Recent

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

Валгрин Ко. Message Board

big.yank 438 posts  |  Last Activity: 8 hours ago Member since: Jul 28, 2010
  • big.yank big.yank May 17, 2016 4:19 PM Flag

    If you saw it then, thanks for caring enough to post it here so your fellow board readers would know about its contents. NOT.

    What is your goal? To run off the very few of us left here that actually want to talk about something genuine? Or are you just another one of the trolls that just want to one-up someone in some argument for message board Alpha-male?

    You decide. And, now, you, too, disappear into the gray market abyss of being ignored and henceforth excluded from the discussion. I don't have time to waste on plankton brains aching for some stupid testosterone high on some freaking message board.

    Tata,

    Yank

  • Reply to

    Adding preferred shares while sale prices prevail

    by big.yank May 17, 2016 3:07 PM
    big.yank big.yank May 17, 2016 3:31 PM Flag

    It's a fabulous vehicle, both in style and technology. But it can't be run near the edge of fully expended battery state-of-charge on any regular basis. L-ion presents a huge risk of thermal runaway and fire or explosion after deep discharges, especially on a frequent or back-to-back of full recharging cycles. Just ask Japan Storage Battery about the Dreamilner fires on Boeing aircraft. But for light mileage around town, the Tesla is jaw-dropping performance and the best of new, green technology that makes sense... not just some tree-hugger's war dance.

    Producing L-ion batteries is a steep learning curve, especially in a new battery plant such as Tesla's Reno, NV start-up. Don't be a guinea pig for new, imperfected production. If you want a Tesla, buy one sooner rather than later.

    I want one too. Love the car, just from sitting in it at the mall.

  • Hard to make FNMAS "buys" when nobody wants to cut any shares loose.

    It's contrarian time, all over again, if you want to be makin' bacon.

    Summer cash coming for "players" with cajones.

    If you got none, you get none.

    LOL.

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 5:59 PM Flag

    The Mulvaney Bill, if passed, dooms FNMA common S/P to around $1.40/share for about the next 5 to 10 years.

    Dead money.

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 5:09 PM Flag

    It is a violation of Federal law to hand deliver Christmas cards to a postal delivery box, even though its is owned by the intended recipient. It is a violation of law for a child to operate a streetside lemonade stand without proper permitting and a provision to pay appropriate sales tax as required by local regulations. And so it was improper for Hillary Clinton to use a personal server for e-mails during her tenure as a public official, just like it was illegal for Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice to have done the very same thing in prior administrations.

    This is HUGE!

    Not really.

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 4:32 PM Flag

    "Shove some Big.Junk down her throat?" Well, I do know that strategy worked with i-sue and got her off this board and into a long-deserved exile and the disgrace of future anonymity.

    Hey, you could be next, ape-face.

    LOLOLOLOL.

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 3:48 PM Flag

    LOL.

    Hey, anybody want some cheap shares at $1.73 that Patswil believes will soon be worth $9,000.00 per share?

    Bwahahahahahahahaha!

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 1:28 PM Flag

    pom-pom shakers? sew1959a would be another obvious example of hyperbolic exaggeration with no fundamental basis in fact or logic.

    FNMA common S/P wil lgo from$1.73 to $483.00 upon release? Yup, another "tooth fairy" afficionado.

    Bwahahahahahahaha!

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 11:48 AM Flag

    Oh, Pat, you forgot about the additional $250 billion that Lew dropped in Finance Committee testimony like you just this morning posted over on investorshub. You would have to add this to your $11 billion starting total. So PPS should be revised upward. Using your same formula, this would approximate $9,000.00 PPS, using your mathematical formula. That's a nice gain for you from today's $1.73 valuation.

    As for me, I'll stick with my $1.40 common share price estimate if the Mulvaney Bill gets passed.

    Were you a math major in school? Were you home schooled?

    LOL.

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 10:07 AM Flag

    pom-pom shakers = pumpers = tooth fairy believers. You know. Like sam. Like chessmaster. Like i-sue prior to her exile. Like all those losers that only see the convenient truths in articles such as cheering for George Will's condemnation of the government's sweep but ignoring his other comments that the GSEs were anomalous enterprises that should never have been in business in the first place. Like the jerks that post out-of-context youtube film where Buffett and Paulson say Fannie was fine in 2008 when the full text says loose comments like that put the economy at risk.

    Got it?

    pom-pom shakers.

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 8:40 AM Flag

    You missed the obvious satirical side of my Santa Claus analogy. Thepom-pom shakers on this board cheer for any piece of news, even the ones that they don't really understand and could actually harm their eventual investment returns. All the cheering for the Mulvaney bill flies in the face of the content of that bill which is NOT shareholder-friendly. Soletme dumb things down for you. The Mulvaney bill, if it passes, is terrible for all shareholders including me as a preferred shareholder of some considerable magnitude. It willfreeze all dividends until huge reserves are amassed at a point in time where revenues are declining, income is declining and interest rates are expected to rise. The trend is not your friend in Mulvaney which redirects all income into reserve funding in a roll up amount for both GSEs that I have seen estimated as high as $200 billion. The conservatorship under FHFA would not end until half that amount was amassed... say, $100 billion. How many years would that take for Fannie's share to be achieved? Carney says many, many, many years. I think he's right. The price I estimated at $1.40 per common share under Mulvaney is not out to lunch. If you want to challenge it, put some math on the table.

