The irony in fact is that both of your discussions prove the relevance of the idea that your version of truth is created by the indoctrination of various institutions.
Furthermore most of your labels are simply value judgements which prevent you from seeing things clearly.
Using terms like "vulture funds" and "left wing" shows only how conflicted your thinking is. We can simply say these things exist without putting a moral judgement on them?
You repeat your plainly false claim that the failure of SGH means that SHJ is doomed.
I have explained why I believe that isn't the case - in a word Quindell.
Then you say the industry is doomed, I agree that's what the market believes.
However I see no reason that lawyers cannot work for a salary like the employees of every other industry.
Rebuttal please, how are lawyers different? There's not a major difference between the partnership and listed legal firms.
Investing when people believe an industry has no future but objectively it does has a long history in the world of contrarian investing.
To quote from Ben Graham's 1932 article for Forbes "Are Corporations Milking their Owners"
"Is it true that one out of three American businesses is destined to continue losing money until the stockholders have no equity remaining? This is what the stock market says in no uncertain terms.
In all probability it is wrong, as it always has been wrong in its major judgments of the future.
The logic of Wall Street is proverbially weak. It is hardly consistent, for example, to despair of the railroads because the trucks are going to take most of their business, and at the same time to be so
despondent over the truck industry as to give away shares in its largest units for a small fraction of their liquid capital alone."
Trucking and railroads are still in business today, I think legal services will be too.
What we need is not intelligence but diversity of opinion, not stuffy professors developing theories but knowledge for living and future action.
My money is where mouth is, I have speculated a casual $45,000 on this stock because I believe your arguments are weak.
Just repeating them doesn't make them any stronger and in the end we will see who is vindicated by the sequel.
Unless someone can come up with some real challenger arguments, which I would relish. It's been a one sided battle between me and Mr Market recently (a massacre).
If someone saves me from making a mistake I would really appreciate it.
Do you have a position in this stock? (not that you need to have one to express an opinion).
Did you lose some money on SGH?
I just think you would be extremely bold to take a short position against me on what seems to be the flimsiest of evidence. Don't let me stop you though I looooooooveee shortselling traders as they provide wonderful buying opportunities.
(20min delay)
