Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 10:40 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 20 mins


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

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

jeddiemack 31 posts  |  Last Activity: 12 hours ago Member since: Nov 14, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • jeddiemack jeddiemack 12 hours ago Flag

    Bird in hand...

    Take a settlement and "cha CHING".

  • It dawned on me just now sitting in the library. Can the Government risk a judicial decision in these cases involving Fannie and Freddie?

    I firmly believe the government is on the wrong side of the law regarding what they've done. I think there are other scholarly folks that from a legal beagle sense figure the same. So, if and when the courts decide for the plaintiffs then it will be the Judiciary which gets to frame the narrative on the precedent setting series of cases that get handed down. Whereas, if the Government capitulates and gives the plaintiffs what they want mostly in a settlement or series of them, then they get to frame the narrative and avoid the precedent setting case law that comes out of it. If the cases don't go to decisions, then there is no harm for the Government and they are free to plunder in other situations without the overhang of the "Perry Decision" or the "Faireholme Decision, etc" that will form estoppel to prevent future acts.

    So, can the Government really risk it? How brazen are they? Or is it time to walk it back and frame their own narrative and "benghazi" like talking points. Where is that Rice Chick when they need her?

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack Jul 11, 2014 11:20 PM Flag

    Feds own 0 of fnma. its a total lie. Stop spreading them. Please.

  • Reply to

    Protective Order Summary

    by nocvkl Jul 11, 2014 10:49 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jul 11, 2014 11:19 PM Flag

    Why would PO in case one apply to case two?

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack Jul 5, 2014 3:34 PM Flag


    I would agree with you IF the warrants were part of an arms length negotiation to provide capital to the business. However, nothing contrived in this current arrangement has been arms length or negotiated between to willing buyer / sellers.

    We have a simple case of - grabbing and self indulgence. While it could be argued that the warrants would 'have' been proper in similar arrangements and negotiations, what can not occur is the speculation that such actually occurred. Since, it did not.

    Therefore, to reason anything other than the fact that they were put upon an unwilling participant would be seriously disingenuous.

    That said, something contrived in deceit is by its own admissions unenforceable.

    So, if you are a believer in laws, just and fair treatment and equal protections along with due processes, you can't really find for anything else but to conclude the warrants are fodder. In simple terms good people agree the warrants are trash and rooted in evil and bad people believe that are golden.

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack Jul 1, 2014 12:12 AM Flag

    depends who leaks it. Chances are the defendants would leak some stuff to keep the good guys from using it. Would be used to lose / win this case but lose the war. The civil damages would be large.

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack Jul 1, 2014 12:09 AM Flag

    Silly you... these documents are already in the public. Therefore they can't be "non" public.

  • Reply to

    Why I took my position in FNMA

    by ertguy243 Jun 28, 2014 9:04 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 28, 2014 9:10 PM Flag

    Good points! on Part 2!

    Should note that 10% interest was 3x more than Tarp and 10x more than the government's cost of funds. - hardly fair.

    Also, unlike banks taking TARP or AIG doing its "deal". Fannie and Freddie did not have the option they were forced into bondage. They were hijacked! AIG and the Banks - entered into "deals" with the Treasury of their free will - no so for Fannie and Freddie.

    So TARP and AIG were able to negotiate lower interest rates without being forced into SLAVERY!

  • Reply to

    Why I took my position in FNMA

    by ertguy243 Jun 28, 2014 9:04 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 28, 2014 9:05 PM Flag

    Not to pick on you - because I am a supporter of FandF and ashamed of the US Government for what they've done to them and our economy as a result of their unsavory activities.

    But some of what you've written is not true.

    "F&F were in a position where they did not have sufficient capital required to take on this flood of mortgage default." - this is an unproven supposition

    The government thereby forced F&F into a conservatorship via the HERA ammendment in 2008. - The Government did Force them into Conservatorship (or the Death Star) - but it wasn't by the Hera amendment - it was by coercion - as you stated next.

    The government injected 187 billion dollars into the 2 companies combined, .....This is false. The Government force fed them significantly less than 187 Billion - remember 40Billion was interest and another $80-100 Billion was DTA and 20-30 Billion was over reserves. And the warrants were "taken". By FHFA acting as government - benefiting Treasury (also Government) - Self Dealing. Fact is Fannie and Freddie always had adequate CASH - was subjected to accounting trickery to create a false sense of need.

  • Reply to

    Tender Offer

    by sfitzger14750 Jun 16, 2014 6:10 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 23, 2014 10:55 PM Flag

    Probably will pass on it. I don't want to own a REIT. Although, taking the shares and selling, locking in 7% profit in the IRA and then repurchasing CBS might not be a bad Idea.

