Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Well, there are plenty of stocks that went bankrupt, was reissued, and then flourished...GM comes to mind...
But no, I can’t think of any stock that would be similar to what happened to the GSEs.
The reason I tend to disagree with this theory is because of the nature of man.
Will institutional investors be hesitant to invest at first? Perhaps. But I believe that would only last so long. And in the meantime, the stock would begin to rise from private investors looking for a short term growth that would turn into longer and longer holding periods.
Given how much money the potential stock would be worth, greed would overcome caution eventually.
No no...I just know there is a perpetuated theory that if the government screws over old shareholders, they wouldn’t find investors for new shares.
I tend to disagree with that theory, so just was wondering if thats what this thread was about.
The context for this thread was deleted.
Are you referring to an instance where old shares are retired without remedy for existing shareholders and new shares are issued?
There seems to be some confusion here.
It is true that the Perry lawsuit was revised to remove the separation by when shares were purchased. However, there is no indication that non-plaintiff shareholders will benefit from this.
If Perry awards money damages to plaintiffs, they cannot distinguish between timeframes.
After that, shareholders who bought prior to the NWS would have the option to sue via summary judgement. Shareholders who bought after would not be able to, because they wouldn’t have standing to bring suit.
The only way that non-plaintiff shareholders who bought after the NWS could benefit from Perry is if the remedy awarded is equitable (ie: ending the NWS) rather than legal (money).
You are probably referring to the written “oath” you have to take not to talk about any of the questions or materials on the MBE section of the bar to protect its proprietary rights.
Lol. Well played:)
Lol.
Im not exactly sure what he’s talking about when he says “our courts” and “their courts”. But he is correct that there are article 1, 3 and 4 courts.
The rest seems like gibberish.
Lmao.
Secret BAR oath? I know you must be joking :)
Lol. I try.
Forensic accounting report showing gses were not in need of bailout is one piece of evidence.
This is only evidence to end the conservatorship if the forensic accounting report was made, and made available to the government, prior to the 2008 conservatorship.
So, again, what evidence do you have that this happened?
Have you been paying attention at all?
Too much, I'm afraid.
There is plenty more.
Should be an interesting court filing. When you fill out your FRCP Rule 8 pleading, you can write "There's plenty of evidence!"
I thought you were a lawyer.
I am, which is why I have been forced to face-palm at least 5 times reading your posts in this thread.
Thanks for the post...maybe now you would answer my question...
What evidence?
What evidence?
Most likely both.
I actually forgot he even posts here. Lol
I think that’s a reason so many try to propagate the theory that the bailout wasn’t needed....to try to get past just a moral victory.
But thats why im focused on the NWS rather than conservatorship. There is more than a moral victory available there.
“I have in my possession that the warrants in fact are illegal. The lie came with the pricing. They were priced at 20,000% less than market price when they were self dealt.”
The pricing 20,000% less than market is not a lie. Contracts are not always fair. No lie here
“Understand what I am saying? I have confirmation from the SEC if you know who that is that the warrants are illegal.”
Finally we have an actual lie. Lol
Just because someone is wrong about something doesn’t make it a lie.
The government’s lies in 2008 are yet to be shown to me.
See ya tomorrow!
Ok...but I repeat which lies?
Are you talking about things said thru email? On tv? Do you have links?
“exercising the warrants the government got by lying”
Uh...what lie?
“The generalizations on how many people are proactive or reactive depend on many factors. I feel this depends on whether the perception of threat is vague in nature or real, immediate or in distant future, whether people can can relate the consequences of the threat to themselves...”
Well, there in lies the rub.
The entire distinction between proactive and reactive is the difference between a “vague or distant” and “real or immediate” threat and how people respond to it.
Proactive people respond to distant threats where reactive people wait for the threat to become immediate.
Most people will wait for the threat to become immediate before addressing it.
Because the housing market is not hurting many today, today few will be outraged.
Based on your last comment, I wonder if it is simply your understanding of what reactive vs proactive is that was incorrect. What is your understanding of these terms?
“The examples you have given are not so convincing as compared to immediate threat of losing big money invested in their real estate properties.”
This point seems flawed to me. The idea that real estate issues are “more important” to Americans than reaction time to war, personal life span, or child abductions seems spurious at best. There is no such thing as a consensus of hierarchy from most important issued to least. What IS consistent, however, is a statistical analysis that about 16% of people will be early adopters to make change when change is needed, about 16% of people will resist change even after they have determined it is needed, and about 68% will make change once they’ve been convinced (even if they knew of the needed change way before being convinced) it is needed...on a spectrum.
