Or, in other words, the government took actions that it did not fully understand and is now trying to justify its actions with reasoning that makes no sense. The government hasn't "owned" Fannie Mae since 1969 or Freddie Mac since 1970. As chessmaster has stated, the government is attempting to lay claim to something they know nothing about and which they do not own, in reality. Only a complete failure of our justice system would prevent the government from eventually finding out it doesn't own nearly as much as it thinks it owns.
I think it can be proven that neither entity was insolvent and/or on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the seizure so the equity investment argument won't float! It was a loan, and the warrants were collateral in case of a failure to repay......as has been done countless times in the past.
I can almost guarantee that a release from conservatorship, the end to government meddling, and a relisting on a major exchange will result in a share price explosion!
90% of the time, reverse splits are started because of financial troubles for the firm. A higher share price gives a false sense that the firm is financially healthy.
In CIM's case, the firm is very healthy, financially speaking, so the reverse split IS for the reason the management stated. I own quite a lot and am not worried one iota.
Yahoo is hard to contact and slower than a three legged turtle in making changes so look for the corrected figures in about six months!
Printed price at the split was $3.17. You sold at the equivalent of $3.086. Not exactly a "jump off the bridge" drop but it does look bigger at post split pricing.
You seem to be a bit slow, Eddie! Carney's reports are almost exclusively backed by misinformation; much like the above story by Smith.
In today's world, intentional misinformation is used to serve an agenda, and Carney's agenda serves no purpose for shareholders of Fannie and Freddie but does seem to support this sham of a government we now have as it works against the laws of the country. If you support Carney and Smith, then you most likely are an enemy of most here who read this board.
Your BS seems to be of no further use to me.
The law makes allowances for those having to make decisions under duress and the AIG board seems to have been backed into a corner with a forearm to the neck.
I'm reasonably sure the government is NOT going to like the outcome of the Greenberg/AIG suit!
Judge Wheeler impresses me with his every utterance!
An equity investment would have been one that was approved by the shareholders of the corporation according to federal securities laws. Did they just fail to ask for my vote?
Can nobody, anywhere, understand that F&F needed some financial assistance because of an orchestrated fraud by the lenders.....and for no other reason?
NPR sort of gets the "leftovers" of those who want to go into" real" radio so if one sets the bar low enough, this is about what one should expect! LOL!
In court, the sweep will be invalidated which leaves the initial agreement. The first agreement was for a 10% charge against money advanced and also in court, that will be found to have been satisfied some time ago.
Money taken since that time will go towards recapitalization of F&F.
FHFA, by way of the Treasury, will, in the end, have to return a mountain of money to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as damages to shareholders because of the illegal seizure. Nobody will go to prison (which they should) but the government will have to buy its way out of this jam should we shareholders all live long enough to see justice served. The public is too dumb to hold the culprits responsible. Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
Not once have I seen someone in government even mention that Fannie and Freddie needed some financial banking because the banks/lending institutions flooded them with marginal or poor loans that were easily outside the guidelines set by Fannie and Freddie years ago! Every bank/lending institution law suit has been settled almost immediately with no attempt to contest any of the suits....and for billions of dollars. Any of them would have fought tooth and nail for their stockholders had they thought themselves to be without guilt.
They caved like a sinkhole!!!!!!!
It's clear that shareholders should immediately sue the FHFA for fiduciary failure. FHFA couldn't win that case if its existence depended on it!
No doubt, it has to be rigged when you can't get one single investigative reporter to cover the story when the intent and actions are so crystal clear! The Bloomberg interview would have been one, if I was Grassley, that would have seen me stand up and exit the interview without a further word.
Keep in mind what happens when you throw one bad apple in a barrel of good apples.