Is it shareholder value, shareholder value, shareholder value ?

I'm the sole shareholder.

So these mortgages really haven't been defaulting.

Do you know who the biggest shareholder is?

Let's say some of these borrowers start defaulting.

So that's kind of a roundabout way of defaulting.

Farmers defaulting on loans had to auction off their land.

There's very little chance of them defaulting on their loans.

And they'll say, wow, these mortgages really haven't been defaulting.

It's just going to another shareholder who bought it before you.

Let's say a bunch of borrowers start defaulting on their loans.

This allowed us to assign a degree of influence to each shareholder.

The government owns car companies, banks are defaulting on their own banks.

It was the result of decades of sustained activism, shareholder advocacy and consumer advocacy.

But you don't keep enough capital to pay all of the defaulting debt.

What if all of these corporations, for whatever reason, do start defaulting simultaneously?

Of course, if enough people start defaulting, even these people start to get hurt.

Housing prices went up, then we had a lot fewer people defaulting on their loans.

So anything that this guy gets by being a shareholder of this stock, I have to provide for him.

And the links represent the shareholding relations, so shareholder A has x percent of the shares in company B.

The trick is to know when you're the latter, so you can become the former. How deep did you bury that shareholder, Paul?

And we can lower the standards, because we find even when we do lower the standards, no one's defaulting on their mortgages.

I figured, surely some of the most creative artistic minds in the world, really, aren't all defaulting back to this one easy trope

So, you can imagine it's really good money while noone is defaulting but all of a sudden when people start defaulting then all of a sudden AlG is gonna be in trouble and all of the people who thought they had in effect AA debt because AlG was insuring it might not

How do you hold the sovereigns of cyberspace accountable to the public interest when most CEO's argue that their main obligation is to maximize shareholder profit?

Or what you think the real interest will be after you take into account people pre paying their mortgage, people defaulting on their mortgage, and other things

Instead of defaulting to our normal convergent approach where we make the best choice out of available alternatives, it encourages us to take a divergent approach, to explore new alternatives, new solutions, new ideas that have not existed before.

So unless you happened to be a shareholder of one or the other organizations or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no doubt lucrative activity, you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity that meant absolutely bugger all to anybody, okay?