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.
“It is very difficult to imagine some one in a law firm, substantially more senior than former chief justice of Delaware, who will assign the work and tell the partner to do the work or get lost...”
Now you are just making things up. To claim that Steele is any more senior than any of the other 37 partners in the firm is just an attempt to put authority where it doesn’t exist. His former role in a job he no longer has is irrelevant to his current position.
Steele is a partner at the firm...but he is definitely at the whim of the senior partners/chairman of the company. Or he can quit...
You are correct. I could have been a practicing attorney...but it would have been a pay cut, so I just got the JD for the knowledge.
“Why would Previous Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice and now a attorney/partner in a reputed law firm, risk his reputation, time and effort with this law suite?”
You frame it like he is John Travolta in the movie A Civil Action. Steele is not an independent lawyer working for a small firm with 3 partners, each of which divides the decisions 3 ways. He is a partner in a HUGE law firm where he is one of thirty seven partners and 85 attorneys. The law firm took the case and then assigned it to Steele. He likely was told by one of the senior partners that he’d be representing the case.
Also, though win/loss ratios are not public record, I guarantee Steele has not won 100% of his cases...and his reputation is just fine.
“This is a class action law suite and there is no payment unless he wins the case.”
That is the risk in almost every civil case. Again, this isn’t the movie A Civil Action...where a loss would bankrupt the firm and put all partners on the street. If Steele loses the case, both he and his firm will be just fine.
Which is good...because they are almost certainly going to lose this case.
My hopes still lay with Perry.
Do you believe that former judge Steele is the plaintiff?
Steele is a lawyer, not the plaintiff...
And plaintiff's file claims all the time they won't likely win.
If you believe that Steele's taking the case is an assurance of winning the case, then you just don't understand how the legal system works.
Lol...he isn't an idiot. He's a plaintiff.
Plaintiff's file claims all the time that they won't likely win.
My prediction is based on the law. I know the Delaware case has no legal grounding. State law does NOT apply here.
Obviously I did not mean courts will fire FHFA director. If courts rule that single director structure as head of FHFA is unconstitutional, then FHFA Director may have to report HUD-Sy like previous OFHEO and can easily be replaced.
I agree that the courts can change the reporting structure of Watt thru declarations of HERA unconstitutionality...but this isn't what you said...
You said Even if DJT administration does not remove him, there are very good chances that courts will do that.
It is clear how I could have interpreted that to you claiming the courts can remove Watt from office...which, of course, they cannot.
Mark my words...Delaware will lead no where.
Totally agree.
I mean...
Biscuits.
‘Nuff said.
I think you may have me confused with someone else.
I was definitely here in 2015.
The Delaware case is dead for the simple reason that state law won’t control here. The Delaware case is a big shot in the dark and always has been.
The best chance of a case succeeding is still Perry’s contract claims, as Ive always said.
The courts? The courts cant remove Watt from his position. Lol. That just isn’t within the scope of a court remedy.
Trust me, while my hopes do lay with the courts saving us...it isn’t with the Delaware case. I can spot a losing case a mile away.
Yah...I remember this.
Seems like so long ago, lol.
Basically, once upon a time, all the cases in the land were consolidated and then dismissed.
This looks like a motion to revive the original class action that was dismissed 3 or 4 years ago.
Most likely they are hoping for a better chance than back in 2014.
The motion hasn’t been granted yet...so will need to wait to see if this means anything important.
Delaware case was lost before it began...so no biggy.
You are dreaming if you believe that. Watt has more chance of having his term renewed when it expires than of being replaced early.
You are also forgetting to account for the shifts in supply and demand curves do to The benefit to the wealthy.
Prices of goods and services would go up for those who are below the average benefit from the tax changes.
lol...fair enough.
Lol whipstick...I think you may need to research the term "analogy". haha :)
My neighbor keeps stealing the tomatoes out of my garden, but he said that he might stop stealing them sometime next year, so it's ok. In 2008 he started just taking 10% of my tomatoes, and that was not so bad, but in 2012 he started taking all of the tomatoes, leaving me none. I tried taking him to court but it turns out he is friends with the judge, and helped the judge get his job. Oh well, bring on 2018 and his promise to stop stealing.
