Replies to post #184828 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[blanka]

Excellent post Usmcvet!!!

I agree completely!

[kingu1ysnmbr1]

That's a good point.

[AncientAries]

Hit the nail on the head Usmcvet. That's exactly what I thought general public will be moved a lot more from investors that lost big, I completely agree.

[mikewash]

Usmcvet you are absolutely correct! Fantastic post!!

[IL Padrino]

Exactly. I posted a comment on a yahoo article and some clown responded that shareholders shouldn't get squat... evil rich people, yada yada.
These jealous, class warfare morons, don't realize that this unlawful government seizure of property is a concern for every American citizen, rich or poor.
However, our current socialist citizenry is tearing at the very fabric of culutre which has made this nation great.
I do not blame Obama, government, or any such nonsense. In a free society where our politicians are elected, the only ones to blame are the people who vote said government in.

[Pugilista]

ahhh. I never thought of that.

[mike_usa]

Thanks Usmcvet.

[chessmaster315]

I would agree, however, any company can declare a "special" dividend to compensate shareholders owning shares on X date. This is not a court issue..the board of directors makes that decision.

If Nader was selected to the Board of Directors, after Cship ends, of course, then he could compensate "long term" shareholders by declaring a special dividend on xx-xx-2010.

IF you owned the stock on x dividend date declared by the board, then you get the divie, like always. Its a board issue and decision, not one that needs to be tried in the court of public opinion.

Board of directors should make their intentions known so that shareholders can vote which board member more closely aligns with their interests. If the board decisions do not reflect a consensus of the majority of shareholders, then the shareholders can install board members consistent with their objectives. This is the way it works. Obviously, each share has one vote, so "big" shareholders have a powerful influence. Sometimes, a shareholder can buy 10% or less of the stock, then convince another 41% of the voting shareholders to side with him, and he can effectively control the company with 51% of the vote.

[10bambam]

USMCVET, thanks for the perspective. I had not given it much thought. I just thought that squabbling over something like that at this point is a waste of energy. What you are saying makes sense and gives me a reason to actually give a sh**, STRATEGY. I guess the rich don't get richer because they are dummies. I am just holding tight and riding those coat tails.

[PGA3]

Very good point, I didn't see it from that angle.
Thanks.

[tutankhamen]

Thanks for this, I had a thought this was his thinking...no way a judge or agreement even thinks about attempting to split some sort of conservatorship re-entry by bucketing 21,000 shareholders into groups...just silly and Nader knows it but is doing the right thing which is showing the pain inflicted by the government on grandmothers and teachers retirements...