thought.
"and then Lamberth will need time to decide whether or not to approve the allocation plan."
This is the part that worries me to no end. Also, don't the defendants have the ability to appeal if they do not like the allocation plan put forth by the plaintiffs? The statement above seems to apply to the fact that the defendants and plaintiffs are in agreement on their respective allocation plan. In that event, the parties are in agreement, so then the Judge has the ability to derail it, correct?
Thanks for clarification. Why am I not surprised that it was listed as such so that it could be swept up in the NWS. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul is not a good model, unless you happen to be Paul.
Exactly.
Doesn't the fact that he's not loading up on FNMA tell you something?
Perfect assessment.
The common value of companies like these is a complete joke. That said, what reasons exist to keep them heading in a positive direction?
Hint: Hope is not a strategy.
As much of a snake that Calabria was, at least he is correct in his assertion that Congress is not needed to end the conservatorship. That said, Thompson and Yellen do not have the wherewithal to complete this task. His claims to have been "working toward it" were true only to a small degree, and part of his outrageous conditions for retained capital will continue to be the sword upon which everyone falls by not releasing the twins.
Both identity appointments.
Agree, but still trying to digest why the amounts are listed as an expense by the GSE's.
My recollection of the settlements is that the FHFA didn't distribute the funds to the GSE's. If it was ever listed as income wouldn't that have been counted anywhere toward capital retention buffers?
Are those conditions needed to simply certify the verdict? What I think you're referring to is how those conditions apply to his potential ruling.
I know they have "expensed" the damages, which also makes this even more challenging. Can't figure out how that works. The entities expense potential damages on behalf of the FHFA that they are allegedly scheduled to receive at some possible point in the future. Does that make any sense when considered that they actually never received damages from banks that settled with them for selling MBS's under fraudulent terms for which the FHFA sued on behalf of the GSE's? It seems beyond circular.
Interesting interpretation. We're only talking about $612MM dollars though, so would that endanger any of the mentioned as becoming undercapitalized? Also, would this count as a "distribution"?
The fact that you feel otherwise only furthers my suspicions.
I'd be lying if I said I understood that. I appreciate your thoughts but I can't reconcile them based on that, and somehow I am just fearful it's far more simple. In short...who exactly will enforce this, or any verdict going forward? To me that's the $64,000 question.
IMHO the FHFA nor the UST will not pay the GSE's. Once again, this is only my opinion. The suits should have always focused on the legality of the conservatorship and the release as a result. Seeking damages against these defendants is swimming upstream.
They were never going to pay damages anyway regardless of any ruling or verdict. The fact that the 8-0 verdict has yet to be certified should be worrisome for folks, but for some reason it's not. I wish there was a legitimate explanation, but to date I've not heard one.
You simply need to consider the source of the delay and it will become more clear for you. Also, couple in the fact that there is no legitimate reason for this delay and that may help when considering the possible reason(s) for same.
You simply need to consider the source of the delay and it will become more clear for you. Also, couple in the fact that there is no legitimate reason for this delay and that may help when considering the possible reason(s) for same.
Even if it is true, it's nothing that's going to change the situation any time soon.
Why next year?
How many losses and unfavorable rulings does it take to establish precedent? IMHO, the precedent set on 7/23/2021 will never be overcome and has cemented the fallacy that the GSE's still represent a risk to taxpayers. The fact that so many think the path to exit Conservatorship should involve Congress is equally as disturbing and remains another fallacy. The orchestration of deception will remain in perpetuity.
IMHO there is no path in the courts to end the conservatorship. If 15 years hasn't taught that then I fear nothing will.
I am not as confident as you are based solely on the history and treatment of the GSE's in our courts, and especially this particualr jurist. I hope to be wrong, but beofe submitting to it based on failth in the judiciary alone, I'll need to see it.
Agree that the verdict by a DC jury bucks the trends, but how, and more importantly if and when it gets paid will be more telling. While a victory on paper, this victory is a hollow one at best at this time.
Not sure how or where to apply this quote as it pertains to the original message.
Sooooooo......the unanimous verdict handed down in August.
It's January. Nothing to see here.