Humor appreciated, as inaccurate as this analogy is. I might alter it as below in order to actually make it comparable to our situation.
My neighbor keeps stealing the tomatoes out of my garden, but he said that he might stop stealing them sometime next year, so it's ok. In 2008, we agreed that he would give me a whole bunch of tomatoes (millions!) in exchange for 10% of my tomatoes in perpetuity, and that was not so bad. But in 2012 he started taking all of the tomatoes, leaving me none. The initial millions of tomatoes he gave me were all gone (bugs?) so that was no good to me any more. So now I have no tomatoes. I was super happy in November, 2016, because the incoming President of the Tomato harvesting company seemed to be someone who could set this right, and get my friend to stop stealing my tomatoes. So far, he hasn't done much yet though. It turns out that my neighbor WORKS for the Tomato harvesting company President and they are enjoying my tomatoes together! Oh well, bring on 2018 and his promise to stop stealing...I hope.
Haha....
I more meant that these random quote estimates are almost always random shots in the dark without any legitimate reason.
Not even worth contemplating.
Why even respond to these cat calls. Lol.
If I said $50 dollars by Friday, would you wonder if I meant common or preferred? Haha
“your preferreds would have to be paid out at a minimum of redemption value.”
Yah right, good luck with that.
GAAP isn’t even the law...so people talking about violating “GAAP Rules” seems pointless.
While I disagree with the term “so-called”, I agree that Trump would not be swayed to do anything related to housing as a result of any illegal or treasonous activity by his staff.
Yah...we already knew that though.
Wow. Alternative facts I guess.
Possible, but the opposite is also possible.
Many of the plans that have been voted on have not been thought out...and would do what repealing the ACA without a good replacement would do...make things worse.
It's hard to know for sure.
Either way, I keep going back to that testimony with Watt where not a single Congressman said ANYTHING that would reflect well on shareholders.
Yah, I don't understand...
They already are on the secondary market.
I also recall the gang of four (Schumer and Sanders and ...) who blocked an actual bill by REPS that would have killed us
Yes, but they didn't block it BECAUSE it would kill us...that's the distinction.
Till proven wrong, I'll stick with ALL. (But I don't know HOW I could be proven wrong) so I win!
Haha, true...it is not really provable either way....but this is a good start, in my opinion.
I don't know if I'd use the word "all"...but definitely most.
I'd love to disagree...but I can't.
I don't believe any have. The only person I can think of that even started to contemplate shareholders was (I think) Capuano who thought it was ridiculous that the NWS was still taking profits after so much money has already been paid back to the Treasury.
Depends...what do you mean by "contemplate"?
1. BOD doesn’t come with a paycheck and no one on the BOD wanted to deal with a company that was in financial difficulty. They saw an out and they took it.
@Are they not paid handsomely for very little actual work?
No...BOD's typically do not get paid.
2. BOD was bribed to leave.
@That would be illegal, would it not? You do not think one of them would say "No. I can't do that, legal or illegal"?
So is Duress...I guess you are now saying Duress could not have happened because it would be illegal?
3. BOD agreed that Conservatorship with a different board was necessary to save the companies.
@Why would a Board consisting of "not me" be better?
I don't attempt to read the BOD's mind. This is a plausible possibility.
4. BOD knew they had no power any more and figured...why not leave.
@Not if they said no.
Yes, even if they said no. Conservatorship was happening regardless of whether the BOD stayed on board or not...and HERA confirred the power to enter into the SPSA to the director, not to the BOD.
5. BOD were near retirement.
@These people on Boards don't do squat. How many meetings a year do you think they attend? How many "meetings" are attended not in person? Boards are often comprised of people who are proverbally drooling.
If you are going to make statements like this, I please ask you to provide me with the detailed day by day itineraries of each of the BOD that you are referencing...oh wait, I forgot...this is all about how only Duress is a possible reason the BOD left...I forgot.
6. BOD saw impending bankruptcy and didn’t want to get dragged into it.
@Maybe, but were they not aware of McFarland's position? Not one of them thought "WTF? We've got cash. We've got a good business. We've got what amounts to an implicit government guarantee"?
