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.
The more sources I search the cleaner the information. For the initial listing and sell of stocks on NYSE, the price must be higher than $5 and it must stay above $1 or it will be subject to being DELISTED. So our stock in WTI is currently at $2.54 and is not yet subject to being delisted.
so...WTI share price has been below $4 almost non-stop since late October 2023. Why hasn't WTI been delisted from the NYSE? Is NYSE criteria requiring stock share price to be above $4 just smoke and mirrors or is it something real?
How long for a stock traded on the NYSE to be delisted when the share price is below $4
30 days
According to 2 sources
A company subject to delisting for failing to meet an exchange's requirements will typically have 30 days to resolve the issues, which could include falling below the minimum share price or failing to p...
Relisted: What it Means and …
investopedia.com
If a stock’s share price drops below $1.00 and remains below that level for 30 days, the exchange may notify the company that it is not in compliance with listing requirements and is at risk of being delisted.
What Is Delisting & How Doe…
thestreet.com
Anyone know how long a stock on the New York Stock Exchange can have a share price below $4 before the NYSE delists them? Seems like WTI is pushing the boundaries!!!!!!
So, what is the deal with WTI and the New York Stock Exchange? One requirement of NYSE is that stock prices are required to be $4 per share or higher but WTI is frequently lower than $4!!! Seems like WTI is risking being delisted from the NYSE! HELLO penny stocks.
I think I have figured out what is taking so long with the jury awards from Lamberth....Treasury is working hard to come up with a way to do a NAS (NET AWARD SWEEP) of any and all awards by the court in perpetuity. The current best plan can SWEEP 99% but Treasury wants the whole complete damn award and all awards in perpetuity, and that is what is taking longer than expected! We need to keep our focus on Treasury because they are famous for their "SWEEPS"!! Have a good day!
Admitted, the subject matter is very complex but that is the beauty of having really good writers who can make the subject be understood. No doubt, the subject matter would have a very strong effect because it is a presidential election year. But also because it will put the names of the governments players right up on the TV screen for more than 300 million viewers to observe. It doesn't necessarily have to have exact explainations, the dialogue can have statements like "it is my understanding that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson presented the soon to be put in motion plan to force FnF into Conservatorship to a group of Estes Park investors with the suggestion that it would a very very profitable time to short FnF stock. And a few days thereafter in an interview on a TV Business show Paulson mentioned 5 times that Fannie and Freddie had been Nationalized."
If the writers thought it would be necessary, they could in a few words explain what shorting stocks is. Good writers know how to present such things.
I think we are all frustrated with the track the Conservatorship of FnF has taken over nearly 20 years including the time leading up to the conservatorship and the track FnF shareholders have endured under conservatorship! So far, we have relied on the Government to be fair and just, to no avail! If anything, the government continues to use every self serving path possible to take the property belonging to the shareholders. It seems we have to try something new because all that we have tried in the past has not worked out in our favor. Consider what I think we lack......we do not have a connection and empathy with the public....and what better way to make that connection than thru the media, more specifically thru the creation of a made for TV “docu-drama series ” that brings to light the history of the “lead up” to the Conservatorship and then the Conservatorship itself. The key here is writers would be hired to convert the very complex legal language to an easy to understand every day language the audience could comprehend and identify with.
How to get it in motion. We would find an investor to form a “for profit” Corporation and do an IPO to raise capital, then hire a production company to write and film the made for profit “mini-series”. I can think of production company in Atlanta that could produce it and assist in getting it on the air.
I think it would be especially effective by exposing the governmental players that have had an impact on the track the conservatorship has taken including the politicians and the judiciary.
Any thoughts?
Just because FnF are going down does not mean I am tanking.... Sold a bunch of F and F as they performed their dive. Moved it all to WTI which is tanking BIG time (-18%).....it frequent does this.....driven south by big algos...bought it really low and ride it up until it plateaus then dump and buy back a bunch of FnF at lower price and then even more FnF.
