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 question is...who could possibly be buying this stuff. History shows this has always been a scam to sucker anyone willing to take a chance. I suspect pinhead convinced someone to do a PIPE transaction, or he suckered someone into a loan with shares at say 0.00006 pps and they are dumping them as quickly as they can...and quite possibly the MM's are the ones buying them up in hopes they can turn a profit with the next wave of scam PR's.
should be around the end of this month
and don't forget about the Well services company he also bought...would fit in nicely to his little vacuum sealed operation...lol
here ya go
notice the dates....they have let this sit hoping people will forget all the old scam stuff and looking for some new meat to take advantage of.
Share Structure
Market Value1 $345,738 a/o Mar 07, 2017
Authorized Shares 2,000,000,000 a/o Jun 30, 2010
Outstanding Shares 1,152,459,514 a/o Jun 30, 2010
-Restricted Not Available
-Unrestricted Not Available
Held at DTC Not Available
Float 903,297,039 a/o Jun 30, 2010
Par Value 0.0001
check this out...from around 6 months ago. Question is...where did the MONEY come from...or is it just another one of pinheads scams like before where he "sold" assets to an associate company what 6-7-8 years ago and we got nothing but bent over....no kiss...no reach around...nuthin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2016-10-20/pilgrim-petroleum-completes-acquisition-of-controlling-interest-oil-and-gas-assets
Pinhead is back on control....dumping shares cause he needs a new pair of shoes. This is still the same scam it has always been.
I would suspect pinhead either did a PIPE or is selling more shares to raise some cash before he starts the next P&D
100 mil plus bought/sold in one hour. 102.7 million shares dumped...
maybe there is a chance to get out of this scam dog in the future
thanks...I missed the fees in my calculations
can you share where/how you got this value?
TIA
nice jump this morning...I see the entire market is pumped, so I suppose citi is riding along. hopefully we can maintain above the $60 mark going forward.
lol
could be MM's cleaning up earlier trades
Todays Volume
78,335,849
Date/Time Price Shares Change Exch/Mkt
02/21/2017 4:38 PM EST 3.32 308257 0.61 OTO
02/21/2017 4:12 PM EST 2.72 15 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:12 PM EST 2.71 154 0.00 OTO
02/21/2017 4:11 PM EST 2.71 7500 0.00 OTO
02/21/2017 4:07 PM EST 3.15 12000 0.44 OTO
02/21/2017 4:03 PM EST 2.72 568 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:02 PM EST 3.17 1000 0.46 OTO
02/21/2017 4:01 PM EST 2.72 500 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:01 PM EST 2.72 500 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 4000 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.73 49700 0.02 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 100 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.73 39700 0.02 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.71 230 0.00 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 100 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.70 5000 -0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 500 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 100 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 4:00 PM EST 2.72 10000 0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.71 3600 0.00 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.70 200 -0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.70 3900 -0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.71 100 0.00 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.70 2535 -0.01 OTO
02/21/2017 3:59 PM EST 2.71 500 0.00 OTO
A very very good read
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-26_1.pdf
All of that money is "taxpayer" money...as previously stated by Obit in multiple posts...it is impossible to determine where each dollar originates in the govt. So to say that any of that money came from the GSE's directly...impossible to determine. One can only assume that all dollars within the gov are shared across the gov for whatever expenditures they deem needs to happen.
You can't say that "only" GSE NWS money is being earmarked and goes for this or that...
what is most important, is that we do know how much money the GSE NWS has accumulated over the life of the conservatorship, and once a decision by the courts has been reached, it will be up to the gov to take "taxpayer" money to repay...if that is the decision by the courts.