What in the world are you talking about? You mean McFarland's position that she made 4 years later? You mean that position? No...they probably forgot their crystal balls at home. No...in 2008, the conversation was about bankruptcy, not free cash flow.
Or did you forget that McFarland joined Fannie Mae in 2011?
7. BOD, after reading HERA, believed that the government control was so large that they didn’t want to fight it.
@Possibly
Wow...we found one! :)
8. BOD was offered a financial retirement incentive (different than a bribe).
@Oh, no. That's a bribe.
No, it is not a bribe...it is an incentive. A bribe would be illegal. They could have offered the BOD stock options or a balloon payment only to be collected at retirement. They then didn't need to direct the BOD to retire...they would choose to do that on their own. This would not be illegal at all. That is the distinction.
9. The Government simply asked the BOD to step down and they complied believing it best for the company.
@Very dubious. The government can run this better than the company can be run privately?
Of course it's dubious...I didn't say that these options put the BOD in a good light...they are just alternatives to the extreme unproveable option of Duress.
10. The Government simply asked the BOD to step down and they complied believing it best for the country.
@Duplicate
Duplicate.
11. BOD believed it would help save the financial markets (we had dropped down to 6500 points, which was one of the biggest drops in American history).
@See #9
I'd say "See #9", but this is actually nothing like #9. This is about the fact that the GSEs were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the conservatorship ended those talks. The markets were continuing to plummet and conservatorship, for whatever else, helped to stave that off. The BOD easily could have been thinking about the markets and what was actually happening in the moment.
12. BOD invested heavily in the stock market after the crash and thought conservatorship would make them rich.
@Huh? Why?
Well...I invested in several stocks after the crash and made a nice profit that I couldn't have made without the crash. Conservatorship > Bankruptcy. They could have thought the Conservatorship would eventually lead to the stock going up...and that was happening. The stock went up to about 2 dollars before the NWS was announced.
13. BOD invested heavily in the stock market before the crash, and couldn’t split their attention between thier own financial problems and the problems of the GSE.
@Nah. Most have financial advisors, or are in the biz themselves. It doesn't take that much time. They can spare two days a year.
I guess you didn't see that "Big Short" movie...remember the scene where a room full of "financial advisors" ran out of the room when the crash was being announced in real time?
That actually happened. So many people were ruined on that day.
You didn't say proposals that got a vote...you said proposals.
Senator Warner has made several, to name one Democrat. He is but one of many who have made proposals that don't favor shareholders.
Almost all - or maybe all - proposals for "reform" from the REP controlled congress for years have wiped out equity shareholders
From DEMs too. It seems to be the only thing Congress can agree on...that shareholders suck.
There was hope Mnuchin would change that - but so far its all disappointment and blaming others
And Trump too.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. They can be wound down AND still exist.
But housing reform can mean a lot of different things, and many of them can result in wiping out shareholders.
Agreed, and Ive said this for a long time.
Which is why Im seeking an end to the NWS without reform.
Lol...no problem. 1 dozen just for you...all of which have the same level of evidence as duress.
1. BOD doesn’t come with a paycheck and no one on the BOD wanted to deal with a company that was in financial difficulty. They saw an out and they took it.
2. BOD was bribed to leave.
3. BOD agreed that Conservatorship with a different board was necessary to save the companies.
4. BOD knew they had no power any more and figured...why not leave.
5. BOD were near retirement.
6. BOD saw impending bankruptcy and didn’t want to get dragged into it.
7. BOD, after reading HERA, believed that the government control was so large that they didn’t want to fight it.
8. BOD was offered a financial retirement incentive (different than a bribe).
9. The Government simply asked the BOD to step down and they complied believing it best for the company.
10. The Government simply asked the BOD to step down and they complied believing it best for the country.
11. BOD believed it would help save the financial markets (we had dropped down to 6500 points, which was one of the biggest drops in American history).
12. BOD invested heavily in the stock market after the crash and thought conservatorship would make them rich.
And here’s one more for good measure....
13. BOD invested heavily in the stock market before the crash, and couldn’t split their attention between thier own financial problems and the problems of the GSE.
All very reasonable (and unprovable) explanations that have just as much “evidence” as duress.
I didn’t even have to stoop to the ridiculous reasons...and trust me, I had vampire bites up my sleeve! :)