It is clear the Federal Government weaponized itself against a specific group of citizens, the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie, who have committed no crime or threat to the United States. The purpose of this weaponization was to assume 100% control of and claim 100% of the asset income of Fannie and Freddie to mitigate the results of Federal housing legislation gone awry, or in simpler terms, fix the mess their Federal housing legislation unintentionally created with the side benefit of providing abundent funding for political objectives of the party in controll. Doesn't make it any less of a breach of protections provided citizens by the US Constitution.
The fees and fine ([b[color=red]]SETTLEMENT MONEY[/color]) money was sent to Fanny and Freddie, and then was taken by the Treasury in the Net Worth Sweeps. The settlements were pennies on the dollar according to some research I performed.
Looks like all the mom and pop investors have left WTI to the Algos....I will take the same path. They don't even leave crumbs to nibble on. So long..........
Short algos been taking too much, time for a short squeeze. Time to take back our company! It is up to you!
Maybe we are not thinking enough "out of the box"! Maybe instead of trying to get the courts to issue justice, we need to make our support part of the success of a popular social movement. We know there is a group of people in Congress who would bend over backwards to pass an AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT to support the creation of affordable housing in under served and high demand markets. The FnF shareholders could come out as backing reasonable concessions by FnF to make mortgages more affordable and thus contribute to the success of the program, contingent on FnF being released from conservatorship prior to offering those lower cost mortgages. It's hard to find fault with the idea especially if we come out in support of limiting the materials used to build those houses to products produced in the United States.
Rodney, Trying to sort this out from a non-accountant point of view, I assume there is no GAAP method to go back and file corrections to those parts of the income/loss declarations to properly report those "delayed tax assets" as cash/capital assets....without which it is almost impossible to have a valid reliable picture of who actually owes who interest that is compounding. I can understand the court's reluctance to rule without the truth right there in front of them!! Maybe correcting the accounting is the first step to productive litagation?
Thank you! I knew those charts must exist, just didn't know where to look for them! When I get a free day I will create a spreadsheet to apply the 10% compound interest to the draws and to the money taken in the Sweeps. Should be informative.
I have had this file for several years:
Provided by Rodney on Yahoo: FHFA to place the Companies into receivership or conservatorship only if one of the following twelve grounds is present:
A. if a Company’s assets were insufficient to meet its obligations;
B. if a Company’s assets or earnings were substantially dissipated due to unlawful conduct or unsafe or unsound practices;
C. if a Company was in an unsafe or unsound condition to transact business;
D. if a Company willfully violated a cease and desist order;
E. if a Company concealed books and records from the FHFA Director;
F. if a Company became unlikely to be able to pay its obligations or meet the demands of its creditors in the normal course of business;
G. if a Company incurred, or became likely to incur, losses that would deplete substantially all of its capital with no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized;
H. if a Company violated the law;
I. if a Company’s board of directors or shareholders passed a resolution consenting to a conservatorship or receivership;
J. if a Company became undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized, as defined by the governing statute, and could not or would not take corrective measures;
K. if a Company became critically undercapitalized, as defined by the governing statute; or
L. if a Company engaged in money laundering.” End of Quote
Link: http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/13-385-0070-Plaintiff-Amended-Complaint-Redacted-11.15.18.pdf
Author unknown but he gets a big thank you
"Did the Net Worth Sweep invalidate the Warrants for 80% of the common stock of FnF? The definition of WORTH: equivalent in value to the sum or item specified. So when Treasury calls it NET WORTH SWEEP, worth includes the values of all items related to FnF including the stocks common and preferred, the buildings and property, the intellectual property, the Warrants, and the "good will".
By taking 100% of the “worth” Treasury has taken all value of the Warrants rendering them executed and defunct going forward from the first payment of the Net Worth Sweep. It makes sense that you can't take 100% of something then go back and take an additional 80% of the same thing!
Some may say it's apples and oranges, except for the word "WORTH" in Net Worth Sweep. Worth means all value. If they had called it the NET Cash On Hand Sweep, then I would agree the warrants still stand. Not so much given the word "WORTH".
