Replies to post #456916 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[altruism]

It's interesting just after Bush took office she peaked $90

[jeddiemack]

He/she would have you believe that if you bought a home with a vagrant living in it; that you couldn't later force the vagrant to leave because they occupied it at the time you bought it.

The argument holds no water.

Right to sue (standing) is one thing. The ability to win is another. In the above question, the vagrant could be held liable for the first owners losses upon sale, but not owing to the second, except when he is forced to leave the property would become more valuable. But, it doesn't change the situation.

Here, the fact they are continuing an act of confiscation is as much the problem as the initial confiscation. While sure, the injuries occurred to the parties holding at the time of the conservatorship (confiscation), and the NWS, but everyday standing enures to the owners of the stock that are in permanent "time-out". So, while injuries would be due those at the time who owned it; doesn't change that today in confiscation damages didn't occur.

[rekcusdo]

You are saying what if you bought before AND after the NWS?

Likely you’d have standing. Standing requires you to be a shareholder at the time of the injury. It doesn’t require that ALL of your shares were prior.