    HERA began its travails through Congress under Nancy Pelosi's sponsorship as part of an energy bill under the House Energy Committee and fast-tracked through the House to a floor vote in like a 60 day window as a newly repackaged Housing and Economic Recovery Act. It is naive and dismissive to think Mulvaney won't develop similar "legs" as budget and fiscal cliff concerns begin to build in the coming election cycle through November. NOBODY on The Hill wants to inherit the aftermath of an unresolved GSE Reform measure going into inauguration of the next Administration. Nobody from either party wants this issue haunting their early days in charge in 2017. Corker's "Jumpstart GSE Reform" measure passed, in a budget bill. So can Mulvaney be passed.

    JMHO

  • big.yank big.yank May 15, 2016 7:17 AM Flag

    A Christmas Miracle may be in store for the U.S. government if the Mulvaney bill gains traction in Congress. It will provide Judge Margaret Sweeney, and all the other Federal judges considering different iterations in Fanniegate, a convenient and legal way to side with their employer, the taxpayers, over greedy hedge funds. The crux of all this litigation circus is either that the government didn't need to act in 2008 and impose any conservatorship, or, that the government didn't need to act in 2012 and impose Amendment 3. The government states otherwise. Nobody can agree on whose view is the correct or legal one, And no hard evidence has apparently emerged during an absurdly lengthy discovery phase to provide any kind of conclusive opinion.

    So, now, here comes the Mulvaney bill. It resolves most every issue in the universe of complaints from plaintiffs. It provides a legal and constitutionally grounded reform of the GSEs and extends a sound and politically expedient solution to achieving a settlement that ends the long, legal nightmare presented to the judiciary by so many lawsuits being filed in so many jurisdictions seeking so many conflicting remedies. Most every Federal judge is likely to favor Mulvaney. That's because it replicates the success in the epic trial depicted in "Miracle on 34th Street" where the Post Office delivers letters for Santa to Kris Kringle, the Macy's Santa, and the court rules that the government cannot be challenged for identifying Mr. Kringle as "the one, true Santa." Courts always side with the government. It's the patrioticthing t

    Under Mulvaney, the government will prevail. And Fannie Mae common shares will languish at around $1.40 for ar least 5 years until reserves are rebuilt to the 10% threshold demanded under Mulvaney. So, yes, if you are a common shareholder and want a dead money $1.40 share price for another half-decade, please write your congressman or congresswoman and tell them how much you support Mulvaney.

    "Ho,ho, ho!

  • big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 4:42 PM Flag

    Yes, dog-style, you are absolutely correct. Everyone that wants Congress to peg shareholder value for commons at around $1.40/share for the next 5 to 10 years should tell their congressmen and congresswomen to vote for H.R.4913.

    What a great idea. And it should put an end to all the stupid lawsuits, too. What judge wants to spend weeks writing opinions when Congress can be the scapegoat and pose a simple alternative. In fact, it may be the ULTIMATE SIMPLE alternative to common sense.

    Bwahahahahahahaha! Which PAC pays your bills?

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 2:17 PM Flag

    Hey, fidelwearspampers...

    $1.40 per share is what commons are worth under Mulvaney. That's what you get. That's ALL you get. If you want to pitch a terrible-two-year-old infantile-style tantrum, knock yourself out while you take a time out in the corner.

    LOL.

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 1:57 PM Flag

    Back in the pre-crisis "Rock 'n Roll" Fannie glory days a year before conservatorship, common shares traded @ around $60 in September, 2007. By December, they had shed almost half their value to mid-$30's range. In January they dropped to mid-$20's and to mid-teens by early July, 2008. Then they fell to single digits in August and the lead-in to the take-down by Treasury. Fannie's last close as a fully private company was $7.04. That is their legacy, They earned it. Nobody stole anything from them. All wounds were self-inflicted.

    Mulvaney seeks to restore things pretty much back to September 2008, clearing the slate of bailouts, paybacks and sweeps into perpetuity. That's a good thing for Fannie Mae shareholders who retain 19.9% ownership of SOMETHING, instead of 100% of nothing as Judge Wheeler stated well in the related AIG warrants case.

    So present common shareholders may have to cling to a circa $1.40/share trading range for a few years while Fannie Me recapitalizes. So what? Very few of the litigants paid even $1.40 per share at entry and could sell for a nice gain even now.

    Just the facts, Junior!

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 12:36 PM Flag

    Corker's last bill was losing steam, too, until its primary provisions showwd up in a budget bill and got passed in a roll-up vote. That's the same way that HERA passed. Mulvaney's bill is very pro-government, especially if it trumps the litigation circus and all its penalties, damages sought and continued threats through the blogging universe of treble damages under alleged fraud scenarios. The Dem's want affordable housing and a 30 year mortgage to remain; some would prefer this be accomplished in a 100% private sector arrangement. The Rep's want no more bailouts. Neither side of the aisle wants$ billions in legal awards to be paid by UST, only serving to further balloon the Federal deficit. I would not be at allsurprised to see Hensarling call for a vote just a day or two before summer recess and sneak a passage through the House. The Senate is a much easier pathway for Mulvaney's agenda and could likely attain passage with limited conciliation narrative. Nobody wants this issue open going into the election season.

    JMHO.

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 9:54 AM Flag

    I have more faith in Rep. John Carney of the House Financial Services Committee who will actually get to vote on the bill.

  • Reply to

    FNMA realistic potential

    by newpikachu May 14, 2016 1:06 AM
    big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 9:23 AM Flag

    Sure. Fannie Mae common shares traded at $7.04 immediately prior to conservatorship being imposed on September 6, 2008 when it sank to $.73 at market close. So around $7.00 at 80% dilution would peg real market value at around $1.40 per share under the Mulvaney bill, as proposed.

    So at the current S/P valuation of $1.73 FNMA is approximately 19% overvalued.

  • big.yank big.yank May 14, 2016 7:19 AM Flag

    Playing the swing trade, there, shorty?

    LOL.

WAG
0.00(0.00%)