I have a feeling pinhead is looking for money...I did do some research a while back on him personally...not much out there. But...I do recall finding a notice of a court filing for a foreclosure on his home. I don't remember what happened...seems I recall it being a squabble with the HOA he is in...so it may be a cosmetic squabble or HOA dues. Don't remember the outcome either...I will do some checking again and see what I can find.
been a long time since i have looked at this "company"...found this a few minutes ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-boycotting-starbucks-ceo-announces-153452243.html
what I've found so far
American Capital Investment LLC
AMERICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC
Florida Department Of State Business Registration · Updated 1/28/2017
American Capital Investment, LLC is a Florida Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on April 8, 2011 . The company's filing status is listed as Inactive and its File Number is L11000043495.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Yakovleva Natalia and is located at C/O Paul Berkowitz - Greenberg Traurig, Miami, FL 33133. The company's principal address is C/O Paul Berkowitz - Greenberg Traurig 333 Avenue Of The Americas, Miami, FL 33133 and its mailing address is Paul Berkowitz - Greenberg Traurig 333 Avenue Of The Americas, Miami, FL 33133.
The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is Natalia Yakovleva from Miami FL.
Company Information
Company Name: AMERICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC
File Number: L11000043495
Filing State: Florida (FL)
Filing Status: Inactive
Filing Date: April 8, 2011
Company Age: 5 Years, 9 Months
high rise building in Miami
************************************
not sure about this company
American Capital Invstmnt LLC
6225 N 16th Ave,
Phoenix, AZ 85015
(602) 697-5050
this is a personal residence...check it out on google earth
***************************
Alpha Petroleum Resources LP
Company name Alpha Petroleum Resources, Lp
Address ALPHA PETROLEUM RESOURCES, LP
4020 N MACARTHUR BLVD STE 122 IRVING
TX 75038-6422
State TX
Company number 0800365362
Registration Date 13th July 2004
Sos number 0800365362
Taxpayer number 32035571754
Right to Do Business in Texas ACTIVE
Key persons
AMERICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC
4020 N MAC ARTHUR BLVD SUITE 122 IRVING
TX 75038
*************************************
Crescent Hill Capital Corp
Crescent Hill Capital Corp
(OTCMKTS:DRMC) - no longer traded
crescent hill capital corp
100 CRESCENT CT,
DALLAS TX 75201
Business Phone: 214-208-0590
will do more research when I have time...possibly ole pinhead is going to make another run with pgpm...maybe we will have a chance to escape
Ackman, Berkowitz May Not Get Their Fannie Mae Payout So Fast Under Trump
January 27, 2017
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ackman-berkowitz-may-not-fannie-233444361.html
- By Holly LaFon
Bill Ackman (Trades, Portfolio), who has sued to release Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) from government conservatorship, said this week he has increased confidence that the Trump administration would ensure and hasten the reform of the government-sponsored entities, a move that would further enrich him and a number of his hedge and mutual fund peers.
Ackman has wagered roughly $9 billion of his hedge fund's assets that the government would return the two entities, which it rescued from collapse in the 2008 mortgage crisis, to private ownership and end its confiscation of their profits. He, along with several other large stakeholders such as Bruce Berkowitz (Trades, Portfolio) of Fairholme Fund (Trades, Portfolio), have already made sizable gains on their bets, as the market hopes for an imminent and profitable decision on the lenders' fate. Shares of Fannie Mae that traded for under 30 cents in 2013 have already surged 150% since the election.
"Despite significant share price appreciation in 2016, we believe the shares of a reformed Fannie and Freddie will be worth a multiple of their current price," Ackman said in a shareholder presentation released this week.
Ackman has based his thesis on several known facts that have made decision on how to reform the lenders tremendously complicated for politicians and lawmakers. "Fannie and Freddie are essential for widespread access to prepayable 30-year fixed mortgage at a reasonable cost," he said at the 2014 Ira Sohn investment conference. The two also supply roughly $5 trillion or 60% of home mortgages in the U.S., making them integral to the financial system and the first-time home-ownership dream of many low to moderate-income households.
