(03-18-2020 12:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And frankly, the fact that there are other posters who also love to get twisted in knots over almost any post on this board by a liberal-leaning poster (not just me, mind you) are getting twisted up here, isn't great evidence that all fault lies here. I've seen Tanq, OO, etc. go down similarly stupid rabbit holes with other liberal posters. It just so happens that I'm masochistic enough to continue to respond to this current thread.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

How any of you care this much about such ridiculous minutia and how you have the time on your hands to sit here and hate on Lad over the smallest little nothingburgers blows my mind.

(03-18-2020 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 12:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump did not dissolve pandemic unit

nope

I know you guys will attack the sources. All I did was google and these came up.

I mean, there are a couple sites (probably others) saying that Red State is one of the further right-wing and least reliable (aka least factual) sites out there. So yeah, I don't trust the source at all. And I have no earthly idea what "longroom" even is. I won't cite Daily Kos to you if you won't cite Red State to me.

If you cite Daily Kos and it has links to source material, I am enough of a big boy to actually look at that source material. I might ignore the self-serving blather that accompanies the source material there (and on Red State, for that matter), but the sources can (and should) stand on their own.

If the Kos (Red State) piece is nothing but self-serving blather, then a call out is absolutely warranted.

Cmon man, as an attorney you should be very well trained in wading through and identifying such self-serving statements *and* the ability to pluck out the base facts from such morasses.

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am my own Aunt Betty.

(03-18-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What the **** is 'effectively illegal'? That is nonsensical. "Effectively non-existent'... perhaps.


'effectively illegal' is not really even a concept.

That is like saying a woman is 'effectively pregnant'. Is the supposed illegality now your fortified entrenchment point?

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What the **** is 'effectively illegal'? That is nonsensical. "Effectively non-existent'... perhaps.


'effectively illegal' is not really even a concept.

That is like saying a woman is 'effectively pregnant'. Is the supposed illegality now your fortified entrenchment point?

Dude, no major skin in the game, so get untwisted.

I read multiple articles that referenced the stock buybacks as being illegal until the 1980s, because they were considered market manipulation. Sources ranged from Forbes to Bloomberg to CNN.

And the comment of "effectively illegal" was meant to denote that because of the ambiguity that the Bloomberg article made more clear, stock buybacks could be viewed as market manipulation and therefore, illegal.

Kind of like how that Bloomberg article said "This effectively shielded them from prosecution under the original 1934 legislation."

Go get your panties in a twist all ya want.

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 12:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And frankly, the fact that there are other posters who also love to get twisted in knots over almost any post on this board by a liberal-leaning poster (not just me, mind you) are getting twisted up here, isn't great evidence that all fault lies here. I've seen Tanq, OO, etc. go down similarly stupid rabbit holes with other liberal posters. It just so happens that I'm masochistic enough to continue to respond to this current thread.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

How any of you care this much about such ridiculous minutia and how you have the time on your hands to sit here and hate on Lad over the smallest little nothingburgers blows my mind.

Funny, the poster you cite now as a role model is now seemingly digging his heels in on a concept he calls 'effectively illegal' in order to justify his first post on the subject --- if that isnt the same minutiae then I am my own Aunt Betty.

(03-17-2020 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The death rate on a per-capita basis has the United States at just around the lowest measured on a timeframe of 'days from first reported death'. Strikingly better than most elsewhere.

The one thing that comes to mind if you measure 'per-capita' is that China has one humongous denominator.

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-varies-by-country.php

(03-18-2020 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What the **** is 'effectively illegal'? That is nonsensical. "Effectively non-existent'... perhaps.


'effectively illegal' is not really even a concept.

That is like saying a woman is 'effectively pregnant'. Is the supposed illegality now your fortified entrenchment point?

Dude, no major skin in the game, so get untwisted.

I read multiple articles that referenced the stock buybacks as being illegal until the 1980s, because they were considered market manipulation. Sources ranged from Forbes to Bloomberg to CNN.

And the comment of "effectively illegal" was meant to denote that because of the ambiguity that the Bloomberg article made more clear, stock buybacks could be viewed as market manipulation and therefore, illegal.

Kind of like how that Bloomberg article said "This effectively shielded them from prosecution under the original 1934 legislation."

