MichaelZZ

Goggling Google

Regarding the author's comment, "I have to confess to being uneasy with the option repricing", this proposed action should be considered as openly stealing from the shareholders.

Did the owners (stockholders) not take a hit after buying common between $500 and $747?

If the employees are not being paid market wages, I suggest adjustments be made. My guess is that they are paid properly.

The "repricing" offers employees the incentive to allow the common price to drift lower, periodically, to enable this insidious concept.

There should be a shareholders' lawsuit and criminal actions initiated.

Ooooops! Perhaps its the "it's my company and I will do what I want" 'tude?

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

RESOLUTION FOR DISTRESSED "RESET" MORTGAGES:

Concepts:

1) One size does not fit all, i.e., each situation should be tailored for the borrower.

2) Responsibility should be resolved between the lender and the borrower.

3) No taxpayers’ funds should be involved.

4) A mortgagor must sign a document, subject to perjury, whereby the mortgagor states that he or she was unaware that the interest rate was to be reset.

The mortgagor has the option of the following alternatives:

The mortgagor will be allowed to wind the clock back to the time prior to the purchase with the information that the mortgage will be reset at the end of five years at a rate to be determined and explained that the rate may be significantly higher than the rate offered at the time of purchase.

1) Can agree to the purchase and will remain with the current situation.

2) Can refuse the 5/25 loan as offered and opt for a conventional fixed rate loan
at a rate of the then-current rate, e.g., 7.25% and will have all payments adjusted to reflect that loan.

3) Can terminate the potential purchase.

4) Can remain in the property, while making the same payments. The lender or agent thereof will be given a lien on the property that will be equal to the accumulation of the difference between the contractual payments and the payments being made. Further, interest will accrue on this differential at the contractual rate.

If the mortgagor opts for option 3), and there is no significant evidence reflecting that the rate reset information was given prior to entering into the mortgage, the mortgagor will vacate the premises and the mortgage will be cancelled, with no further obligation.

Any other encumbrance upon the property will be the responsibility of the mortgagor.

Further, the mortgagor will be responsible for any damages done to the property.

One of the most critical factors is the business model of a CountryWide negotiating mortgages, and then having them bundled and sold as securities. That "model" stimulated the numbers, since the negotiators were no longer involved with these mortgages.

The logistics of my idea would be to have the funds consisting of two pieces (one, the payment from the mortgagor, and the second, the augmented payment from the "negotiator", who will hold the 2nd) and the total would be paid to the "security" as a whole payment.

This would place the responsibilities where they should be, on the mortgagor and on a "CountryWide", i.e., the negotiator.

If these logistics require some tweaking, so be it.


Michael Z.
Sherman Oaks
[e-mail]

Apple Employees See Greater Returns Than Google

We have an options affliction.
Options were to be use where a company is young and does not have the wherewithal to compensate its employees with regular pay.
The options concept is that the employee stands a good chance to make more if, as a team, the company propers.
E.g., A company only has enough to offer $8,000 per month to a prospective employee, who is requesting $12,000 per month.
A mature company that has the wherewithal to pay its employees the going rate should not issue options.
The issuance of options to employees is, in effect, stealing from the ownership (stockholders) by diluting the stock.
Who lost out when a secretary made $10,000,000 on Google stock options?
The shareholders...., of course.

[e-mail]

Culling Strong Tech Names

Trader Mark,
I hope you don't do too much trading.
Fundamentally, the reason GOOG was @ $460 was due to the "click counting", if you recall.
Q1's results negated the perception of a problem and the lid was blown.
There is a staff and flag formation since that event (Q1).
When GOOG was around $585, I suggested that we would not see $520, again.
Well..., for a period of about 76 minutes, over two days, it was below that mark. My bad!
Assuming that we don't have a greater general market meltdown, GOOG should be sitting around $630 by Jan 2009.

Enjoy,

Michael Z.

Google's MySpace Problem Is Serving Up Unrelated Ads

This is one of the most moronic articles I have seen.
Anyone using search engines with: betty, dan, zeke, et cetera are much to lame to have any idea what they are doing.
.....It feels like it is time to take an intellectual shower to cleanse after reading this nonsense!