% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Валгрин Ко. Message Board

big.yank 382 posts  |  Last Activity: 16 hours ago Member since: Jul 28, 2010
  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 1:56 PM Flag

    Lighten up. The point was that the related matter in Ohio established a legal precedent that prevents damages and penalty awards to be assessed the conservator of Fannie Mae. MANY of the pending litigation actions seek precisely such awards. So the decision is significant because without an appeal challenge to the Ohio ruling, many of the pending plaintiff's are simply screwched on their wealth goals from this endless circus of legal assault on the government.

    I hate to say this, but the "rubbish" post was yours. Sorry if the truth hurts.

  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 1:47 PM Flag

    Yeah. So what? You are only confirming my statement that no penalties or damages can be assessed the conservator. You are saying the same thing I earlier stated. Did you reply to the wrong post, perhaps?

  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 1:16 PM Flag

    If you actually owned this sick pup years before conservatorship and elected not to sell against the huge, mounting evidence of a housing meltdown, then you are a classic example of "investors" seeking a scapegoat for their own, personal bad choices. "Let Uncle pay me because my investment decisions cratered."

    The hedge funds have no interest in seeing your investment losses recouped. They are only interested in their own recovery, especially Ackman who needs some huge winner to save his fund from redemptions and dissolution after generational missfires. Berko isn't in much better shape after his Sears "adventure" sank into the financial abyss that everyone but him could see coming for years and years.

    You rode a $60 stock down to two bucks and you will NEVER recover that staggering loss. Blame me all you want, but YOU own your bad investing decisions and portraying the hedgies as White Knights riding in like the cavalry to rescue the little guys is beyond mere naivete'. These fund guys eat their young. You'll just be an hors doevres on the minimalist tapas menu.

    Sorry for your losses.

  • Reply to

    Royce bashing again

    by elliselectric Jun 21, 2016 11:18 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 11:36 AM Flag

    Presenting facts is hardly an example of bashing. Kudos to Ed Royce for advancing the truth!

  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 11:33 AM Flag

    No, the GSEs can incur liabilities including shareholder actions during conservatorship. But the FHFA cannot be assessed damages and penalties for their actions as conservator under the terms authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

    As for investors, they CHOSE to buy or hold shares in the GSEs amidst a housing crisis that was widely reported and plainly visible to anyone with even a plankton-sized brain. Looks like that grouping would likely include you. Nobody held you hostage to continuing to own shares in Fannie and Freddie. So your wounds are entirely self-inflicted. You can't sue the Federal government because they couldn't cure your financial moronitis.

    Got it?

  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 11:00 AM Flag

    It means that all those visions of financial sugar plums dancing in the heads of plaintiffs salivating over potential court-ordered damage claims just had their heads blow up.

  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 10:17 AM Flag

    A letter to the Clerk of the Circuit Court is fully admissible as evidence that the plaintiffs agree that Amendment 3 was not of financial benefit to the U.S. government. Consequently, it can be claimed that a reversal of Amendment 3 is unnecessary. This leaves the hedge funds with only the remaining hope that conservatorship, itself, was illegal which Judge Lamberth has already ruled on in favor of defendants.

    I suspect this latest legal gambit is to add a bargaining chip to encourage DOJ to withdraw any mistrial motion, if planned. "We'll drop our complaint if you drop your violation of protective order claims and we all can just call things even." Not likely to work, if this is the latest gamesmanship attempt by plaintiffs. The court cannot be turned into a circus sideshow under most sitting judges. They push back and get angry, just as was the case with defendant's attempts to protect documents that were no longer relevant or eligible for protection. Outrage from the bench travels in both directions.

    This latest foolishness is just another blunder that weakens plaintiff's litigation.


  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 6:42 AM Flag

    The ethics violations you are cheering for prove one thing, only. Perry claims the DOJ lied when they said Amendment 3 was a better deal for taxpayers than the 10% divvy deal. Then Perry "proves" that Amendment 3 was not a better deal for the taxpayer. So what Perry's attorneys actually prove is that Amendment 3 was a worse deal for the government. Then why would Perry seek to reverse Amendment 3?

