... re the WSJ item that has many here angry, my take is more 'benign'. Here goes:
* Print reporters are all VERY underpaid, overworked, and always with tight deadlines. They are told to write DOZENS of stories, EACH with it's own long tale of woe. It's like they are forced to "drink from a dozen firehoses" and THEN comment upon ONLY the most pertinent droplets of water in just a few hundred words.
* In such circumstances it's a miracle that they get ANYTHING semi-correct! Indeed, about the ONLY truly accurate facts in a newspaper are the sports scores and the death notices.
* The WSJ didn't so much get their facts WRONG but they left out HUGELY relevant facts of the FUTURE impact of RMBS victory in court = HUGE PAST payments from all 3 amigos PLUS the others it brings to license PLUS future rev stream on ALL of their IP, PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, PLUS ... they are guilty not of errors of commision, but errors of ommision.
The big upside to the WSJ story ... I suspect there are many like me, who for years have read the WSJ as an 'idea source', from which I do further dd. WAY back in the 1970s (when I had damn little to invest) I recall reading about a phenom called "cable TV" ... and in those days I travelled MUCH more than now, and started asking about it everywhere I went ... folks out in 'flyover country' WERE enthused and buying their new "cable TV" to get more choices and clearer pictures (big cities hadn't even heard about cable; big cities had LOTS of clear TV pictures!) ... the WSJ got cable on my 'watch list'; I bought some, and it just kept going up for many years!
I'm certain this WSJ story will get RMBS onto thousands more radar screens/'watch lists', who WILL do their dd and reach much the same conclusions as we have reached ... and THEY will bring truckloads of more "dry powder" into the stock in due course.
Bottom line ...there is NO volume from the WSJ story, we have NOT tanked, it has ZERO negative consequence ...and the UPSIDE is quite beneficial with many more now following RMBS on their watch lists.