WORTH: equivalent in value to the sum or item specified.
I can only take words at their face value. When they say "Net Worth Sweep" that means the value of everything including the stocks common and preferred, the buildings and property, the intellectual property, the Warrants, and the "good will". The government claims “NET WORTH” and accepts "PROFIT" as equivalent to the Net Worth.
Next, the question comes up..... can they take the "Net Worth" more than once. After taking the net worth of the "stocks", "properties (physical and intellectual)", "warrants", and "good will" one time in the “first payment”, can they take it more than once. I think they cannot! I think they have to back out the value of those items on each subsequent Sweep and only take the profit, which is what they did! Once they accept "profit" as the worth, they can no longer revisit the other items taken in the first Sweep payment unless there has been expenditures over and above the original value given in the first Sweep, and they accepted money as the equivalent value of those items. The Warrants have value and they accepted money for that value in the first payment. I think, the Warrants cannot be revisited as value.
Some are saying common stocks may not be "worthless" but Treasury accepted them as "WORTHLESS" in exchange for money contained in the profits. NET WORTH in exchange for MONEY!"
I agree with your concerns and they were expected.....why else would I use someone's $300billion number. In reality, the $191billion + 10% interest was probably paid back to Treasury by 2014....the Golden Years. That leaves 2015 thru 2021 to create the $300billion with 10% interest overpayment number that I used. Seems logical even without verification. My example time period from 2022 to 2028 shows the dramatic impact of 10% compound interest over 6 years. Point is, the gov is backing itself into a corner......a corner they created.
It goes without saying...I welcome corrections based on verifieable data.
Just visiting!
With all the "down" news of FnF, I thought we needed some good news...so lets talk 10% interest news. Using another poster's claim that Treasury using the NWS has taken $300billion from FnF that it will have to return to FnF if the NWS is unwound. To look closer, that $300billion earned 10% interest or $30billion in interest which when posted at the end of this year will bring the governments tab up to $330billion. That $30billion of interest is a lot of money and it really impacts the Gov's tab.! If the government doesn't get square with FnF in 2023, at the end of 2023 the gov's new tab is increased by $33billion to a grand total of $363billion. If this goes on to the end of 2024... the gov's new tab is increased by $36billion to a grand total of $399billion !!! then on to the end of 2025 with 10% interest, the new tab jumps to $439billion! If they let it drag on to the end of 2028....at the end of that year, the governments new tab would be a whopping $585billion to get square with FnF!
Looks like the Government has some real expensive reasons to settle with shareholders at the earliest possible date or suffer as victums of a world of their own creation. The interest alone for 2028 would be $53billion! [ Can the Gov afford to mishandle that much of the peoples money!!!
Thank you! That is what I was looking for. I'm trying to determine if Treasury directed FnF to buy underperforming mortgages and then made FnF eat the losses them when they went bad. Larry Summers seems appropriate for being in the middle of this because he is noted for saying the Treasury was "working in STEALTH" with the TARP program and with mortgage bonds. I do remember that Treasury was purchasing a lot of the mortgage bonds FnF were correcting and returning to market. And, it appears FnF were creating losses for themselves by following Treasury's guidance to discount the price of the bonds they were producing for Treasury to buy.
8.) GSE's were ordered to buy up all the crap subprime, alt-A, no-doc mortgages the TBTF banks pushed on unsuspecting borrowers and were holding, to clear up their insolvent books.
from your post
The transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control. Takings Clause A property owner may bring a claim in federal court under the Fifth Amendment when the government has violated the Takings Clause by taking property without just compensation.