Go get your panties in a twist all ya want.

Could be viewed as illegal doesnt mean illegal. Or effectively illegal (whatever the **** that is).

As for panties in a twist, Im not the one making **** up out of thin air, son. Bummer.

Quote:For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

Quote:Did you know that stock buybacks were illegal until 1982? It’s true.

The SEC, operating under the Reagan Republicans, passed rule 10b-18, which made stock buybacks legal. Up until the passing of this rule, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 considered large-scale share repurchases a form of stock manipulation.

(03-18-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What the **** is 'effectively illegal'? That is nonsensical. "Effectively non-existent'... perhaps.


'effectively illegal' is not really even a concept.

That is like saying a woman is 'effectively pregnant'. Is the supposed illegality now your fortified entrenchment point?

Dude, no major skin in the game, so get untwisted.

I read multiple articles that referenced the stock buybacks as being illegal until the 1980s, because they were considered market manipulation. Sources ranged from Forbes to Bloomberg to CNN.

And the comment of "effectively illegal" was meant to denote that because of the ambiguity that the Bloomberg article made more clear, stock buybacks could be viewed as market manipulation and therefore, illegal.

Kind of like how that Bloomberg article said "This effectively shielded them from prosecution under the original 1934 legislation."

Go get your panties in a twist all ya want.

Could be viewed as illegal doesnt mean illegal. Or effectively illegal (whatever the **** that is).

As for panties in a twist, Im not the one making **** up out of thin air, son. Bummer.

My God man.

I didn't make it up - as I said, I read multiple articles.

See:

Quote:For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5cdb895e6b1e

Quote:Did you know that stock buybacks were illegal until 1982? It’s true.

The SEC, operating under the Reagan Republicans, passed rule 10b-18, which made stock buybacks legal. Up until the passing of this rule, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 considered large-scale share repurchases a form of stock manipulation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-illegal-172253787.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACpM5ieTqKUYExU730uhAf_utZFRSN6uAqddk-j5aFDLKdQ6kX_ZUP15KLDgMXwr4GGKY8waQmY9yRdDihKeZ9Y3L-OXUUullJcb9EDIRLZtFjRlwTxtrjNughilroi3_zSgez-9kxDKADc0-wLQY0BEut48tBzNa16gsBGJmT5u

And I can keep going. I didn't make this up out of thin air - far from it. I went online and tried to learn a bit more about the history of stock buybacks, and as Frizzy mentioned, was misinformed.

The article on Bloomberg that Frizzy posted dug deeper into the history of stock buybacks, which was informative. But even it touched on how the ambiguity of the Securities and Exchange Act made stock buybacks potentially illegal if they were viewed as a form of market manipulation.

Anyways, I could care less about the outcome of this, but I certainly did not pull this out my ass.

(03-18-2020 08:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The death rate on a per-capita basis has the United States at just around the lowest measured on a timeframe of 'days from first reported death'. Strikingly better than most elsewhere.

The one thing that comes to mind if you measure 'per-capita' is that China has one humongous denominator.

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-varies-by-country.php

looking at the chart on powerline, taken from FT....

It's really quite impressive where the US falls, more in line with very closed and somewhat isolated societies who have for years had people wearing masks in public for much less than this like Japan and S. Korea.

Switzerland has little data but looks good. The netherlands has little data but looks horrible.

The UK, France, Spain, Italy all VERY measurably worse than us despite somewhat similar open cultures. China of course... but Iran is the surprise to me.

I'd guess that it has to do with 'people travel' patterns the early shut-down of travel to/from CHina... but with the spread to Europe and us only later addressing that, the risk is that we can see a spike as a result. We significantly slowed it from hitting us from China (plus the distance of course) but maybe not from Europe?

(03-18-2020 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 12:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And frankly, the fact that there are other posters who also love to get twisted in knots over almost any post on this board by a liberal-leaning poster (not just me, mind you) are getting twisted up here, isn't great evidence that all fault lies here. I've seen Tanq, OO, etc. go down similarly stupid rabbit holes with other liberal posters. It just so happens that I'm masochistic enough to continue to respond to this current thread.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

How any of you care this much about such ridiculous minutia and how you have the time on your hands to sit here and hate on Lad over the smallest little nothingburgers blows my mind.

