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.
wow. almost all buys. almost at avg vol already.
40% on a trip 0 means nothing. looks like a turd. that being said, may be good for a 1 tick scalp.
hehe. i dont post too much political stuff here either. there are other sites for that. sometimes its a good little distraction though during the lunch hour or something.
for politics go to "Zeev's Turnips"
OT: politics
8 wasted years, because change is just so dang hard and all. So do nothing instead.
White House puts warming threats on back burner
It rejects the EPA staff's findings on greenhouse gases and passes the issue on to the next president.
By James Gerstenzang and Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration Friday rejected its own experts' conclusion that global warming poses a threat to the public welfare, launching a comment period that will delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least until the next president takes office.
The Environmental Protection Agency published a 588-page examination of the issues surrounding greenhouse gases but refused to adopt its staff's finding that such gases could cause disastrous flooding and drought and affect food and water supplies.
The White House portrayed the EPA's original proposal to limit emissions as an "onerous command-and-control regulation" that "would impose crippling costs on the economy" without reducing the gases widely held responsible for the warming climate.
Environmentalists angrily denounced the White House for what they said was political interference with government experts' proposed rules.
The political reaction also was sharp, though some industry and business spokesmen agreed that economic burdens need to be considered.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the administration has never believed in global warming nor in doing anything about it. He asserted that the U.S. did not want to act because China and India have not done so. In an interview scheduled to be broadcast Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," the governor added: "We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing. That's what makes America No. 1."
An EPA official who worked on the rejected reports said Friday's announcement was unprecedented because agency staffers did not have a chance to respond to other agencies' criticism. "How do you respond to comments you've never even seen?" said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution.
The impetus for federal action came from a Supreme Court decision in April 2007 that rebuked the administration and ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were air pollutants subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act. If the EPA found they were a threat to the public, the court said, the agency was required to produce regulations to reduce the risk.
By not taking a stand on the health impact of the pollutants and seeking new public comment instead, the administration extended the period before the government can act beyond Jan. 20, 2009 -- when the next president will be inaugurated.
At the same time, it added fuel to criticism that President Bush has dragged his feet on the issue throughout his 7 1/2 years in office, avoiding a concerted government attack on global warming.
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence, said: "The White House has taken an earnest attempt by their own climate experts to respond to the Supreme Court's mandate to address global warming pollution and turned it into a Frankenstein's monster."
Bill Kovacs, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president, said the EPA staff's proposals were "an unprecedented power grab by unelected officials who want to stretch the application of the Clean Air Act into regulation of the entire economy."
Unwilling to commit
Bush returned Wednesday from Japan, where the Group of 8 summit of leading industrialized nations set a goal -- but not a binding commitment -- to cut emissions in half by 2050.
One day earlier, a former EPA official, Jason K. Burnett, said that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had worked to alter sworn congressional testimony provided by a federal official in January to play down global warming and head off regulation of greenhouse gases.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in a written statement that the EPA staff proposal would have given the agency "unprecedented power affecting anyone who uses or produces energy -- from stores and manufacturing facilities to power plants, farmers, even schools, hospitals and apartment buildings." She said the EPA would have functioned "like a local planning and zoning board, with potentially devastating effects on our economy."
In a conference call with reporters, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said he would receive comments for 120 days on how the government should regulate greenhouse gases, a step that Joan Claybrook, president of the public-interest lobbying group Public Citizen, said would guarantee that "the issue will not be dealt with until a new administration comes to town."
"The interference of the White House in this process is unconscionable, and its decision to run out the clock rather than take action during its tenure in office is a disgrace," she said.
Interference denied
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Johnson said the Clean Air Act was "the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gases" because it would require the agency to set separate standards for a large number of industries, a process he said could take years to complete and lead to multiple court cases. Rather, he said, Congress should produce a legislative answer.
In a draft of the document completed in May, EPA staff members concluded that regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save $2 trillion through lowered gasoline costs and other benefits over 30 years. In the final document, that figure was slashed more than 50%, to $830 billion. The lower figure is based largely on an estimate that gasoline will cost $2 a gallon over the next three decades, less than half the current price.
EPA Press Secretary Jonathan Shradar said he did not know why the changes had been made. But he said accusations of White House interference were "flatly wrong."
Shradar said the document issued Friday was reviewed by Brian Minnix, associate EPA administrator for policy, who is married to Susan Dudley, the regulatory chief at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Johnson made public several critical comments from senior officials undercutting his staff's work, including one from Dudley. He also disclosed a letter from the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Transportation in which they said the suggestion that the Clean Air Act could be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions recognized neither "the enormous -- and, we believe, insurmountable -- burdens, difficulties and costs" nor the likely benefits.
Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and John H. Marburger, the White House science advisor, wrote that the proposed regulations were cumbersome and would be an economic burden.
james.gerstenzang @latimes.com
janet.wilson@latimes.com
Gerstenzang reported from Washington and Wilson from Los Angeles.
good lord! nice job.
like stinky pinky games, but on a magnificently grand scale.