The discussion about a "Takings" is very interesting and I think you might be onto something with it. Consider, prior to the Net Worth Sweep, Treasury had the warrants, plus the 10% interest, etc, etc. but they did NOT have every dollar generated by FnF. When FHFA approved and signed an agreement for Treasury to take 100% of the earnings via the Net Worth Sweep that was the exact point where FHFA transferred all of it's control of the money of FnF to Treasury, and in doing so it became a TAKINGS because FHFA relingquished all control of money to the Treasury and it was legal for FHFA to do that because HERA protects the Director from litigation for his actions. The Director transferred all financial control to the TREASURY and it absolutely was within the power of the Director to do so. After the NWS agreement was signed, FHFA had to get Treasury's approval prior to making any money disbursements. Treasury created the NWS to benefit citizens of the USA . That FnF were in a Conservatorship didn't matter. Every dollar went to serve the USA. There is no law saying proceeds from companies in Conservatorships cannot be used to serve the people of the USA. The Director is allowed to do whatever he / she wants with the money as guaranteed by HERA. That Treasury took 100% is confirmation FnF were nationalized the moment the NWS agreement was signed.
With the success and profit the Government has had with this Conservatorship you can bet there will be a lot more conservatorships in the future. Especially when the Owners are so easily defeated with some simple phrases statutes protecting the Director who is guiding the path of conservatorship. It is ........ the perfect scam because it renders the "takings clause of the 5th Ammendmant to the Constitution" as defeated in total, not to mention the profits for running a conservatorship are fantastic. The Government wins again and the victims have no chance of finding justice in that House. Seems as though the Repubic could be in jeopardy.
After giving it some thought, I am of the opinion that the jurors were overwhelmed by the jargon and complexity of the subject matter to the point they opted for the hung jury route in lieu making a unanimous decision that could be flawed or even completely inappropriate. The requests for explanations in "every day" language is telling as is being told you have to make your decision based on your memory.
This is the Treasury's announcement of the adoption of the Net Worth Sweep
Expedite Wind Down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
August 17, 2012
(Archived Content)
?
Modifications to Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Will Make Sure That Every Dollar of Earnings Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Generate Will Benefit Taxpayers
Announcement Will Support the Continued Flow of Mortgage Credit
during a Responsible Transition to a Reformed Housing Finance Market
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced a set of modifications to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) between the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Government Sponsored Enterprises or GSEs) that will help expedite the wind down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, make sure that every dollar of earnings each firm generates is used to benefit taxpayers, and support the continued flow of mortgage credit during a responsible transition to a reformed housing finance market.
“With today’s announcement, we are taking the next step toward responsibly winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while continuing to support the necessary process of repair and recovery in the housing market,” said Michael Stegman, Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury for Housing Finance Policy. “As we continue to work toward bi-partisan housing finance reform, we are committed to putting in place measures right now that support continued access to mortgage credit for American families, promote a responsible transition, and protect taxpayer interests.”
The modifications to the PSPAs announced today are consistent with FHFA’s strategic plan for the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that it released in February 2012. The modifications include the following key components:
Accelerated Wind Down of the Retained Mortgage Investment Portfolios at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The agreements require an accelerated reduction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s investment portfolios. Those portfolios will now be wound down at an annual rate of 15 percent – an increase from the 10 percent annual reduction required in the previous agreements. As a result of this change, the GSEs’ investment portfolios must be reduced to the $250 billion target set in the previous agreements four years earlier than previously scheduled.
Annual Taxpayer Protection Plan
To support a thoughtfully managed wind down, the agreements require that on an annual basis, each GSE will – under the direction of their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency – submit a plan to Treasury on its actions to reduce taxpayer exposure to mortgage credit risk for both its guarantee book of business and retained investment portfolio.
Full Income Sweep of All Future Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Earnings to Benefit Taxpayers for Their Investment
The agreements will replace the 10 percent dividend payments made to Treasury on its preferred stock investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a quarterly sweep of every dollar of profit that each firm earns going forward.
This will help achieve several important objectives, including:
· Making sure that every dollar of earnings that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac generate will be used to benefit taxpayers for their investment in those firms.
· Ending the circular practice of the Treasury advancing funds to the GSEs simply to pay dividends back to Treasury.