Funny, the poster you cite now as a role model is now seemingly digging his heels in on a concept he calls 'effectively illegal' in order to justify his first post on the subject --- if that isnt the same minutiae then I am my own Aunt Betty.

A single response is truly "digging my heels in."

Christ on a cracker.

(03-18-2020 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What the **** is 'effectively illegal'? That is nonsensical. "Effectively non-existent'... perhaps.


'effectively illegal' is not really even a concept.

That is like saying a woman is 'effectively pregnant'. Is the supposed illegality now your fortified entrenchment point?

Dude, no major skin in the game, so get untwisted.

I read multiple articles that referenced the stock buybacks as being illegal until the 1980s, because they were considered market manipulation. Sources ranged from Forbes to Bloomberg to CNN.

And the comment of "effectively illegal" was meant to denote that because of the ambiguity that the Bloomberg article made more clear, stock buybacks could be viewed as market manipulation and therefore, illegal.

Kind of like how that Bloomberg article said "This effectively shielded them from prosecution under the original 1934 legislation."

Go get your panties in a twist all ya want.

Could be viewed as illegal doesnt mean illegal. Or effectively illegal (whatever the **** that is).

As for panties in a twist, Im not the one making **** up out of thin air, son. Bummer.

My God man.

I didn't make it up - as I said, I read multiple articles.

See:

Quote:For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5cdb895e6b1e

Quote:Did you know that stock buybacks were illegal until 1982? It’s true.

The SEC, operating under the Reagan Republicans, passed rule 10b-18, which made stock buybacks legal. Up until the passing of this rule, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 considered large-scale share repurchases a form of stock manipulation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-illegal-172253787.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACpM5ieTqKUYExU730uhAf_utZFRSN6uAqddk-j5aFDLKdQ6kX_ZUP15KLDgMXwr4GGKY8waQmY9yRdDihKeZ9Y3L-OXUUullJcb9EDIRLZtFjRlwTxtrjNughilroi3_zSgez-9kxDKADc0-wLQY0BEut48tBzNa16gsBGJmT5u

And I can keep going. I didn't make this up out of thin air - far from it. I went online and tried to learn a bit more about the history of stock buybacks, and as Frizzy mentioned, was misinformed.

The article on Bloomberg that Frizzy posted dug deeper into the history of stock buybacks, which was informative. But even it touched on how the ambiguity of the Securities and Exchange Act made stock buybacks potentially illegal if they were viewed as a form of market manipulation.

Anyways, I could care less about the outcome of this, but I certainly did not pull this out my ass.

Dude, read the fing caselaw. Good fing grief. I am glad you have changed your stance from 'effectively illegal' to 'potentially'.

If you were smart, you would actually read the fing law section in question. Then, you might even note how all-encompassing it is, then note the inherent problems with such all encompassing language.

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

(03-18-2020 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Dude, no major skin in the game, so get untwisted.

I read multiple articles that referenced the stock buybacks as being illegal until the 1980s, because they were considered market manipulation. Sources ranged from Forbes to Bloomberg to CNN.

And the comment of "effectively illegal" was meant to denote that because of the ambiguity that the Bloomberg article made more clear, stock buybacks could be viewed as market manipulation and therefore, illegal.

Kind of like how that Bloomberg article said "This effectively shielded them from prosecution under the original 1934 legislation."

Go get your panties in a twist all ya want.

Could be viewed as illegal doesnt mean illegal. Or effectively illegal (whatever the **** that is).

As for panties in a twist, Im not the one making **** up out of thin air, son. Bummer.

My God man.

I didn't make it up - as I said, I read multiple articles.

See:

Quote:For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5cdb895e6b1e

Quote:Did you know that stock buybacks were illegal until 1982? It’s true.

