All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:25
June 14, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we're going to get back to Fred in Homer Alaska here in mere moments, but I want before I lose my train of thought on this uncertainty business.
I want to stay with that for a couple of minutes.
And then we'll get to Fred in Homer Alaska on the mortgage business.
Now, this uh this piece of Wall Street Journal, Clifford Asness, uncertainty is not the problem.
It's not the policies we don't know about that are retarding the economy.
It's the bad policies we have.
Folks, sounds so simple.
These simple truths are the ones that have so much impact.
It's true to say that there is uncertainty because we don't know what how the uh Obama policies will actually manifest themselves.
We've got a pretty good idea.
But we also know what's already in place, and that that stinks too.
And the evidence is the present.
We got policies in place.
They've been in place for two years, two and a half years.
They are not inspiring any kind of investment in the private sector.
They're not inspiring growth.
They're not inspiring the traditional behaviors that have led to economic recovery.
Zilch Zero Nada.
Besides, here is another truism.
As long as we have a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate, we don't have uncertainty.
We know who they are.
We know what liberalism is.
We know what it begets.
We know who they are.
How is there any real uncertainty that more restrictive rules and regulations and higher taxes are coming down the track?
It's a virtual certainty.
We don't have to wonder about it.
The people who are saying that they're holding off is the uncertainty.
What they're hoping is that somebody can stop it.
What they're hoping is that the Republicans will come along and stop this stuff, that there will be no raising the debt limit.
That there really will be no tax increases.
That Obamacare really will be repealed.
That's what the uncertainty is translated as being.
Because with a Democrat, a liberal Democrat president, and a Democrat in the Senate, we know these players.
What they plan, what their policies will cause are dead certainties.
So all this talk about uncertainty is really all it means is get rid of it.
Come on, Republicans, step up.
It's not an accident.
The economy started falling off the cliff as soon as it became certain the Democrats are going to take control of Congress 2007.
That's when the unemployment started.
That's when people started being laid off in great numbers after Obama won.
Even when Pelosi took over the Congress in 2007 and Obama wins in 2008, you track it.
Track the chart it or track the numbers and chart it, you will see.
People understand.
And economic activity fell faster once it became clear that Obama was going to win.
And then after he did win, hello plunge.
Yeah, I saw that uh uh huntsman, Governor Utah has just announced, or is it said that he's gonna announce next week that he's in joining the uh Republican field for the presidential nomination on the Republican side.
So this folks, for what passes for orgasms in the uh uh Republican intelligentsia is now taking place.
I don't know what an orgasm is to David Brooks, but whatever it is he's having one right now.
Oh all these guys that just crave a smart good crease in the slack, serious candidate.
They are he's getting in there having an orgasm right now, whatever that is.
I do wonder, Don, I do I do wonder what an orgasm is to these kind of people.
Well, I know they don't have a cigarette afterwards.
If I don't have a glass of wine, I don't know, but whatever it is, they're having it.
It's taking place.
Now back to uh Fred in Homer Alaska.
I really appreciate uh uh you holding on.
You're going to help me to explain to people how people in mortgage business make money with dead end loans.
I will do my best, sir.
All right.
When I was in the business, we would originate a loan.
So I would find a borrower.
What are we talking conventional subprime?
What are we what kind of loan is?
It applies to both.
All right.
But the subprime is where it really got out of hand because they allowed the uh lending parameters to expand to such a degree that anybody could get a loan.
Right.
They could state their income, they could say whatever they wanted, and they would get the loan.
As long as there was a way, you know, you'd look at their their uh the amount of money they're bringing in each month to see if they could actually make the payment.
No, you didn't even look at that, did you?
You didn't look at the past in the past.
I wouldn't allow someone to take a loan that was not in their best interest.
But there were others who did, and that's a story for another day.
Well, but some of those people were forced to by government policy.
Well, that's on the bank side.
Yeah.
But as an originator, still being in the free market, I had the choice whether or not I would work with somebody or not.
Does that make sense?
No, not to me.
I don't know what how do you differ from a bank?
Oh well, because I'm an originator and I would find a client, someone come to my uh my office and say, I want to buy a home or I want to refinance my home.
And if you're okay, where what kind of loan?
Are you a savings and loan or you what what are we?
