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.
Very interesting laundry list there. Thank you! Hadn’t thought of many of those.
I’ve posted previously saying that fundamental rights can be violated without any justice in cases where the details are so complicated that the judges themselves would never be able to understand the theft that happened. In this case, the accounting is possibly full of so many arcane details that it is making it possible for them to get away with this for over 10 yrs now.
If I recall, there were some 60-90M shares traded days back around 2013-2014 period. My memory could be wrong though.
If everything added up to a $5 dividend being possible, I would think the execs would see that as an opportunity to either issue and sell more shares (and thus lower the dividend to being more in line with typical financial sector companies’ dividends), or to stash a large amount of money into some kind of strategic reserves / capital reserves, and thus not pay dividends on that portion, so again the dividend amount would become lower than $5. I just wonder how realistic it’d be for them to have a dividend that sticks out like a sore thumb on day 1 when compared to others in the same sector. Then again, if everything adds up that way, the execs might prefer to let the “adjustment to peer group tickers” come in the form of a large share price increase. That would put the $5 dividend amount into a situation where it is not sticking out, when compared to the share price. And if the execs are allowed to have their compensation linked to share price, maybe they’d prefer that route. Lots of ifs in wondering about the dividend amount, and whether it will ever come to be.
I’ve been here, held for 10 yrs now.
Suggesting that needs to be addresses in appeal. Is that your interpretation of that tweet series?
How’s Ackman’s old $25 prediction doing? That was his post c-ship estimate, remember? Or close to it.
Has anyone done a baseline comparison to show what $1k invested in the S&P would be worth today?
F&F holders certainly will demand at least an equivalent return before selling, wouldn’t you think? Especially given all the risk since then!
Wanna benchmark it to something safer than the S&P? Fine. But either way, I think for most F&F shareholders, we’re looking at a high target before selling if C-ship ever ends.
Was waiting for SCOTUS always government’s plan?
Do you think the Federal gvt and/or FHFA always planned to simply wait for a scotus decision on this before giving any rights back to shareholders?
That’s the class action suit we all got letters about, right?
Any quick explanation why FNMA common is not included in this suit, even though Freddie Common is included?
Your general thoughts on class action letter?
Who here is planning to join it?
Has Ackman or Berko sold yet?
I didn’t notice that. Can you point me to where I can see that phrase, please?
Isn’t computer code = to freedom of speech? If bitcoin is built on code, and code is simply written characters in a computer, how can the Federal government ban it? Bitcoin in that sense is similar to people buying and selling books as they change in value. Books contain written characters.
Thanks for update on WaFed. Sounds like a win would benefit shareholders who owned at the time c-ship was implemented, as well as current shareholders who bought after that, correct?
I mean, the remedy that the legacy shareholders seek would also be helpful to current / newer shareholders, as far as I can tell.
Maybe the legacy shareholders would get more than current shareholders, but current shareholders would still win big.
Let go of the labels for parties / ideologies. They’re all part of “the establishment” aligned against the people.
Didn’t Washington Federal challenge c-ship? Status of that suit?
A year later, see this old FHFA question.
Thanks. I was replying to a post suggesting that the right “someone” will be starting a new lawsuit and that that could save us. I am fully aware that that is a ridiculous position to hold unless one is unaware of the things you and I seem to be well aware of. Yes the R and D serve the same masters, against us. Same as it always was.
Excellent quote btw.
Yes I was joking. Responding to that post.
Say we buy the entire float. When’s the next shareholder meeting, at which a majority group of owners like us could make a decision about the future of the company?
Are you familiar with the term “conservatorship”?
Ok. Enforced by whom, then? And when?
Prob my two favorite movies!
That point was not presented yet in court, correct? Not that anything matters in court.
Makes me think maybe I never should’ve even gotten into this ticker 8 years ago. 8....years. And 8 years ago I was already long-time since fully aware of the incredible level of corruption that has absolutely saturated our government in every agency, office, department, etc. Yet I still must’ve had some tiny shred of a notion that the rule of law still has a fighting chance.
Well we’ve all seen what has developed in the country over the last 8 years and the rule of law is completely at the mercy of the puppet strings holders.
I thought you had a specific person in mind. Was it a rhetorical question? Btw the statute of limitations might play a role in any case where “the right person” who has standing decides to take legal action.
Hey buddy! Maybe you can give your own opinion on the question, but things in northern IL are pretty weird, generally!
Much like this SCOTUS ruling.
Yes but the cabal would be a level below the corporation, even. Just look into DC, The City of London, and the Vatican. What do they all have in common? Wild stuff. If there’s any validity to it, it would explain why SCOTUS (and not just SCOTUS) very very technically does not have to follow the constitution, though it will when it wants to, for appearances sake.
Scotus overturned 100s yrs of investmentLaw. Saying a company can be nationalized, a company can use its funds to serve itself or the vaguely defined public good when it’s officially the “conservator” overturns 100s of years of investment law, as far as I know.
Similar to how in ‘08/‘09 The gvt forced GE to put union interests ahead of bond holders in the capital stack, just super radical stuff.
They’re part of the corporation - is one explanation some will suggest.
Who’s the “right person”?
That’s the most realistic prediction I’ve seen. Keep in mind that the powers that be will absolutely take this as a chance to “double down” and repeat the theft all over again. There is nothing to stop them, that I can tell. Maybe some arcane lawsuits. But holding this as an option might still make sense to some.
It’s not difficult to see who controls Biden. It’s certainly not old school democrats.
There’s a reason they don’t need to follow constitution. But it takes the wildest path of research to discover it. It is the ultimate red pill, though.
Almost sounds like a justice was bribed. That Alito phrase is full of such contortion, you wonder who got to these justices? Who holds power over them in the form of some evidence of their own misbehavior? I mean, I know the answer to who it would be. But it’s phrases like that from Alito that really cast suspicion.
That’s how the TBTF designed it in ‘08. They planned their moves in ‘08 in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to undo the theft they were committing.
TBTF banks need GSEs to remain vulnerable. That gives them another tool / reason / narrative / fall guy they can use when they engineer the next crash and get away with it ten times richer than before.
That level of corruption finds its way into every single institution.
That’s a swamp trick. Parading in public saying one thing then doing another once appointed.
Any law against insider trading for justices?
Can you find any good news in this?
Chessmaster’s right. Economics is the study of consequences. By that reasoning, Risk / Reward is almost the very definition of consequences.