  • Reply to

    Putting Down My Crying Towel

    by tthemainman38 Jun 6, 2014 3:13 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 19, 2014 11:40 PM Flag

    MM and AL00 - I've been on this board/reading you two and a couple regular posters here for a while. We withstood the postings of the "turd" and here we are. The SO was meant to raise some cash, create some float that the company had reduced from share purchases; and increase / create some noise. The increased divy was not a smart move; and the increased market cap was deflated by the stock price dropping 30%. Overall, they've pushed / plowed water the past year with little but egg on their faces with the moves to shoot themselves in the foot. I too was a supporter of management pre - BBam deal, the selling of equity to the control group and the offering. What stupid move is next for this management team? Remember the SO was at an offer price substantially below then market price which was indicative of managements' disbelief in the company it managed.

    At this point... I am really hoping for a take out. But, with this management they'd probably screw that up to.

    Have little faith in them to do the right thing. I hope to be surprised.

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 8, 2014 3:17 PM Flag

    Fool - taxpayers take near NO risk.

    Do the math. There is no more business risk here than there is to the US of A in general. For example; if the world came to an end - then yeah there is risk - but then you got other problems instead. Like for me. I don't have flood insurance - why? Simple, if my home were to flood, the the water has to rise about 18 feet - in all directions. Meaning we'd all need an ARC Could it happen... Sure it could .... then again it "Could" snow in Florida in June. Metaphorically speaking. .... but is it gonna happen? Likely no. So, why would you leave the house in June in Florida with a coat and gloves and top hat just to go to the store? You wouldn't unless you was really going to knock over a 7-11. So,

    Is the taxpayer on the hook, seriously.

    No. Not really.

    Oh, and you'll probably want to point to all the money thrown at Fannie and Freddie from 08-11 or so. And facts is and they are irefuted truths, that they never needed the money they received.

    So, keep spinning untruths; educated folks won't believe you.

  • Reply to

    My Dream

    by optomist01 Jun 6, 2014 10:34 AM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 6, 2014 8:39 PM Flag

    Sweeney calls "BS" and writes an order for injunctive relief, grants summary judgment, rips the government a new one by ordering the shredding of the warrant, the release of fannie and freddie, the returen of $30-$50 Billion overpaid. And $100Billion in penalties for malicous "giving fannie and freddie the business". Stock price is halted and opens at $300.

  • Reply to

    Must read on Bill Maloni's GSE Blog!

    by dgplexus1 Jun 6, 2014 2:54 AM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 6, 2014 8:35 PM Flag

    Now your picking on them.... tsk tsk....

    Love it!

  • Reply to

    Other Side Of The Coin

    by tthemainman38 May 17, 2014 2:58 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack Jun 5, 2014 9:01 PM Flag

    Ole' MM... Yes. Mr. Market will determine the trading price. But old fashion horse trading - sales negotiations - had they sold the company - which they should have done to realize fair value to the shareholders in stead of the S/O would have resulted in the highest and best use of the proceeds. Instead we are anchored at or around $14.

  • jeddiemack by jeddiemack Jun 2, 2014 9:38 PM Flag


    They can't sue Fannie and Freddie.... they are the US government. REMEMBER?


    If they can sue them ... then they are not?

    Okay - whatever... just poking some fun. Its probably silly anywya

  • Reply to


    by frankmfosco2 May 30, 2014 8:59 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack May 31, 2014 6:57 PM Flag


    1st. THANK YOU ! For keeping the faith..

    2nd. I'd love $125... but can only dream about higher and higher.

    3rd. I think there is a Catch 22 about going on. With the government's protective order.

    Fingers crossed... plus need to pay for college!

  • Reply to

    Other Side Of The Coin

    by tthemainman38 May 17, 2014 2:58 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack May 31, 2014 6:53 PM Flag

    The problem here is the analysis of what I believe, based upon sales of planes is the unrealized value of the aircraft. Lets assume that on average the planes are under value by $2M a piece. So say there are 100 planes. So that would be $200 Million. On 28 Million shares that would be around $7.14 a share hidden value. Now take that same $200 Million and divide it by 41 Milliion shares... and its $4.87 - so... The underlying "VALUE" would have gone down the 70c you note and the $2.27I show for a total of $3.00 or so.

    Which upon a sale of the whole company would have accreted somewhat maybe 50% to me and other shareholders.

    I think your analysis is flawed because it uses book value and not fair value. And the damage to SH Value is far worse than contemplated since there are now 40% more mouths to feed on the same loaf of bread.


  • Reply to

    My Take -- protective order

    by qishenhuang May 30, 2014 10:10 PM
    jeddiemack jeddiemack May 31, 2014 2:46 AM Flag

    How can the congress write a law that says no court can challenge it? Huh? Really?

  • jeddiemack jeddiemack May 31, 2014 2:07 AM Flag

    Seems like you can't "plead the fifth" when you are in the middle of testimony... and the stress test BS is certainly part of it.

42.21+0.240(+0.57%)10:39 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.