I am a I'm a private shop.
I have my own little mortgage company, and I would place my loans with the Lehman brothers or the Wells Fargo's or the countrywide.
Oh, yeah.
So you're a mortgage broker, essentially.
Exactly.
All right.
So what happened is, and I'm going to use the figure of 150,000 to keep it simple.
Someone wants to come in and take out a loan for 150,000 at the 7% interest.
Principal and interest on that payment, rounding it up is right about $1,000 a month.
So as an originator, I would charge a 1% origination fee, so I would make $1,500.
Now that 7% loan, if I would place that loan uh to the lender, that would be a par pricing loan, meaning they don't pay me anything to give that figure or that interest rate, nor do I charge my borrower anything for that interest rate.
Now if someone wanted a lesser interest rate, they could pay more money against it.
But if they wanted if I wanted to give them a higher interest rate, the lender that I was placing the loan with would actually give me what they call a yield spread premium.
Does that make sense, Sophia?
So if I wanted to place that seven percent loan at 8%, the lender would actually pay me another fifteen hundred dollars.
So I could make three thousand dollars on that loan.
Before anybody made a single payment.
Exactly.
Now, the bottom line is most people that took out mortgages would make their payments for six months, a year, two years, three years, four years.
People kept pulling more money out of their houses and refinancing and putting that money into their pocket.
So they would continue to make this thousand dollar a month payment of which ninety-seven percent of it approximately was interest only.
Right.
So let's just use a twelve-month uh time frame.
So if the lender pays me fifteen hundred, I charge the borrower fifteen hundred, well, the lender gets his money back in a month and a half, and then for the next uh ten and a half months, he's making a thousand dollars a month on that loan.
So they they didn't lose any money, plus they still have the actual real property as collateral.
So if and when the borrower defaulted, they still had the real estate.
But it really didn't matter because Fanny and Freddie ultimately were the ones that would buy these bundles that you were speaking about previously, so the government would not allow the banks to get hurt.
They wouldn't allow people like me to get hurt Because everybody was buying it.
The government was buying up all the paper.
But it gets back to this.
The government's out to help the little guy get into a property and they put the burden of payment on the little guy, and they get fleeced because they pay out all this money, and then they lose their home, and they're out all this money, and the brokers and the banks and the in and all the intermediaries that sell these loans back to Fanny, everybody makes money on the back of the American people again.
That's how it gets paid for.
Even with people who aren't making the monthly payment, though.
Well, that didn't happen right away.
People would get in and make their effort.
And most of my experience was that very few people defaulted until the economy got to where it is today.
You see, back then I was I've been out of the business for four years, and I told my wife when we moved here to Alaska, I said, You think that the savings and loan bailout back in the eighties was something, you haven't seen anything yet.
You wait to see what's coming around with this group, and they're getting ready to do it again.
So it's crazy.
Well, but at some point people did stop making payments on their loans, and you're right at the height of that.
I remember the number that uh was bandied about was that 95% were still making their payments on their mortgage.
Exactly.
Yet the whole industry was being tarnished by the five percent that had just checked out and were not making their payments.
Almost always the case.
They shine the light on the bad apple to spoil the whole bunch.
And that's how they it's always the small percentages, whether it's in mortgage or money, or gay rights, or everything, or they are the against religion, they shine the light on that little teeny percentage to run and govern this country, and it's wrong.
Well, you know, that you make a great point, and Newt Gingrich last night made that very point, and I thought he made it brilliantly last night.
He was very frustrated by a question from from John King, and I forget what the question was about, but it was it was uh about the economy.
And Newt objected to the premise.
He said we've we we've got to get away from this notion that virtually every decision we make is catastrophic.
We have to get away from this idea that everything happening in this country is a catastrophe.
It isn't.
But if we're gonna treat everything as a catastrophe, we're gonna be making wrong decisions, and we're gonna react in entirely wrong ways.
I uh I'm gonna ask Cookie if she can find that answer because I'm paraphrasing it here, and I really want the question.
It was a question about immigration, I think.
And um it was about oh, it's what it was.
Uh the question is of deporting twenty million people.
We're not gonna deport twenty million people, nobody's ever said this.
You know, we've got a j a legitimate problem here.
But but but uh it was it was um uh we we we we cannot deal with these things.
