Castanza

One ahs a barrier to entry and a moat while the other doesn't

How much in damages do shareholders think they would get vs just exiting c-ship and seeing where the stock ends up? To me (late entry) I'd rather just see an exit strategy.

Yeah, but Lamberth said he was waiting for the Collins case decision.

Read the post wrong....just speculation

Agreed! Had good risk vs reward for such a short timeframe.

I recognized the decision at hand and was hoping to hold this a few weeks and get out with a fist full of cash....Looks like I'm holding for the grandkids

That was fast https://www.housingwire.com/articles/biden-to-replace-fhfa-director-mark-calabria-today/

Thanks I'll take a look

Emily - all their content is gone

I've noticed there are some members who frequent this thread that no longer have accounts.

Isn't this directly in opposition to what you're saying? "Finally, the shareholders argue that because the third amendment left the companies unable to build capital reserves and exit conservatorship, it is best viewed as a step toward liquidation, which the FHFA lacked the authority to take without first placing the companies in receivership. This characterization is inaccurate. Nothing about the third amendment precluded the companies from operating at full steam in the marketplace, and all available evidence suggests that they did. The companies were not in the process of winding down their affairs." "It is not necessary for us to decide—and we do not decide—whether the FHFA made the best, or even a particularly good, business decision when it adopted the third amendment. Instead, we conclude only that under the terms of the Recovery Act, the FHFA did not exceed its authority as a conservator, and therefore the anti-injunction clause bars the shareholders’ statutory claim."

Anyone who talks that much about a single stock has to be leveraged to the tits

Someone better check on Glen Bradford....dude is probably on suicide watch

Yeah I am no lawyer or legal scholar, but doesn't this give the government the precedent to nationalize any private company through means of c-ship?

The nail is in the coffin. SCOTUS pretty much nixed any path forward for shareholders while giving all control to the government. What investor would touch this moving forward? I had a really small stake that I took a few weeks ago, so not much I can complain about. But I feel bad for anyone who held this 10+ years....Thing is, you couldn't have had a "better" SCOTUS to rule on the case. As Greg said.....thanks for the tax losses! A small reminder of why I avoid special situations involving courts like the plague...

Seems that way "The shareholders argue that the third amendment did not actually serve the best interests of the FHFA or the public because it did Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus not further the asserted objective of protecting Treasury’s capital commitment. First, they claim that the FHFA agreed to the amendment at a time when the companies were on the precipice of a financial uptick which would have allowed them to pay their cash dividends and build up capital buffers to absorb future losses. Thus, the shareholders assert, sweeping all the companies’ earnings to Treasury increased rather than decreased the risk that the companies would make further draws and eventually deplete Treasury’s commitment. But the success of the strategy that the shareholders tout was dependent on speculative projections about future earnings, and recent experience had given the FHFA reasons for caution. The nature of the conservatorship authorized by the Recovery Act permitted the Agency to reject the shareholders’ suggested strategy in favor of one that the Agency reasonably viewed as more certain to ensure market stability. Second, the shareholders claim that the FHFA could have protected Treasury’s capital commitment by ordering the companies to pay the dividends in kind rather than in cash. This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the agreement between the companies and Treasury. Paying Treasury in kind would not have satisfied the cash dividend obligation; it would only have delayed that obligation, as well as the risk that the companies’ cash dividend obligations would consume Treasury’s capital commitment. Choosing to forgo this option in favor of one that eliminated the risk entirely was not in excess of the FHFA’s authority as a conservator. Finally, the shareholders argue that because the third amendment left the companies unable to build capital reserves and exit conservatorship, it is best viewed as a step toward liquidation, which the FHFA lacked the authority to take without first placing the companies in receivership. This characterization is inaccurate. Nothing about the third amendment precluded the companies from operating at full steam in the marketplace, and all available evidence suggests that they did. The companies were not in the process of winding down their affairs"

Collins vs Yellen https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-422_k537.pdf "The Court says "it is not necessary for us to decide . . . whether the FHFA made the best, or even a particularly good, business decision when it adopted the third amendment. Instead, we conclude only that under the terms of the Recovery Act, the FHFA did not exceed its authority as a conservator, and therefore the anti-injunction clause bars the shareholders' statutory claim."

This is actually a pretty interesting business. Any companies you know that focus on this (not necessarily public)? As someone who spent a summer setting up gas powered lights and testing water at frac sites this seems likely a very profitable endeavor. Gas companies loved contracting out to independent third parties.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-bitcoin-did/id1317356120?i=1000526017403 interview of the man who brought Bitcoin to El Salvador. Seems the primary function is for remittance of those who work in the states to send money back to their families. At least in the near term.

I don't think it's fair to use the BTC went from .01 to 33k argument when talking about adoption by countries. The only people who had this on their radar until 2017 were nerds in dorms and 4chan users. I mean, should govt be buying all these other sh1tcoins because they are cheap? USD is still the reserve currency backed by the US and it's military. China owns like 50% of BTC and the majority of the miners are there no? I don't see that as a positive even if it's a simplistic view. For the record, I am not against crypto and would probably buy some BTC for trading if the price came down substantially. To me it's history and present "antics" seem way to opaque and volatile to justify adoption by a large country.

Wow that's a pretty interesting development

El Salvador used USD....If everyone in El Salvador had BTC instead, they would have just lost 65% of their wealth. How can anyone argue that BTC in its current state can provide stability to a country?

Id be curious to know what the sentiment is of citizens in El Salvador for BTC. I mean, what reason do they have to trust their governments decision? I think you could argue BTC adoption starting in a risky country is more risky for BTC ecosystem. If this fails in El Salvador like all the other currencies then it would crush mass country adoption. Their goal imo is to hold on hoping someone bigger adopts (which is possible). I could see adoption in the US if the majority of people became invested in it. But that is more bottom up, and it still would require a binary decision by the govt. I think Sharper has the best view that govts will simply establish their own crypto.

You’re expecting the US and other G7 countries to adopt policy of a country that 99% of people probably couldn't even point out on a map? I think when people talk about “ANY” country and policy adoption at a high level, it’s generally assumed they mean influential countries. Again, I’m not trying to shit on El Salvador….but from a purely influential standpoint I’d call it a nothing burger. if someone “bigger” adopts it, then we can talk. But it (insert country) certainly isn’t going to be because El Salvador did. I still think it’s likely the government (US) takes action before their own currency is debased by Bitcoin.

Countries that are basically failed states