· Acting upon the commitment made in the Administration’s 2011 White Paper that the GSEs will be wound down and will not be allowed to retain profits, rebuild capital, and return to the market in their prior form.
· Supporting the continued flow of mortgage credit by providing borrowers, market participants, and taxpayers with additional confidence in the ability of the GSEs to meet their commitments while operating under conservatorship.
· Providing greater market certainty regarding the financial strength of the GSEs.
reply to 605374 Yank, it appears you've succinctly proven a "taking" under the 5th has taken place. To deny owners "use of" and "benefit from" their property while the Government assumes control of that property and uses that property for the common good is the very definition of a taking.
A big THANK YOU to navycmdr . Your unending commitment has paid off and we thank you for all you have done.
Here's Freddie's Sept 4, 2008 8-K Filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000102621408000029/f67031e8vk.htm
The Bylaws are located here: http://www.freddiemac.com/governance/pdf/bylaws.pdf
A quick look thru the Bylaws confirms that minutes must be taken for each meeting, so one would need to access the meeting minutes for the day prior to the Government taking over. Similarly, I found in the Bylaws that there are very specific steps that must be taken to remove an individual from the BOD. It appears the Government did not follow those steps when it eliminated the existing BOD and moved in a whole new BOD on Conservatorship day. This questions the validity of the Governments installed BOD.
Has anyone tried to access Freddies Bylaws to determine if the Board of Directors actually did alter the Bylaws the night before Conservatorship was imposed. If the BOD did make the change, there will be a record of it in the Bylaws.
Not to dispute your numbers, only to say the $243 Billion may have been the total amount but the government settled the lawsuits for much less.
Here are the records I've been able to find:
What happened to all the settlement money FHFA got from lawsuits to recover losses FnF experienced from mis-represented mortgage values on mortgages sold by the TBTF banks. Lawsuits totaled about $192 billion and settlements on those suits was about $42 billion. Where did the money go! In most cases, FHFA accepted settlements at about 15-20 cents on the dollar of the base amounts listed in the suit. Plus, some of the listed had multiple suits.
1. Ally Financial $52 million settlement on a $6 billion suit
2. Bank of America $16.65 billion settlement on a $57.45 billion suit
3. Barclays Bank PLC $280 million settlement on a $4.9 billion suit
4. Citigroup, Inc $7 billion settlement on a $? billion suit
5. Countrywide Financial see Bank of America
6. Credit Suisse $885 million settlement on a $14.1 billion suit
7. Deutsche Bank $1.92 billion settlement on a $14.2 billion suit
8. First Horizon National $110 million settlement on a $883 million suit
9. General Electric $550 million check payable to FnF settlement on a $550 million suit
10. Goldman Sachs $3.15 billion settlement on a $11.1 billion suit
11. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. $550 million settlement on a $6.2 billion suit
12. JPMorgan Chase & Co. $4 billion settlement on $33 billion suit
13. Merrill Lynch see B of America
14. Morgan Stanley ? Suit was for $11.58 billion
15. Nomura Holding $839 million settlement on a $2 billion suit
16. The Royal Bank of Scotland $5.5 billion settlement on a $30.4 billion suit
17. Société Générale $122 million settlement on a $1.3 billion suit
This Conservatorship is run very much like internet scams. First, they get control of the money. On the internet, if you find an item you want to purchase, the scammer has you send the money to a third party with a Paypal account using Friends and Family which Paypal won't stand behind. Then the money is almost immediately wired to a Bitcoin exchange in Europe who converts your money to bitcoins. The bitcoins are then run thru a different exchange and converted to cash which is untraceable all within 48 hours. When you contact the seller to see when you will receive your item the seller keeps coming up with excuses why he is unable to ship the item which you never get. The US Government got control of FnF's /the shareholder's money with the SCAM Conservatorship, then they created methods to justify taking money and creating the appearance of debt. When repayment money started coming in from FnF earnings they sent it to Treasury General Funds where it became untraceable and you can never get it back and it can never be repaid. Then they keep telling shareholders that this will get settled, but it never happens. Every month there is a new delay tactic. Every quarter they keep taking the money with the promise this will get resolved. Every election they say Congress will pass the "fix". It's all lowlife SCAMs. Now the Democrats want to give illegal immigrants free healthcare. It's all a SCAM. Maybe it's time for a new Continental Congress to fix the Constitution which allows this.