    If I am missing something, I wish someone would explain it because all I see is a letter that seeks punishment of DOJ's legal team at the expense of losing their case. It's like putting "Amendment 3 is OK" up on an illuminated marquee and rubbing the court's nose in the reality that plaintiff's have no bonafide complaint in their litigation. Very strange.


  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 6:26 AM Flag

    Well, Mr.rocketman, my opinion for what it's worth is that the word "idiot" best applies to YOU, not any executive employee of this fine company.

    Have a nice day. Maybe you should change your filthy shorts?


  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 6:03 AM Flag

    I gave you a thumbs up for a message with content and purpose vs. the usual pom-pom shaking Pollyanna pumps that distort some shred of fact into some grandiose prediction of huge wealth for "aggrieved" investors.

    Conservatorship under FHFA's direction actually has WORKED. It has succeeded not only in saving the GSEs from a financial collapse and ultimate demise. but more importantly in reducing systemic risks inherent in the pre-conservatorship era and the Wild West days when Fannie and Freddie were clearly out of control, looming train wrecks.

    The social engineering monkeys on the "blue" side of the Congressional great aisle "divide" want to convert the GSEs into what would eventually become the ultimate entitlement program for wealth redistribution. All the "cheerleading" for every new initiative to secure release of the Twins comes with adverse consequences for shareholders whose dimwitted hurrays and cheers for everything "new" overlook dire impact on outstanding stock with all these proposals.

    Clinton's "plan"... Mulvaney's bill...just like so many other attempts to subvert the GSE reform discussion into a grab-bag for polarized agendas that serve one narrow constituency at the expense of someone else. It's all just SSDD histrionics.


  • big.yank big.yank Jun 21, 2016 5:29 AM Flag

    Hey, look guys... it's navycommander from the investorshub board polluting YMB because all intelligent dialog ceased over there. Hey, navy, how's the Village People gig workin' out for ya?

    Boy, the Perry Capital offense team, pun intended, are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this clear DESPERATION maneuver. Now the government will file dissenting briefs and the long-running document debate will drag on for yet another 6 months of wrangling and delays. It's all falling apart, there matey. All your lame arguments and predictions over the last several years are crumbling and your credibility even among the pumper trolls is now virtually nil.

    Time for you to go back to your shower-room games and dropping the soap as an invitation to the "good, clean fun" for which you are notorious.


  • Reply to

    NMRC Investors

    by what_in_th_sam_hill Jun 20, 2016 8:48 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 20, 2016 12:26 PM Flag

    Nope. Common shares could maybe get cancelled, but junior preferred shares are just like debt, even if the enterprises are not actually being declared insolvent. If NMRC pays the borrowed debt obligations of FnF then it must also pay the junior preferred shareholders. If you take all the assets, then you must take all the liabilities. Unfortunately for common shareholders, negative shareholder equity is not likely to be treated as a liability in any conversion to a non-public agency status.


  • Much of the UK economy that may be affected by any decision to leave the EU reposes in Brent and North Sea petroleum/gas companies and key energy players such as BP. The FTSE has always attracted safety investors targeting higher yield than sovereign debt bonds, a preference that is likely to harden as the Bundesbank moves inexorably towards negative yield based economic stimuli.

    Much discussion on this topic in London, last week.

    If exit occurs and EU duties elevate on Great Britain's petro products, the deck will be shuffled on energy contracts in much of Scandinavia and Western Europe. Huge opportunity for Cheniere and for nat gas prices to discover new, upward momentum.

    This vote MATTERS for investors, here.


  • Reply to

    Mistrial #1 moves on to Mistrial #2?

    by big.yank Jun 19, 2016 10:49 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 20, 2016 6:33 AM Flag

    First of all, the article's author was Morgenson, not Morganson, and I believe she may be perched on the proverbial hot seat before too much longer. But I digress...

    You claim I am "plastering the message boards with information that is unknown to the public." That sounds like a useful contribution to investors interested in buying,selling, holding, trading or shorting FNMA stock and all its preferred stock variants. What would you prefer? More knock-off ID's and personal attacks on other posters? More political irrelevancy? More "bump" re-posts of old messages that were largely inane when first posted, ages ago?