The SEC, operating under the Reagan Republicans, passed rule 10b-18, which made stock buybacks legal. Up until the passing of this rule, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 considered large-scale share repurchases a form of stock manipulation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-illegal-172253787.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACpM5ieTqKUYExU730uhAf_utZFRSN6uAqddk-j5aFDLKdQ6kX_ZUP15KLDgMXwr4GGKY8waQmY9yRdDihKeZ9Y3L-OXUUullJcb9EDIRLZtFjRlwTxtrjNughilroi3_zSgez-9kxDKADc0-wLQY0BEut48tBzNa16gsBGJmT5u

And I can keep going. I didn't make this up out of thin air - far from it. I went online and tried to learn a bit more about the history of stock buybacks, and as Frizzy mentioned, was misinformed.

The article on Bloomberg that Frizzy posted dug deeper into the history of stock buybacks, which was informative. But even it touched on how the ambiguity of the Securities and Exchange Act made stock buybacks potentially illegal if they were viewed as a form of market manipulation.

Anyways, I could care less about the outcome of this, but I certainly did not pull this out my ass.

Dude, read the fing caselaw. Good fing grief. I am glad you have changed your stance from 'effectively illegal' to 'potentially'.

If you were smart, you would actually read the fing law section in question. Then, you might even note how all-encompassing it is, then note the inherent problems with such all encompassing language.

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

I am not denying what you're saying. I'm defending the idea that I did not pull this out my ass. I didn't just pop on here and go, I'm going to make a statement without even doing a cursory review of it.

If you want to provide a deeper explanation, I'm all for it. But don't be an ass and go on attack mode ASAP.

(03-18-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-17-2020 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The death rate on a per-capita basis has the United States at just around the lowest measured on a timeframe of 'days from first reported death'. Strikingly better than most elsewhere.

The one thing that comes to mind if you measure 'per-capita' is that China has one humongous denominator.

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-varies-by-country.php

looking at the chart on powerline, taken from FT....

It's really quite impressive where the US falls, more in line with very closed and somewhat isolated societies who have for years had people wearing masks in public for much less than this like Japan and S. Korea.

Switzerland has little data but looks good. The netherlands has little data but looks horrible.

The UK, France, Spain, Italy all VERY measurably worse than us despite somewhat similar open cultures. China of course... but Iran is the surprise to me.

I'd guess that it has to do with 'people travel' patterns the early shut-down of travel to/from CHina... but with the spread to Europe and us only later addressing that, the risk is that we can see a spike as a result. We significantly slowed it from hitting us from China (plus the distance of course) but maybe not from Europe?

The graph you're talking about is from 3/15. I'm following the guy on Twitter, who is updating it daily. See here.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jburnmurdoch

A lot has changed in two to three days, and we no longer look like those Asian countries:

Quote:And if we are talking about total cases - the difference is more stark. See here:



Note that the x-axis is normalized to either number of days since the 10th death or 100th case

(03-18-2020 09:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Could be viewed as illegal doesnt mean illegal. Or effectively illegal (whatever the **** that is).

As for panties in a twist, Im not the one making **** up out of thin air, son. Bummer.

My God man.

I didn't make it up - as I said, I read multiple articles.

See:

Quote:For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5cdb895e6b1e

Quote:Did you know that stock buybacks were illegal until 1982? It’s true.

The SEC, operating under the Reagan Republicans, passed rule 10b-18, which made stock buybacks legal. Up until the passing of this rule, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 considered large-scale share repurchases a form of stock manipulation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-illegal-172253787.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACpM5ieTqKUYExU730uhAf_utZFRSN6uAqddk-j5aFDLKdQ6kX_ZUP15KLDgMXwr4GGKY8waQmY9yRdDihKeZ9Y3L-OXUUullJcb9EDIRLZtFjRlwTxtrjNughilroi3_zSgez-9kxDKADc0-wLQY0BEut48tBzNa16gsBGJmT5u

And I can keep going. I didn't make this up out of thin air - far from it. I went online and tried to learn a bit more about the history of stock buybacks, and as Frizzy mentioned, was misinformed.

The article on Bloomberg that Frizzy posted dug deeper into the history of stock buybacks, which was informative. But even it touched on how the ambiguity of the Securities and Exchange Act made stock buybacks potentially illegal if they were viewed as a form of market manipulation.

Anyways, I could care less about the outcome of this, but I certainly did not pull this out my ass.

Dude, read the fing caselaw. Good fing grief. I am glad you have changed your stance from 'effectively illegal' to 'potentially'.

