PFFFF Is it because G Bradford endorses Moelis plan that dilutes the common shareholders 96% in their company?
In other words, it steals 96% of the company, now 100% owned.
Or is it also because he shamefully sweetened M. Watt's plan saying that it is "countercyclical", due to less competitors, the same proposal than Wells Fargo (4 but no more than 8 mortgage guarantors)?
Or is it because both plans make FnF pay a fee to the Government, when now FnF charge a fee (note the difference)?
Isn't it enough?