    Why are you so scared that someone might hear an alternative thesis on the prognosis for FNMA and the eventual outcome in this outlandish circus of litigation launched by investors? My views, opinions and theories drive a healthy, balanced discussion and alternative to the Pollyanna garbage that claims riches are just around the corner for longs that bought cheap and can soon moor a huge yacht outside their new estate in the Hampton's or Newport Beach.

    Your personal claims about me are childish, ridiculous and on the edge of libel. Be careful. Word to the wise.

  • Reply to

    Mistrial #1 moves on to Mistrial #2?

    by big.yank Jun 19, 2016 10:49 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 20, 2016 6:07 AM Flag

    Will there be news this week on another MISTRIAL charge for violation of a protective order?

    Could be a big "OUCH" for plaintiffs groveling for a fast buck gambit.


  • Reply to

    Mistrial #1 moves on to Mistrial #2?

    by big.yank Jun 19, 2016 10:49 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 19, 2016 3:22 PM Flag

    ALL leaks that violate the terms of a court order to protect certain information MATTER. It was stated on this board, some weeks ago, that any such violations would likely lead to charges filed against attorneys, not necessarily plaintiffs. However, some determination might have to be made as to whether the attorneys shared the protected info with plaintiffs (ILLEGAL, grounds for mistrial) or whether plaintiffs took such information and shared it with media (ILLEGAL, grounds for mistrial and criminal prosecution for contempt of court).

    A MISTRIAL will send this legal circus spinning into a downward "BAWOOSH" sounds the turds get sucked down the sewer pipe and into the septic system of ultimate resolution as it pertains to bogus legal shenanigans designed to manipulate the court for huge, unjustified gains by hedge funds and their lemming followers... you know, like the cadre of losers that continue to try and prop up Valeant Pharma because Big Billy has huge positions and following the Pied Piper is easier a strategy than developing an intelligent, self-determined investment thesis that isn't simply borrowed from some other "false profit". Think Ackman is the only piper leading the gullible over the cliff? How about Juicy Brucie and his great call on SEARS HOLDINGS as a cornerstone investment for Fairholme? Sears? Really? Sears?

    Your honor, the defense rests.


  • Reply to

    Mistrial #1 moves on to Mistrial #2?

    by big.yank Jun 19, 2016 10:49 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 19, 2016 12:23 PM Flag

    Where did I EVER say the government would forfeit anything?

    The issue in Mistrial #2 may not be admissibility, at all, Violation of a court order containing inadmissible evidence is STILL a violation of the law and a contempt of court and violation of the principles of due process.

    "Burned once, shame on you. Burned twice, shame on me." Don't you think Judge Sweeney has some familiarity with this concept?

    LMAO. At you.

  • Reply to

    Mistrial #1 moves on to Mistrial #2?

    by big.yank Jun 19, 2016 10:49 AM
    big.yank big.yank Jun 19, 2016 11:54 AM Flag

    Why would the government risk a high-probability motion for mistrial by blending it in with an appeal? The better tactic is to add a new layer to the dismissal conversation by adding an additional action that further strains the already elongated timelines for this quagmire litigation marathon. The last mistrial option added, what, like 5 months to the litigation process? Knowing jurists might refer to this as "the pain killer defense" at its most insidious level of wearing down plaintiffs whose attorneys are not not routinely compensated on a retainer basis.

    But you already knew that...



  • Could be the easier path to tossing the wretched mess out and getting a fresh start.

    Could also be a wake up call for Judge Sweeney to scope out the leaks and full court press being advanced by plaintiff teams to build political pressure to favor better outcomes for themselves by "feeding" info to the press and blogosphere.


  • big.yank big.yank Jun 1, 2016 3:10 PM Flag

    Transparency is supposed to work for the courts, too! Many questions brewing. So far, no answers. Too many gaps in the record. Inexplicable gaps.

    Classic grounds for a mistrial. That's what it looks like to me.