Yanks, I think your statement "6. The warrants have no relation to bankruptcy provision and likely would be worthless in any such case." is inaccurate in two ways. "Bankruptcy" is not discussed in HERA, but "Receivership" is. Bankruptcy gives a method to reorganize while Receivership does not. For FnF Receivership is the prescription for failure to meet obligations for a two month stretch (at least that's how I remember reading it). In a Receivership the warrants do have value to the tune of 80% of settlement value of the sales of all assets of FnF. These assets have substantial value, especially the portfolios and the intellectual property. It wouldn't take excessive losses to force Receivership, so market value of assets would be substantial and 80% would go to holders of the Warrants, thus assuring taxpayers would not have their interests wiped out, at the expense of equity shareholders by dilution.
Then, you know where I'm going with this, so let's get there already…..the SPSPA's.
5.1.
Restricted Payments. Seller shall not, and shall not permit any of its subsidiaries to, in each case without the prior written consent of Purchaser.
This is a duty assigned to the Director of FHFA and Treasury has usurped the Director's authority.
5.3.
Conservatorship . Seller shall not (and Conservator, by its signature below, agrees that it shall not), without the prior written consent of Purchaser, terminate, seek termination of or permit to be terminated the conservatorship of Seller
Again, Purchaser (Treasury) has usurped a power only given to the Director and created by HERA.
6.7. Effect of Order; Injunction; Decree . If any order, injunction or decree is issued by any court of competent jurisdiction that vacates, modifies, amends, conditions, enjoins, stays or otherwise affects the appointment of Conservator as conservator of Seller or otherwise curtails Conservator’s powers as such conservator (except in each case any order converting the conservatorship to a receivership under Section 1367(a) of the FHE Act), Purchaser may by written notice to Conservator and Seller declare this Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and automatically terminate.
As written in 6.7, Treasury seems to suggest the Conservator can break the statutes of HERA and assign some of the Conservators powers to a different governmental agency unless some competent court with jurisdiction conditions the Conservator's powers. The Conservator can't modify the statutes of HERA to satisfy Treasury
So we get back to the question, does Calabria have the conviction to take on the Treasury?
The question becomes "will Calabria follow the law to the letter or will he serve the Treasury's interpretation?" For Example, what will he do with "FHFA will be an agency not subject to the direction of any other agency"? Or, "the duties of the Director shall not be assigned to any member of the oversite board". (I know, these are not verbatim quotes but they are close). Just sayin'......
Does ending NWS trigger end to SPSPA, unwinding this whole mess:
[color=red][/color]Just curious, this is paragraph 6.12.of the SPSPA is the last paragraph before signatures. It says:
6.12. Non-Severability. Each of the provisions of this Agreement is integrated with and integral to the whole and shall not be severable from the remainder of the Agreement. In the event that any provision of this Agreement, the Senior Preferred Stock or the Warrant is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, then Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and automatically terminate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Net Worth Sweep is an amendment to and an extension of the original SPSPA. If the NWS proves to be illegal and unenforceable, then that is the trigger to bring such action as "Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and automatically terminate."
Doesn't ending the NWS because it is unenforceable, unwind this whole scam?
From A Forensic Look at the Fannie Mae Bailout: Scrubbing the
Tricky Accounting of Conservatorship
"Further evidence of Treasury intent to unnecessarily cripple the GSE’s are found in the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board minutes from its December 17`18th 2008 session. In them, Treasury plainly states that the 10% interest rate was punitive and that the purpose of the warrants was not to take ownership but to devalue the common stock[color=red][/color]."