Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

  • Robo3836 Robo3836 Jun 10, 2011 10:03 AM Flag

    EX-DIV announced

    AGNC announced the ex-viv date is June 23 and the div is 1.40
    They are currently counting the votes on increasing the new
    shares and preparing for the next SO

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "I'm done with him and with this subject......I won't continue explaining more about this."

      Promise?

    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jun 16, 2011 10:38 AM Flag

      I was right to clarify the thing he said. Calling him wrong was just pointing out a fact. Most people don't lose their minds when they are called wrong. He did.

      He didn't choose innocuous metaphor. He chose violent metaphor in a situation where he was hoping to coerce someone into agreeing with him, and hoping to lead others in joining in the same sort of rhetoric. While it's legally ambiguous (i.e, not enough of a threat to be actionable), socially it is not. I doubt it was fully conscious; little of what he's said was. He was trying to dig out of the hole he'd dug when he lost his mind over being called wrong. He went with whatever he had without considering its implications. He could have mitigated it by admitting it when it was pointed out, but chose instead to pretend it didn't even happen, because by that point he was refusing to admit to anything negative about his own behavior, indeed reinforcing it by getting more and more childish in his responses, until in the end he regressed to baby-talk.

      I'm done with him and with this subject. I answered you as a courtesy, but I won't continue explaining more about this.

    • Hey Best,

      CWN's statement

      "They are paid to the owner of record as of the close of business on the record date."

      Your first response

      "you got it right while getting it wrong.

      It's really midnight. "Close of business" includes any after-hours activity, which isn't what most people consider COB."

      Now, your current comments


      "i didn't say he meant to exclude AH when he said COB".

      My use of the word "meant" may have been presumptuous. Nevertheless, your above language is inferring that CWN was wrong by "omission", and you have subjectively decided that his answer was insufficiently clear for what you perceived to be the target audience. I agree that the term "Close of Business" has inherent ambiguity, and that for the purposes of elucidation, further clarification was welcome. But, as you stated in your first response, COB includes AH, and in essence, you were expressly endorsing/confirming CWN's first statement.

      A happier ending might have been achieved had you not immediately stated that CWN was wrong (I know, you said he was right as well, but that's not at issue here), and just elaborated in greater detail on the exact meaning of COB for the benefit of the uninformed. Too call someone "wrong" because their general explanation doesn't measure up to the answer that you were expecting for the target audience, doesn't make the answer wrong, it just makes it lacking the detail you felt the uninformed needed. Your head was in the right place in wanting to help, but CWN wanted to help, too. It's not a competition; it's a collaboration.

      As for your defense of your interpretation of CWN's use of the "leading with your chin" metaphor. Please, don't insult my intelligence. I have interacted with you enough on this board to know that you have a very creative selection of metaphors, phrases, slang, idioms, creepy references, etc., and for you to play the "CWN is bringing up violent imagery" card is disingenuous and borderline laughable.

      If someone says, "I hope that AGNC hits a home run," are you expecting violence with baseball bats?
      If someone says, "let's tee up this proposal," are you expecting violence with golf clubs?
      If someone says, "Let's hope AGNC can "cross the finish line," are you expecting violence with cars, runners, bike riders?
      If someone says, "Let's hope that AGNC can make it across the goal line", are you expecting violence with a football team?
      If someone says, "Let take a shot at this," are you expecting violence with guns?
      If someone says, "Let's take this stock for a ride", are you expecting a violent motor car experience?
      If someone says, "This stock is taking off like a rocket," are you expecting a violent, rockets exploding experience?
      If someone says, "This stock crashed and burned." are you expecting violent fire and explosions?

      If you answered "yes" to any of my questions, then, and only then, will I believe that you think CWN's metaphor was anything but that.

      One more note. Your final comment in this post:

      "if anyone's deluded, it's him and the people who don't think he was wrong in the way he answered the question."

      You're channeling Pee-Wee Herman.



      Cheers

    • Ah, so I see now that all you really want is to have the last word. I don't know if that's going to happen but I can at least speed things up a bit by condensing our next few exchanges in this one post:

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did not.

      "Did too."

      Did too.

      "Did not."

      Did too.

      "Did not."

      Did too.

      "Did not."

      Did too.

      "Did not."

      Did too.

      "Did not."

      Crybaby.

    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jun 15, 2011 8:07 PM Flag

      So now your fantasy is that you're fighting a little girl. How do you live with yourself?

    • Yep, you're still whining like a little girl.

    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jun 15, 2011 7:48 PM Flag

      Your projection is stuck on High.

    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jun 15, 2011 7:46 PM Flag

      i didn't say he meant to exclude AH when he said COB

      i said he didn't include it in the minds of people who didn't already know it included AH, which is likely when you're talking about people asking what Record Date and ex-div are about

      i said he was both right and wrong, which he was, because the intent of answering a question is to get the answer across, not hide the answer in jargon

      and I didn't redefine anything. he brought up the violent imagery. whether it is a cliche' or not, it's a fantasy about being in a fight, and he put it out there. no torturing of the logic, just the simple, obvious fact.

      if anyone's deluded, it's him and the people who don't think he was wrong in the way he answered the question.

    • Well said Jim,

      I have never put anyone on ignore, but there is always the first...but then I wouldn't know who all the informed folks were trying to set straight ....WAIT!....I would;-)

    • Hey Best,

      CWN stated "Close of Business," and in your first response, you told him that he was wrong, and that "Close of Business" included after hours activities. What exactly was wrong with his statement? The foundation of your argument alludes me. Your anecdotal comment about what "most" people consider COB, while not fact based, certainly has merit, but is not relevant to his statement. COB may very well be confusing to "most" people, but the definition has included "After Hours" for many years. By assuming facts not in evidence, i.e., that CWN meant to exclude AH from the COB definition, you are putting words in his mouth, and in essence, arguing with yourself. Whether "most" people understand that COB includes AH, speaks nothing to the accuracy of CWN's comment, and only to "most" people's level of comprehension around this subject. Instead of saying he was wrong, you could of ended the thread by simply including additional clarifying information for the uninformed that COB, included AH. Instead, you have taken us down a "rabbit hole" of tortured logic and ad hominem attacks. Redefining the meaning of a well known metaphor (leading with your chin) in order to support your new narrative about "violent rhetoric", is patently absurd.

      You are coming across as deluded. Is this your intention?


      Cheers

    • View More Messages
 
AGNC
18.96+0.23(+1.23%)Jul 28 4:00 PMEDT