Hedge funds got reason to believe the finish line in their marathon moved closer as several statements from Trumps' administration, already known for drastic actions, hinted at big moves on Fannie and Freddie. In his presentation, Ackman said he believes the new administration "will successfully reform Fannie and Freddie," citing statements from treasury secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin," who called it one of the "top 10" things the young administration plans to accomplish.
"We gotta get Fannie and Freddie out of government ownership. It makes no sense that these are owned by the government and have been controlled by the government for as long as they have. In many cases this displaces private lending in the mortgage markets and we need these entities that will be safe. So let me just be clear we'll make sure that when they're restructured they're absolutely safe and they don't get taken over again but we gotta get them out of government control," Mnuchin said on Nov. 3.
Ackman's presentation left out a clarifying comment Mnuchin made later, at his Jan. 19 Senate confirmation hearing. "My comments were never that there should be recap and release," Mnuchin said.
He cited Mnuchin's further comments at the hearing: "For very long periods of time, I think that Fannie and Freddie have been well run without creating risk to the government, as well as they've played an important role...I believe these are very important entities to provide the necessary liquidity for housing finance and what I've committed to is that I will work with both of the Democrats and Republicans. What I've said and I believe, we need housing finance reform, so we shouldn't just leave Fannie and Freddie as is for the next 4 or 8 years under government control, without a fix. I believe we can find a bipartisan fix for these so on the one hand we don't end up with a giant bailout, on the other hand that we don't run the risk of completely limiting housing finance."
But housing experts see a bigger picture with many nuances that the Trump administration will have to regard no matter its goal-oriented track record.
"While there is a lot of pressure being put on the new administration and lawmakers from hedge funds to act quickly, I am skeptical that privatizing Fannie and Freddie can be done at a breakneck pace," said Ben Keys, assistant professor of real estate at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
First, the government will have to decide its role in the housing finance system. A second mortgage crisis could require the government to step in again, but a plan of action will need to be clearly defined. Though several proposals have been floated, none has been put on a fast track to enactment.
The possibility of another mortgage crisis will also force decision makers to consider the risk the private sector should bear for the mortgage market during downturns. Though healthy now, a replay of the mortgage market collapse of 2008 would be "devastating" for homeowners and the economy, Keys said.
The impact of privatization on the group they are meant to serve, homebuyers, must also be considered. Whether the private market would appropriately price financing to homebuyers is unknown. Mortgage credit access has already tightened since the crisis, and privatization could increase costs and limit lending to very qualified first-time homebuyers and lower-income families, placing the 30-year fixed rate mortgage out of reach for many.
Finally, privatization would require more government money. If privatized, Fannie and Freddie would be required to meet capital requirements and stress tests of systemically important financial institutions, with their modest capital reserves, capital may have to come directly from taxpayer dollars. Legislators will likely balk at giving up the net worth sleeps the entities are currently providing.
Of Ackman's four "key elements" to reform listed in his presentation, he acknowledged the need for an increase in capital requirements, but did not say where the additional capital would come from. Some have suggested that a public share offering could quickly recapitalize the entities.
"In short, there's no magic wand to wave and privatize these enormous entities, especially when there are huge transition costs, including costs to taxpayers, and there isn't much political agreement on the long-term role of the government in the mortgage market," Keys said.
"This privatization should not be taken lightly and should not be done at the fevered pace of this administration's early days."
In Ackman's view, only three steps are needed to reform the GSEs, in addition to raise capital requirements: increased regulatory oversight, eliminate their fixed-income arbitrage business and create compensation and governance policies.
"If the GSEs increase their capital levels and become pure mortgage guarantors, they can be a simple, low-risk and effective solution for housing finance reform," he said.
Ackman has made gains of 66% on Fannie Mae and 73% on Freddie Mac on his average cost since announcing his positions in October 2013. They were on the winning side of his fund, which declined 13.5% for the year, primarily due to continued losses in his holding Valeant (VRX), compared to an 11.9% rise in the S&P 500.
