We went on to make impressive sounding arguments about sociology like this artifice:
The following is a copy of email correspondence we recently had with a friend and in the same spirit as our post "Correspondence with a friend on Investing".
Help was offered after learning of tremendous losses he had suffered in a bad investment. We decided to publish the correspondence because it reflects the usual questions and fears often heard from investors as well as the answers provided - and because we think it's more efficient to provide representative correspondence once than continue to provide the same answers on an ongoing basis.
Persons names, the origin of the prime minister and various and sundry details referenced have been either changed or omitted in order to protect their privacy - despite this, we still could not publish all of the related correspondence without revealing identities.
We were going to title this article “We’re so smart”, but we thought that there was at least a small possibility that readers would fail to appreciate the depth of our humility if we did that, so we went with the second most obvious title we could think of. Besides after SeekingAlpha’s editors picked up our article “Houston, we've got a problem - Bevilacqua” a few weeks ago and exposed it to their 50 million visitors a month by featuring it on “Market Currents”, then selecting it as an “editors pick” once we did finally submit it to on our own, we began to think that our humility may actually not be as secure as we once thought.
In essence, the ruling upheld that those who had purchased foreclosure properties that had been illegally foreclosed upon (which is virtually all foreclosure sales in the last five years), did not in fact have title to those properties.
Given the fact that more than two-thirds of all real estate transactions in the last five years have also been foreclosed properties, this creates a small problem.
In January the Massachusetts supreme judicial court held in US Bank National Association vs. Antonio Ibanez that a note holder may not foreclose on a property in order to redeem a debt, if they are not also the holder of a valid mortgage (that is to say also with a valid assignment). We outlined the details of this case and its implications in our article "Ibanez – Denying the Antecedent, Suppressing the Evidence and one big fat Red Herring" on January 11th, 2011.
We thought we would take a look back at the thesis in that article, now that the period for short term capital gains tax has passed and examine how the issues performed against one another, but also against the benchmark S & P 500 (Alpha).