See last line
Posted by: markrhead Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:24:55 AM
In reply to: dijeetyet who wrote msg# 44139 Post # of 44140
Financial Stocks » Long Ideas, Housing Fannie & Freddie: Myth vs. Reality
by: Timothy Travis posted on: July 11, 2008 | about stocks:
Over the last week, Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM) have seen their share prices decimated. The primary concerns are higher funding costs and misinformation about the companies' business and balance sheets.
In listening to all of the rumors and discussions on television in regards to the GSEs' prospects, it is clear that most commentators and observers discussing these institutions have very little understanding of the actual businesses.
Let’s get a few facts out right away just to show how overblown this whole situation is.
First of all, the issue at hand is whether or not credit losses will significantly deplete the GSEs' capital base. This is something that can only be properly evaluated over time, but if you understand the business model and risk profiles of these companies, you would quickly ascertain that the chances of this happening are immensely remote. The reason that Freddie has negative equity, as eloquently illustrated by Mr. Poole, is a result of mark to market losses that have been incurred on its portfolio. These mark to market losses are the result of widening spreads on mortgage backed securities and are not the result of credit losses. There are a number of reasons for widening spreads, including market sentiment, technical factors, and hedging techniques. None of these reasons provide us with any indication of the actual credit losses that Fannie or Freddie will incur. Also the GSEs do not have any CDOs which are driving the majority of write downs for the banks, but instead they purchase and insure straight pass through mortgages.
In comparison to most banks, the GSEs' credit standards were significantly higher, and the structure of their insured portfolio provides them with a great deal of protection to credit losses that makes their securities unique and impossible to value by utilizing the ABX indices. In Freddie Mac’s quarterly report, the company was extremely detailed in their projections of what losses would be in a variety of different situations.
The main concerns in Freddie’s massive portfolio are their exposure to subprime and Alt-A securities. Let’s assume the worst scenario possible that we could discuss with a straight face in terms of the housing market. Assuming a 60% default rate and 50% severity, Freddie would be looking at losses of $99 million. This number might seem shockingly low, especially after seeing the GSEs write down billions in mark to market losses, but Fannie and Freddie enjoy a huge cushion on securities that they insure before they take on any losses. They insure and invest in “pass through” mortgages, and not CDOs. Freddie and Fannie get paid first, and when the mortgages aren’t performing up to expectations then cash is deferred from subordinated levels to the GSEs' senior positions.
Fannie and Freddie have multiple layers of protection on the securities that they insure to shield themselves from taking substantial losses on mortgage portfolios that aren’t living up to expectations. The ABX indices do not accurately reflect the losses that Fannie and Freddie are taking, because the ABX AAA tranches are drastically different then the securities that Fannie and Freddie issue.
Once again, the actual “losses” that Freddie Mac has incurred up until now have been the result of widening spreads on mortgage-backed securities, as seen on the ABX indices. These spreads are market driven and have no serious relation to expected losses that Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae will actually take on their portfolios. As time goes by, these mark to market losses will pass back through the income statement and on to the balance sheet as the reality of their actual credit losses overtake the emotional sentiment that is impacting the fair value of these securities at this point in time.
These widening spreads are actually allowing Freddie and Fannie to conduct businesses at extremely profitable levels. They have significantly raised prices and credit standards, and are now responsible for approximately 80% of the mortgage market. Both Freddie and Fannie could conceivably earn 15% on their capital, and I think both companies could easily earn $5-$7 a share as their explosive revenue growth and higher profit margins develop over the coming years.
In regards to the GSEs' ability to attract funds, the situation is a little more ambiguous, but is still vastly overblown in the old rumor mill that seems to move markets more then fundamentals these days. The government and the regulators have repeatedly maintained that the GSEs have the implicit guarantee of the government and would not be allowed to fail. Bond investors will realize this and continue to fund these companies, and even if spreads remain wider then they historically have been, the GSEs will certainly survive.
In terms of Freddie raising the 5.5 billion that they have committed to, there are a number of options. Currently, Freddie is over their capital requirements so there is no rush on the issue. It is absurd to think that the GSEs will not be able to raise capital when the likes of Washington Mutual (WM) can raise 7 billion.
Also, it is in the government’s best interests to keep the GSEs private. If worse came to worst, the government could invest in the GSEs in a preferred offering, being that the GSEs are already a part of the government and issue more debt then any other enterprise. There is no incentive for the government to nationalize these institutions when they are adequately capitalized, writing profitable new business, and liquid. What would the Bear Stearns (BSC) event be for these institutions? They are extremely liquid and credit worthy, and the world changed after the Fed rescued Bear Stearns, so the idea of these entities not having access to capital is completely absurd.