Republicans Unfazed by Controversies Surrounding Cabinet Nominees
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/republicans-unfazed-controversies-surrounding-cabinet-nominees-093805816--abc-news-topstories.html
Republicans have twice signaled their intention to let President Donald Trump’s controversial cabinet picks sail through the nomination process, prioritizing a unified party front, despite issues that could have easily disqualified them in past sessions of Congress.
Thanks to a rule change that Democrats pushed through when they were in control of the Senate, barring the minority party from filibustering most presidential nominations, Republicans know they do not need votes from across the aisle to confirm Trump’s cabinet. They have enough votes for the simple majority they need if they vote as a unified block.
Despite flashy headlines and some eyebrow-raising revelations about some of Trump’s selections to oversee government agencies, Republicans are choosing not to pick fights with the new White House after an election where their unity was vigorously tested.
Citing the need to show deference to the President, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in a Facebook post that, despite serious reservations about Rex Tillerson as Trump’s Secretary of State, he would back the billionaire businessman.
Rubio appeared to be the last Republican holdout on the nomination, criticizing Tillerson for his coziness with Russia. Rubio was also displeased by Tillerson's unwillingness to acknowledge human rights abuses committed by dictators around the world. Still, he and colleague Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, decided to toe the party line.
Republicans also circled the wagons around Besty DeVos, another one of Trump’s more controversial picks, tapped to lead the Department of Education despite her lack of teaching and administrative experience. The GOP mega-donor stumbled through her confirmation hearing with some major gaffes about guns in schools and programs for students with disabilities. Plus, she failed to complete her financial conflicts of interest review with the Office of Government Ethics before her hearing. Democrats asked for a second round of questioning, but Republican committee leadership Monday said, 'no.'
The willingness to stand steadfast behind nominations, along party lines, is a change from past cycles.
In 2009, weeks into this new presidency, Barack Obama said he made a mistake with original nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tom Daschle withdrew his name from contention after it came to light that failed to pay approximately $140,000 in back taxes.
The former Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota was one of Obama's trusted advisers, but the new Democratic White House at the time decided he was not worth the fight. A month earlier, before Obama was even sworn-in, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his name as a nominee to run the Department of Commerce, after questions about whether state contracts may have been awarded to his campaign donors.
In 2004, Bernard Kerik, nominated by President George W. Bush to head the Department of Homeland Security, abruptly pulled his name after facing questions about the immigration status of one of his housekeepers. Similarly in 2001, Bush's pick for Secretary of Labor, Linda Chavez, withdrew her name after she was accused of providing haven to an undocumented immigrant. At the time, Chavez said she had become too much of a "distraction."
This year, issues of potential past misconduct do not appear to be as critical.
Trump's choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, Rep. Mike Mulaney, R-South Carolina disclosed openly that he failed to pay more than $15,000 in taxes for his family's nanny.
Trump's HHS Nominee Returns to Capitol Hill Play video
Trump's HHS Nominee Returns to Capitol Hill
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, said during his confirmation hearing that he fired a longtime household employee after he could not verify the employee's immigration status.
Steven Mnuchin, a billionaire investment banker tapped to head the Treasury Department, initially failed to disclose almost $100 million dollars in assets kept in a Cayman Island corporation. He eventually corrected the oversight.
Meanwhile, Democrats are calling for further, formal investigations of Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, nominated by Trump to run the Department of Health and Human Services. Price has been accused of knowingly purchasing stocks in health care companies that directly benefited from legislation he was working on in Congress. Price said he took offense at the insinuation of illegal or nefarious behavior and argued the traders were part of a large, managed portfolio.
In the past, mistakes like Mnuchins' or questions like those swirling around Price could have seriously derailed a cabinet nomination and sent a new administration scrambling. The Trump team has stood by all of its nominees and the Senate GOP seem to be aligning.
there may be less than 100k DIRECT investors...but I would say there are many more than 100k people indirectly invested through their retirement accounts via municipalities, union investments, teacher/fire/police retirements. not to mention the people that invest through mutual funds and institutional investors
A question for you
I will use a hypothetical just to make things easy to understand
A Bank sells the GSE's $10 billion worth of mbs.
