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.
".50 & a court case coming up, this should’ve at least tripled on speculation. PPS says it all."
It is scheduled to be a two week trial; I'm sure PPS will move along with the development of the trial.
"Dude, this stock is .50
14 years here with an OTC PENNY STOCK
I’m sure MANY would be happy & sell/settle for $10"
I believe that is the main issue here, you have only been looking at the stock and not the companies as a whole. These two companies hold almost $8T in their balance sheets.
That's the equivalent of Apple... almost 8 times (8x).
Nonetheless, we can only absorb the amount of risk that you as an individual investor can tolerate. If $10 is your threshold; I totally understand and respect it.
Best of luck!
I wouldn't sweat about thinking on getting awarded any substantial damages. not because it can't happen (I hope it does happen); but a win (no matter if big or small) will be one for the books to start undoing the conservatorship and get rid of the warrants making them illegal in the first place.
Everything else will come up very rapidly.
No, they don't already own 80%. They COULD own 79.9% of the companies through the execution of the warrants, but they haven't execute these or did they?
These are 2 different things and you are misinforming the people here.
Is that your all your DD? a simple quote by someone else, rather than the actual prospectus and reports?
Come on', I know you can do better. But to clarify your point... SPS are NON-CONVERTIBLE and NON-CUMULATIVE.
They could even settle during the trial if really want to do so.
SPS are non-cumulative and non-convertible. IDK where you get all that nonsense.
For once, they can play hard ball since they are paying their legal counsel with your tax paying dollars and extend this all they want while our attorneys keep racking hours in our bill (meaning we are technically paying for both sides legal counsel).
No. 2 is that by not settling the release of the sealed documents can and will also help not only possibly help settle but also provide grounds to the other lawsuits in the chain.
They don't care about admitting any guild; they are going to pay you with your own tax paying money and take it back again from you when you do your taxes at the of the year.
I agree. But I’m referring for those who do pay a fee.
Hard to do when you are paying a commission/transaction fee on OTC trades.
It's just better to commit and cut the fees.
Keep telling that to yourself.
Was it in escrow before the NWS? if so, how did the NWS happened, did the 'escrow agent" allowed? Oh wait, the escrow agent is the FHFA; meaning is done by the same government?
As easy as moving money from one pocket into the other.
Some of you that are here in this board to rebuke everything that is mentioned or said love playing "the people are too stupid to know game".
INSTRUCTION NO. 20
Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements
The testimony of a witness may be discredited or impeached by showing that he or she has previously made statements that are inconsistent with his or her present courtroom testimony. It is for you to decide whether a witness made a statement on an earlier occasion and whether it was in fact inconsistent with the witness's testimony in court here.
If a witness at trial has been confronted with a prior statement which that witness made, and that prior statement is inconsistent with [his] [her] testimony here in court, then you may consider the prior statement when you assess the truthfulness of the testimony [he] [she] gave in
court.
Unless I instructed you otherwise at the time, you may also treat what the witness said in that prior statement as evidence like any other evidence in this case.
If you believe that any witness has been discredited or impeached, then you should give his or her testimony the weight, if any, that you judge it is fairly entitled to receive.
Vanity Fair new article:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/02/fannie-and-freddie200902
Huh?! Preferred shares are equity? Since when?
Investing 101.
Preferred shares do NOT carry any equity as they do not provide ownership stake on the companies; nor they have any voting rights.
Preferred shares only carry preferential payments such as fixed or variable dividends and so on.
Only common shares provide ownership stake of the companies but don’t have a guaranteed dividend.
Is it really a conspiracy the when is in black and white? Just saying...
Nope. Dates stayed the same. Basically told to stop dragging their feet and do their job.
PX & DX refers to evidence numbers for the parties. P = Plaintiffs and D = Defendants.
If anyone other than the government would have done that; everyone would have called the act as no less than “predatory lending”.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-20364_1-19-2022.mp3
You all can listen to the entire audio or just to straight from min 37:00 and listen from there.
I believe you're right, ...to a point.
And the only issue that I see is that this trial won't be televised, so we won't have that advantage to show the public as has happened in recent court cases to include that additional pressure as did happened in the George Floyd case, Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard defamation trial and so on...
Not that I cared anything about those cases, but allowing to prove intent of the US government over live TV and been able to show the public what really happened will help to change the true perception and intent not only of the FHFA as conservator, but also the US Treasury.
And although many things can happened as you mentioned, i.e. the jury can be swayed, tampering of the jury can happen along with many other things by the defendant. Once that decision is placed in the hands of a third party, every becomes uncertain for everyone and no one will have an upper hand unless anything of the previously mentioned things take place.
To be honest, I'm not here to change anyone's mind or heart regarding the risks involved in the process. I believe that every single investor that have opened a position and hold shares (regardless if preferred or commons) of these enterprises should not be naive about these risks; but I can only speak for myself. At the end of the day is my responsibility as an investor to take everything that has been laid on the table over the years into considerations as part of my due diligence (including fundamentals, technicals, trials, warrants, SPS, etc...) and make an educated decision.
I hope this help you provide some clarity about my previous statement.
Best wishes and good luck to all.
Information didn't travel as fast 10 years ago. Plus, although some of us think the government have all the keys; is the jury who's holding everyone's keys now. Let's not forget, is a JURY TRIAL.
They won't need to anyway... But I see why your user is "skeptic". Good luck!
I don't think the plaintiffs will agree to settle for that same reason. The unsealed documents will expose the government's intent with the enterprises and kick the door open to other suits.