If you were smart, you would actually read the fing law section in question. Then, you might even note how all-encompassing it is, then note the inherent problems with such all encompassing language.

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

I am not denying what you're saying. I'm defending the idea that I did not pull this out my ass. I didn't just pop on here and go, I'm going to make a statement without even doing a cursory review of it.

If you want to provide a deeper explanation, I'm all for it. But don't be an ass and go on attack mode ASAP.

edited into my post before you posted:

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

In short, it was an unresolved area until 1982. Happened in not great numbers, and no one did anything about it because it was such a stretch. All the case law involves really bad, fraudulent stuff. Knowing some people that did this in that era, the ball was rolling to do it straight up more and more as a practice since all the caselaw involved such bad stuff. Reagan simply put into the rules what the caselaw distinctions were making clear.

Big difference from 'effectively illegal'.

So yes, the talking point (which it is) that buybacks were illegal is poppycock.

Again, note how many companies did the going private thing. If they were illegal, then none of those transactions should have ever occurred.

Quote:Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday outlined her own set of stipulations for any Big Business that receives federal bailout money. They include permanently giving up stock buy-backs and adding at least one seat to the board representing workers.

(03-18-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My God man.

I didn't make it up - as I said, I read multiple articles.

See:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#5cdb895e6b1e


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-reasons-stock-buybacks-illegal-172253787.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACpM5ieTqKUYExU730uhAf_utZFRSN6uAqddk-j5aFDLKdQ6kX_ZUP15KLDgMXwr4GGKY8waQmY9yRdDihKeZ9Y3L-OXUUullJcb9EDIRLZtFjRlwTxtrjNughilroi3_zSgez-9kxDKADc0-wLQY0BEut48tBzNa16gsBGJmT5u

And I can keep going. I didn't make this up out of thin air - far from it. I went online and tried to learn a bit more about the history of stock buybacks, and as Frizzy mentioned, was misinformed.

The article on Bloomberg that Frizzy posted dug deeper into the history of stock buybacks, which was informative. But even it touched on how the ambiguity of the Securities and Exchange Act made stock buybacks potentially illegal if they were viewed as a form of market manipulation.

Anyways, I could care less about the outcome of this, but I certainly did not pull this out my ass.

Dude, read the fing caselaw. Good fing grief. I am glad you have changed your stance from 'effectively illegal' to 'potentially'.

If you were smart, you would actually read the fing law section in question. Then, you might even note how all-encompassing it is, then note the inherent problems with such all encompassing language.

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

I am not denying what you're saying. I'm defending the idea that I did not pull this out my ass. I didn't just pop on here and go, I'm going to make a statement without even doing a cursory review of it.

If you want to provide a deeper explanation, I'm all for it. But don't be an ass and go on attack mode ASAP.

edited into my post before you posted:

I mean, the literal wording of 9b might make hedge fund trading potentially liable as manipulative.

Seriously, this is an area I did deep and hard for three to four years. So yes, I know what the fk Im talking about.

In short, it was an unresolved area until 1982. Happened in not great numbers, and no one did anything about it because it was such a stretch. All the case law involves really bad, fraudulent stuff. Knowing some people that did this in that era, the ball was rolling to do it straight up more and more as a practice since all the caselaw involved such bad stuff. Reagan simply put into the rules what the caselaw distinctions were making clear.

Big difference from 'effectively illegal'.

So yes, the talking point (which it is) that buybacks were illegal is poppycock.

Again, note how many companies did the going private thing. If they were illegal, then none of those transactions should have ever occurred.

I never claimed you didn't know anything about this area, and I definitely appreciate the information. It's really unfortunate how many different articles I found, from varying sources, that stated flatly that they were illegal. Even that Bloomberg piece, which is about how convoluted their history it is, didn't provide the kind of perspective that you have.

Quote:“No buybacks. Not now. Not a year from now. Not 20 years from now. Not ever,” Cuban said on “Squawk Box.” “Because effectively you’re spending taxpayer money to buyback stock and to me that’s just the wrong way to do that.”

He also said, “Whatever we do in a bailout, make sure that every worker is compensated and treated equally — in that the executives don’t get rewarded extra to stick around because they got nowhere else to go.”