It is later discovered that $8 billion of the mbs are toxic/bad loans.
The Treasury takes the bank to court...wins in court, or the bank concedes and agrees to buy back the subject mbs.
What happens to that $8 billion value reimbursed for the toxic loans?.
Shouldn't it go back to the GSE's? If not...shouldn't the GSE's be credited with that $8 billion against the Treasury draw?
Congrats to those who were able to pick up more on the paranoid dip
Please help me out here...I've traveled the world extensively both in the military and after military life...where are the "camin islands" located?
hahahahaha...Mnunchin just bich slapped obama over the HAMP program
Will Citigroup (C) Stock's Rally Continue Post Q4 Earnings?
Zacks Equity Research
ZacksJanuary 17, 2017
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citigroup-c-stocks-rally-continue-140902924.html
We expect Citigroup Inc. C to beat earnings expectations when it reports its fourth-quarter and 2016 results tomorrow, before the opening bell.
Driven by a decline in operating expenses, Citigroup had delivered a positive earnings surprise of nearly 8% in the last quarter. Also, the company recorded higher fixed income market revenues and investment banking revenues. However, a rise in cost of credit was a headwind.
This earnings beat translated in to improved price movement for the company. Gradually improving operating environment also supported the price performance. For the three-month period ended Dec 31, 2016, Citigroup’s shares increased nearly 8.8%.
Will the rally in stock price continue post fourth-quarter earnings release? It majorly depends on whether the firm is able to maintain its trend of beating earnings over the last four quarters.
Moody’s To Pay $864 Million For Role In 2008 Financial Crisis
https://www.yahoo.com/news/moody-pay-864-million-role-085825373.html
Moody’s Corporation has agreed to pay nearly $864 million to settle federal and state claims over its role in the 2008 financial crisis. The credit ratings agency, along with its peers Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, was widely criticized for giving inflated ratings to risky mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the crisis.
The settlement, announced by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday, resolves pending lawsuits in 21 states and the District of Columbia. Under the terms of the agreement, the company will pay $437.5 million to the DoJ, while the remaining $426.3 will be divided among the states and the District of Columbia.
“Moody’s failed to adhere to its own credit rating standards and fell short on its pledge of transparency in the run-up to the Great Recession,” Bill Baer, a principal deputy associate attorney general, said in a statement. “Today’s settlement contains not only a significant penalty and factual admissions of its conduct, but also a commitment by Moody’s to new and continued compliance measures designed to ensure the integrity of credit ratings going forward.”
The sale of subprime mortgage-backed CDOs was the leading cause of the 2008 financial crisis — the worst one since the Great Depression. As part of the agreement, Moody’s — currently the world’s second-largest credit ratings agency — acknowledged that it had used a more “lenient” standard for rating these securities, and that it failed to follow its own published methods.
“Moody’s touted a particularly robust analytical framework for rating RMBS [Residential Mortgage Backed Securities] and CDOs,” U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the district of New Jersey, said in the statement. “Moody’s now admits that it deviated from its methodologies and failed to disclose those changes to the public. People making decisions on how to invest their money thought they could rely on the ratings Moody’s assigned to these products. When securities are not rated openly and honestly, individual investors suffer, as does confidence in all parts of the financial sector.”
The agreement comes almost two years after Standard and Poor’s — the world’s largest credit ratings agency — settled similar allegations by the DoJ, 19 states, and the District of Columbia for nearly $1.4 billion. However, the heftiest fines and penalties related to the financial crisis have been levied on the world’s biggest banks, which have been, over the past eight years, forced to shell out over $160 billion.
