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.
Okay, You were very thorough in correcting my Norm Crosby-like attempts to word my basically correct understanding that 2 opposing parties were requesting cert for differing reasons, and I am appropriately chastened if that was at all part of your intent, but you stopped short of answering my question. Is there any precedent for, is it typical for SCOTUS to grant cert for one part of a case, but not the other?
I understand that the ideal outcome would be for SCOTUS to deny cert on the question of the constitutionality of the NWS and to grant cert on the question of the remedy for the improper "director arrangement", but my own personal logic was to ask why would the court grant cert on one question and deny cert on the other. I guess I'd expect a "While we're here ..." approach. I would love for you to tell me that my logic is incorrect.
We appear to have been punted to the next SCOTUS conference.
Yeah, giving him attention is giving him oxygen, to prattle on, and on and on ...
Geez, that wasn't bad. It was almost like Calabria kept his mouth shut!
Well, the "Calabria Hit" comes soon.
This is what Gabby Hefesee from ACG says ...
Take it to SCOTUS ...
If you win, you cut a deal from a position of strength
If you lose, or SCOTUS declines to hear the case, you cut a little better deal for shareholders, but the deal you cut is cast in much more solid footing (in case Democrats win election) Case heard & lost is very hard to change, as is a case that SCOTUS has already declined to hear.
Either way GSEs are freed and it is much more difficult to reverse.
If they 'lose'' in front of SCOTUS, it makes the stoppage of NWS and return of any funds virtually irreverible.
I think you are 100% correct, but I got my hands slapped for saying as much. But I too, am aligned (Most specifically, with Ackman)
Who was it that predicted $3.50 by the end of the year???
Bwahahahahahaha
Well, it must be about time for Calabria to say something to knock the PPS back down. [Sigh]
What was I THINKING ... doubting you !?!?!?
At 9:22am, the bid and ask do not hint at any staggering price move (in either direction). Based on bid and ask, it's just another day in a little town south of Yuma.
I was wondering if Ackman was working off the worst case scenario. That's what I would do. I wouldn't want my investors counting on a best case $70-something a share and being disappointed. Better to ingrain the worst case range $8.00 to $23 in their minds. This way, if the best case happens, it's a huge bonus.
It's more important to the plaintiffs. Which is why I think a loss will cost us more than a win will gain us.
I expect a fairy significant move in the PPS today because of the expected ruling on the motion to dismiss (Judge Sweeney's court, yes?). My gut says the move UP if the ruling is NOT to dismiss, will be smaller than the move DOWN, if the ruling goes against us.
Maybe the up potential is .25 or .30
and the down potential is .50 to .80
Thoughts??
For Long term cap gains (if I am not mistaken) there is a threshold below which the federal tax liability is zero.
I believe that for the first $39,375.00 ... Federal Long Term Cap Gains tax is zero.
I'm a little confused. We were all excited, because the current administration SAID it was planning to return the GSEs to private ownership. But the reality is that they are currently applying to the Supreme Court to REVERSE the 5th Circuit ruling that mandated what is the logical first step in returning the GSEs to private ownership.
So there it is, they are saying one thing while doing something that appears to be diametrically opposed to what they say they want to do.
Calabria has actually spoken publicly against the GSEs and shareholders on many occasions.
Mnuchin has clever said opposing things about releasing the companies.
And the current President has a history of fidelity to his word and the truth that I cannot and will not address here (out of deference to the IHub policy warning)
If I am misunderstanding something, PLEASE clear it up. This whole time, I've been hopeful, but VERY suspicious of Trump, Mnuchin, and Calabria, who all seem to be saying one thing but not acting on that thing.
"Yes, we'll allow the GSEs to keep capital, but for every dollar they keep, we'll add a dollar to their liquidation preference"
"And oh by the way, we're applying to the Supreme Court to reverse that decision."
This is like a serial killer telling you he's done killing, while standing in the Home Depot checkout with a hatchet, a dozen bags of lime, a pick, a shovel, 5 new bundles of rope, and 8 new tarps in his shopping cart. Please, somebody tell me why I shouldn't be concerned.
Don't get me wrong, I want you to be right. I'm a long (small bundle of shares, but a long nonetheless), and though I am committed to the 'Hero or Zero' position, I read articles like these, and they scare me. Now this was printed in May 2019, but it still shakes me to my core as I keep seeing Calabria smile and say "adequately capitalized". I DON'T TRUST HIM!!!
.
.
https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/give-fannie-freddie-the-same-capital-standards-as-everybody-else
What concerns me, is that bullet point #2 COULD mean a 5% Cap requirement, which would be death for us commons.
That should be "there" ... not "their"
Why is it that the people on this board engage in personal attacks? Everyone engages in name calling? Obama gets called names, Watt still gets called names, Corker gets called names, Paulson ... now Mnuchin and Calabria.
Why can't we simply address these men by their names and express policy and philosophical differences with them without engaging in behavior that is most frequently seen on playgrounds.
HEY! I don't trust Calabria. He's said dozens of diametrically opposing things at different times, I trust Mr. Trump quite a bit less, but I do my best not to disrespect my own maturity, no matter how angry I get.
It's clear that we have no idea what Calabria will do, and it's unsettling. But let's keep our dignity.
I find it curious that there is this significant down move in cost, but the volume is struggling to reach even the average volume of the last 30 days.
Not many at all, a few thousand
Could THIS finally be the week that "$5.00 by Friday" could be correct????
That's why I dove in ... when Ted Bundy comes to town, where do you look for him? I suspect we are in the Sorority House [Grin]
They are probably rotating to commons.