“If people become aware of this threat, there will be 10s of millions of people calling their lawmakers. FnF stakeholders need to focus on this and spread the message to media, local community leaders, Realtors, and individual home owners.”
Again, American history and statistical knowledge would seem to disagree with you. 10’s of millions of people (which by the way, is not the majority of the 200 million adults in this country), even if concerned, would not be immediately outraged until the damage has already occurred. There is no real refute to this. It has been proven time and time again. The only reason I can discern for your argument is that you are in a profession where the mass majority of people that surround you have concerns with the housing market...and so your opinion is biased toward that internal perception. Nothing else seems to make sense to me.
“It will not only affect the house owners it will also affect property tax incomes of local gov, school systems. It will lead to big recession in housing economy affecting the manufacturers, builders, workers, realtors, and ultimately hurt the financial system.”
I don’t think anyone would argue the harm that is caused... I only disagree with how much the public cares.
“It is too dangerous for lawmakers to engage in this kind of destabilizing legislative process.”
You just described the last 200 years.
I don’t believe this.
Congress reacts based on public outrage or personal benefit.
Very few act proactively.
Agree fully. And don’t forget the “laggers” who will resist adoption even after a trusted source supports it.
Statistically speaking, the percent of innovators and early adopters in this country are equal to the percent of laggers in this country.
The people who “need a trusted source” are the vast majority though...about 68%.
Yah, but the people on this board don’t represent the country.
In fact, statistics claim that only 16% of the population fit into the “innovator” or “early adopter” categories.
“Here you may be right about less than 20% of the people but not all. People who have lot to lose will respond pro-actively to any threat, the moment they become aware of the threat.”
History would disagree with you.
Even the GSEs were not created until the Great Depression forces their necessity even though they would have greatly benefited the masses way before then.
America didn’t get involved with WWII until the nazis were on their doorstep.
AMBER alerts weren’t made until Amber Hagerman made headlines even though the technology was available for over 20 years prior to that.
Even in health care, people avoid the doctor and dentist even though more visits could extend their healthy years.
People generally aren’t proactive. They are reactive.
Thank you!
It’s also saved my butt over a dozen times when entering into contracts or rental agreements. :). Knowledge is power!
People are reactive by nature, not proactive.
People will not care about the GSEs unless the NWS is hurting them. Right now, it is not.
You give Corker too much credit. There’s plenty of corruption and money-grubbing to go around.
Totally a hack piece
GSEs are one of the main reasons people’s houses are worth so much now. Without them, houses would be worth half their current value.
Wasn’t Average Joe’s in some tv show?
Is this just their way of laughing at the American public?
Lol. Fair enough.
Thanks for the warning:)
God...is it even worth my time researching this, yet another, plan?
Lol...yah...easy. :)
It was a rhetorical question. My point was that In Steele’s company, there are no Junior Partners. About half the lawyers are associates and the other half are partners. Steele is no more powerful than any of the other 36 partners there.
Lol...please enlighten me. What is the difference between a junior partner and a general partner.
In the end it doesn’t matter, because in the context of this firm’s structure, Steele would qualify as both designations.
In a law firm, the lawyers are usually told what cases to take.
His background is irrelevant.
A law firm where the lawyers get to decide what cases they will take would never grow to the size of his firm.
I dont think I know any of your credentials.
“You don't know that. That is really speculation. He may have brought the case in!”
Correct...I don’t know that.
I was responding to a post about why he would “risk his reputation” on a case that likely can’t be won.
My response was that he may not have even chosen to take the case...so we can’t assume what he is risking or not risking.
“Share price doesn't work that way. “
It doesn’t sound like he’s talking about share price.
It sounds like he’s talking about a settlement. $60 in exchange for each pre-conservatorship share.
Personally, Id take $20 for each pre-NWS share. Lol
“since you think he's just doing this as a fee grab,”
I didn’t say that nor do I believe it. Most likely the firm took the case the same way they take every case...basic risk vs reward analysis. Little risk + great reward = take the case!
“perhaps you could tell us your credentials (anonymously as possible) so we'd lend more credence to your opinion.”
I’ve already given the extent of my credentials as I wish to on this board. Ive worked for a law firm...I have my JD... I have never worked as an attorney, nor would I want to.
Though, I would actually say the same to you and others who claim to know how cases are assigned in a law firm. After all, this isn’t a one sided coin. What credentials do you (or others here) have to be able to give credible opinions about what happens in a law firm and how cases are typically disseminated?
It would be very impressive if you were.
But you should try proctologist instead.
You could inspect your mouth as your first examination.