C Earnings Date
Earnings announcement for C: Jan 18, 2017
Citigroup Inc. is expected* to report earnings on 01/18/2017 before market open. The report will be for the fiscal Quarter ending Dec 2016. According to Zacks Investment Research, based on 9 analysts' forecasts, the consensus EPS forecast for the quarter is $1.12. The reported EPS for the same quarter last year was $1.06.
these numbers aren't exact. As you stated...this represents a "one time" scenario. But...they are close enough considering how quickly the GSE's did pay back the money. I would guesstimate they are within 2% or 3% of the actual numbers.
This is more of a very close estimate of what has transpired.
Current as of Jan. 05, 2017
Bailout Recipients
Fannie Mae
RECEIVED FROM TAXPAYERS - $116,149,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
TOTAL REPAID TO DATE - $154,336,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
Profit to the Taxpayer - 32.8776 % - $38,187,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
Fannie Mae has paid $26,572,100,000.00 BILLION dollars OVER the 10% dividend to date.
*************
Freddie Mac
RECEIVED FROM TAXPAYERS - $71,336,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
TOTAL REPAID TO DATE - $101,448,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
Profit to the Taxpayer - 42.2115% - $30,112,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
Freddie Mac has paid $22,978,400,000.00 BILLION dollars OVER the 10% dividend to date
************
GSE's
This equates to a total paid back to date of $255,784,000,000.00 BILLION dollars.
Initial bailout total for both GSE's - $187,485,000,000.00 BILLION dollars.
Amount repaid to date for both GSE's - $255,784,000,000.00 BILLION dollars.
Profit to the "taxpayer" from the GSE's - $68,299,000,000.00 BILLION dollars
Total paid over the initial 10% bailout dividend - $49,550,500,000.00 BILLION dollars
This equates to a total paid to date of 36.429% profit to the "taxpayers"
**************
AIG
RECEIVED FROM TAXPAYERS - $67,835,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS
TOTAL REPAID TO DATE - $72,860,967,492.00 BILLION DOLLARS
Profit to Taxpayer - 07.40911 % - 5.025 BILLION DOLLARS
*************
GM
RECEIVED FROM TAXPAYERS - $50,744,648,329.00 BILLION DOLLARS
TOTAL REPAID TO DATE - $39,350,966,663.00 BILLION DOLLARS
GM Still OWES the Taxpayers $11.393 BILLION DOLLARS.
Perhaps you could contact the PCAOB...show them the suspected fraud...let them run with it. Then again...they may tell you to pound sand since they are controlled by the SEC and to some extent the Treasury.
https://pcaobus.org/
lookin good today...hopefully we maintain the $61 level this week and move higher towards $70 this month
current BV over $73
I think we see a move higher after the first of the year. I have a feeling a lot of this selloff is due to peeps wanting to have $$$ for taxes. I also think the continued share buyback will boost the pps a few dollars in Q1....hoping to see closer to 70 by end of Q1.
looks like you were right...just a week later than expected
well...so much for that thought...lol. maybe above 60
lookin good...nice movement....maybe we can stay above $61
excuse me.....I didn't see the comment about it taking off at $5.
There is no law that states funds can not buy below $5 dollars. That's something they chose to follow....most of the time.
There are hundreds of credible and successful OTC stocks out there, and more often than not, the reason they are on the OTC is the cost of complying with NASDAQ, NYSE reporting requirements. Also...one must be diligent in their research (DD) to verify the OTC or penny stock is NOT a scam.....way too many of them around.
here is a quick list of top fund holder of FNMA.
