InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 36
Posts 2516
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/29/2013

Re: rekcusdo post# 416290

Sunday, 06/11/2017 5:10:05 PM

Sunday, June 11, 2017 5:10:05 PM

Post# of 800675
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'll just add a last thought of my own. That is: just the fact that there was a lot of talk and rumor about the NWS leading to "wind down" (a phrase whose meaning is itself debated and subject to some interpretation), is not a) something that a pro investor, who bases his decisions on original sources, including securities laws (which even you agree have been violated), and quarterly statements and the like, would base his decision to buy shares on, b) there was no definitive plan or legislation taking shape, just proposals and bills that sometimes didn't even get out of committee, and c) not something that would, i think, hold up in court, as it were. Rumor, opinions, failed legislation are all not things a legal decision (by a judge for example) should be based on. Therefore, although you say no investor should have bought after the NWS without considering the talk and rumors, and that is true, certainly, there is no legal "teeth" that exist in that idea that they "should have foreseen" they'd be in trouble if they bought after the NWS, as far as I know.