Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

There is no need for a fact check of every detail, or hyperlink, or for me to go to the court house to file some paperwork in order to express an opinion.

That doesn't mean that you can't provide any details at all regarding your hypothetical scenarios. It's that vagueness that hurts their credibility.

You're acting like the fact that you cannot give all the details means that you cannot give any of them. Pure logical fallacy.

I will again ask you directly: what are your answers to these five questions specifically regarding a claim over the LP ratchet, which you have repeatedly claimed could be a cause for action?

1) In what court would the suit be filed, and why? - Could be anywhere, pick one. One or more may get to SCOTUS again.
2) Which law was/would be allegedly violated? - Depends on future FHFA actions. Another breach of implied covenant seems likely. Could also be a takings. Could be a injunction or prospective relief request to prevent share increase.
3) What would the plaintiffs seek as remedy? - Depends on the suit obviously. Damages from profit sweep to LP. Damages from cash sweep after capital threshold is reached. Could be a monetary remedy or a contractual remedy.
4) Given what has happened in all the other court cases, what reason is there to believe this new suit would succeed? Because one has succeeded.
5) How long would it take, in light of the government having fought every other case tooth and nail, for the suit to ultimately succeed? Don't know, but likely less time than the first win.

For the record, I am expecting you to dodge these questions like you have every other time I asked.

So for you to call out others for their predictions, you should also come to realize you are doing the exact same thing.

Wrong. You still seem to be operating under the idiotic idea that all predictions are equally useless.

Predictions made using facts and sound reasoning are good, even if they're not always right.
Predictions made using fallacies and wishful thinking are bad, even if they're not always wrong.
Gamblers and casinos provide a clear example. There is a reason the house always wins in the long run, even if they don't win every single bet.

My predictions are made based on the law, facts, mathematics, and logical reasoning. On the other hand you get posters here that throw out common share price targets based on either fallacies ("it traded at $60 before the conservatorships started!") or nothing at all, but you don't call them out on it. Why?