Top Mutual Fund Holders
Holder Shares Date Reported % Out Value
Delaware Group Equity Fds IV-Delaware Healthcare Fund 1,300,000 Jun 29, 2016 0.11% 2,600,000
Fidelity Event Driven Opportunities Fund 1,150,817 Aug 30, 2016 0.10% 2,094,486
Voya Partners Inc.-VY/Invesco Equity & Income Port 915,000 Jun 29, 2016 0.08% 1,830,000
TIFF Multi-Asset Fund 435,022 Jun 29, 2016 0.04% 870,044
Fidelity Advisor Event Driven Opportunities Fund 59,435 Aug 30, 2016 0.01% 108,171
I believe this is the article you are referring to.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/20/us-proposed-5-billion-7-billion-penalty-on-credit-suisse-on-toxic-debt-source.html
Jostling for FHA post shows lack of clarity on Trump housing agenda
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/jostling-for-fha-post-shows-lack-of-clarity-on-trump-housing-agenda-232886
By Lorraine Woellert
12/21/16 10:13 AM EST
Ed Brady wants to keep the Federal Housing Administration humming. Clinton Jones wants to cut it down to size. They share a common goal, though. Both want the agency’s top job.
For a clue to President-elect Donald Trump’s thinking on housing reform, watch the race for FHA commissioner. Ideologically, the unofficial lineup of contestants for the job couldn’t be more diverse, a signal that the incoming administration — and its wannabes — still don’t know what, exactly, Trump's housing agenda is.
Jones, a senior counsel on the House Financial Services Committee, is an architect of Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s legislation that would shrink the FHA and, critics say, make home loans more expensive. Brady, who is wrapping up his term as chairman at the National Association of Home Builders, credits the FHA with rescuing the housing market in the thick of the financial collapse.
“I want to make sure FHA is strong and sustainable and has good advocacy,” Brady told POLITICO. “Frankly, it was our lifeline for our industry during the crisis.”
Others said to be under consideration for the job are, at one end of the ideological spectrum, outgoing Rep. Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial Services Committee, and the Cato Institute’s Mark Calabria. Like Jones, they want to minimize or eliminate government's role in the mortgage business.
Then there are Brady, Adolfo Marzol, a former executive at mortgage insurer Essent, and former Rep. Rick Lazio, a New York Republican who wrote housing legislation that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. All are sympathetic to, if not downright supportive of, the symbiosis between housing and government.
Trump made his fortune in real estate and understands the complexities of the financial system that makes homeownership possible for average Americans. But the president-elect hasn’t said much about how to fix the market’s rattling mortgage engines — FHA and its distant relatives, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
All three had to be rescued by taxpayers after the housing collapse. Now that home prices and jobs have bounced back, FHA is in the black but threatened with underfunding.
Fannie and Freddie, which became taxpayer dependents during the financial meltdown, are making money but still living under the government’s roof. Under orders from Congress, they will have exhausted their capital buffers by this time next year, increasing the odds that they will need to call on Treasury for cash.
It’s a tenuous situation that had Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary, sounding the alarm the day after his nomination.
“We’ve got to get Fannie and Freddie out of government ownership,” Mnuchin told Fox News. “It makes no sense that these are owned by the government and have been controlled by the government for as long as they have.”
Capital markets and some in the media took that to mean that Mnuchin wanted the companies to bulk back up and return to their job of buying, selling and profiting from mortgages as quasi-independent entities. But what he really meant is anyone’s guess. Some Wall Street players are so unnerved at the comments and the prospect of returning to a flawed system that they have asked Mnuchin to explain his remarks.
“It could have meant anything,” said the Milken Institute’s Ed DeMarco, who as Fannie and Freddie’s onetime top regulator helped stabilize the companies after the collapse.
“Until there’s a fully formed team that’s had time to strategize, it’s premature to predict a particular path on housing,” DeMarco said. “I don’t think we know anything until the team’s in place and it gets its act together.”
Ben Carson, chosen by Trump to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has been in Washington learning his way around the issues and reaching out to stakeholders. Whoever is chosen for FHA won’t drive mortgage reform but will be part of the Trump team pushing the market toward either privatization or continued government support.
“Whoever Trump appoints for FHA commissioner, will be sending a strong signal about the direction that Trump intends to go on housing finance in general,” Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin said.