Even if they do raise dilutive capital, the return on equity will be substantial on the capital raised. Their future book of business will be of the highest quality and profit margins will be significantly higher than what we have seen in the last several years. Dilution is by no means ideal, but if you have any concept of history in the financial markets, it should be clear that recapitalizations occur all the time and often at difficult levels. Companies can come back to be extremely profitable enterprises as long as the underlying business prospects are sound. As the mark to market losses come back on the balance sheet, over time these companies will be able to reduce their leverage as the credit markets ease and housing stabilizes.
Richard Pzena of Pzena Investment Management, who in my opinion is right on in regards to his bullishness towards FRE and FNM, made the following points towards the capital issues.
Fannie Mae has a great deal of flexibility in dealing with the capital issue. First, it has a liquid investment portfolio that can be liquidated to generate $1.6 billion in capital. Second, there is an annual dividend payment of $1.3 billion, which in our opinion should be immediately eliminated. Third, there is the ability, if necessary, to shrink its portfolio through natural attrition and generate over $3 billion per year in capital. And, finally, OFHEO could reduce Fannie Mae’s excess capital requirement since it has fixed the issues that gave rise to in the first place. This would free up over $9.5 billion in additional capital.
In conclusion, I could not name a more attractive investment opportunity than Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae at the current share prices for the long term investor who is willing to bet against the crowd and ignore the noise.
i'll pass. not liquid enough for my tastes. GL
We hope that everyone is watching HYII, better yet we hope that everyone is in or at least planning to get in. HYII was alerted to us by someone in the know and so far unlike EDWY every single thing they have told us has come true. Notice how each day the volume is increasing. EOD today saw a buying push that knocked out the .28's. This one is going to see the high side of .50 in our opinion.
Click here to become Bloomfield Investment Club member:http://bloomfieldinvestmentclub.com/pages/public/subscribe/
it's under promotion right now
thanks
I have no acct with ameritrade, but is it right that they are always amongst the last to deliver round-ups? what about normal fs plays?
Lycklig den som varit ung i sin ungdom.
they're gonna hit avg vol before the bell.
"Q. How are fat girls and mopeds alike?
A. They are fun to ride but you don't want your friends to find out."
lmao. haven't heard that one since high school, when i had a moped and a fat girlfriend.
Lycklig den som varit ung i sin ungdom.
funny, a whack and then 200 go off at 1.10
fat finger
hehe, saw someone posted that a couple weeks ago. funny stuff.
beast
I see SWVC is a trip 0 stock now. what a pos.
QBIK?
tia
never use it, but nope
type Status report
message /export/level2.jsp
description The requested resource (/export/level2.jsp) is not available.
rough start out there today
"consolitanking" lmao
copyright that one.
JPCI: DEF14C out today and got this email today as well which may come in handy when it starts to really trade:
Thank you for your recent symbol request.
Based on your suggestion, we have added [JPCI] to our charting database:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=jpci
Thanks for using StockCharts.com,
StockCharts Support
support@stockcharts.com
http://stockcharts.com
wow. nice job there. i tried to get 19s and 20s and just got skipped.
yeah just saw that. looks like it was a friday daily list, i'm guessing it came after the first one of the day and I didn't check again. for example 3pm NY time is 9pm my time, was probably a few drinks deep by then lol. damn time zones.
me neither.
without reading it, because they are always on standby, many have no off switch? I hate that about mine.
**edit** doh! had to read it lol. but what I said stands.
Happy 4th fellow yanks, regardless (not Irregardless) of your current locale.
Lycklig den som varit ung i sin ungdom.
the board will now likely claim that dilution is over and it's going to da moon! They were selling shares to raise money to buy Wal Mart!
sheesh, i'd like to write myself 3billion shares. thats $300k even at .ooo1.
**edit** you got a grub post
Lycklig den som varit ung i sin ungdom.
maybe they are gearing up for another round up rs lol
choicetrade paid yesterday
so go buy us some cookies then why dont ya?
I prefer long novels in paper form, but for shorts, compendiums, or for reference. If you are not a book shelf fascist:
There are over 25,000 free books in the Project Gutenberg Online Book Catalog.
A grand total of over 100,000 titles are available at Project Gutenberg Partners, Affiliates and Resources.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
The Bible, Old and New Testaments, King James Version
charts on this are useless at this point, but i'll hold it in at least one account for quite awhile so i'd like it on stockcharts. here is the link, bottom of page, they WILL NOT spam you, so worry not about giving a real email. takes 5 seconds.
_GLTA
http://stockcharts.com/help/doku.php?id=support:feedback:symbol_request
Your symbol request for [RKBD] has been submitted to the StockCharts.com Support team. We will email you once it has been added to StockCharts.com.
think this is the only email you'll get, and i think it only takes 5-10 ppl (even less if subscribers).
Lycklig den som varit ung i sin ungdom.
may have been posted already.
...gas prices soar to about $27 a gallon on the black market _ nearly two weeks wages for many Gazans. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800501.html
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. will close at 1:00pm EST on Thursday, July 3, 2008. On this date, the system changes list will be disseminated at approximately 12:00pm EST.