Every solution is catastrophic.
We we don't these are these are not the only options that we have here.
So Cookie, see if you can find that question and answer.
This keyword search gingrich and catastrophic.
It took place in the uh second hour of the uh debate, I'm pretty sure.
Fred, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
We got to take a brief time out here, my friends, as always, but we'll be back before you know it.
Don't go away.
Yeah, I think Newt's point was that um everything is not either or so forth.
Um she's she found the text, and we'll get the audio of this from uh from Newton in the debate last night, because it's an excellent point.
Here's Jose in Miami, Miami.
Great to have you with us, Jose.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Uh the question I had, uh, you were talking earlier about the uh the auto bailouts, and one thing which I've always well, we know the story as far as the A and a Z. Uh you know, the government got involved, and at the end we had these bailouts.
And in between, I understand that the government uh strong arms some of the uh uh the bondholders, secured creditors, whatnot, you know, that they um uh you know they're they that they were too greedy.
But what I want to know, um I'm silly in the sense that I do believe in the rule of law.
How is it that a bankruptcy court signed off on uh what occurred and I mean what what's the inside story?
What happened?
How did the government uh do what it did?
You mean how did Obama get away with basically shafting the bondholders?
Correct.
Um I mean, from a legal standpoint, if if you know.
Well, he's I know this is gonna sound uh simplistic, but he was the president and uh he was he just he he was the one who suggested it that th th that this was, as it turned out, from him the only formula that would work.
Uh don't you you want to know how he he he got away with how do you get away with firing the the CEO of GM before he took it over?
But he did.
Also, how is it that the judge that precided or the judges that preceded all these cases?
How is it that they you know they they are the arbiters?
Uh how is it that they permitted this to occur?
I I just it it it boggles my mind.
Well, gosh, you can ask that about practically every legal case that comes down the pike.
I mean, how how is it that we had judges that have agreed that Al Qaeda terrorists are due uh uh rights granted to them by the Constitution when they're not citizens, and that happened as well.
Um But what you know, with with Chrysler and the bondholders, what was going on here, uh they're in big trouble.
First of all people may not know what a bondholder is.
You can you can invest in companies in a number of ways.
You can buy stock.
You can buy bonds in a company, and those are considered a more solid investment than even stock.
So we're talking about real direct supporters, investors in this case at Chrysler, is who we're talking about.
And when it when it was uh apparent that Chrysler was gonna be taken over, the bondholders said, hey, we want you know in any bankruptcy proceeding, we want to be taken care of too.
And Obama said, You you got it right, you're being greedy.
The bondholders were the last, and they were in fact they were told a pound sand.
Because the objective was throw throw legalities out.
I mean, we're talking liberals here.
The the objective was to give the company over to the uh AFL CIO.
And that's really who ended up with General Motors and Chrysler.
So that their health care programs would be solvent, their pensions would be solvent, and so that they would have some uh uh ownership stake in the companies.
Now you know I I'm gonna have to go back and read stories as to how the judge allowed it to happen, but I think uh, you know, you basically have the president of the United States dictating how it's gonna be, and that's how it was.
The way it was played out in the media was it was I mean, strong armed uh by Obama, and I mean I don't doubt that that's what happened, but uh believe that.
It was it was played out in the media exactly that way, but uh part of that was that the bondholders were greedy to want their money back when everybody else was pounding sand, everybody else was having trouble of bondholders who looked at as greedy and allowed Obama to play the class envy card.
That's true.
I mean, but but the he but basically the rule of law was set aside.
Uh the rule of uh the freedom of contract was also uh just squashed.
Um It was.
I mean that's that's what was so outrageous about it.
But what was somebody gonna do?
What's the at this point in time?
You have to remember Obama is still universally loved.
This is shortly into the regime.
Everybody's still viewing him as the Messiah.
It was an emergency.
We were talking about saving General Motors, saving Chrysler, saving the U.S. automobile industry.
We were talking about saving the country.
Don't forget the circumstances that were attached to this.
Well, I do, but but and but had they truly wanted to save them, they would have freed them from these uh legacy costs and and and the all the union contracts and I mean that's how well yeah, but that's not what and if Obama really wanted the economy to grow, he wouldn't have done the stimulus and he wouldn't be raising taxes.
You can say that about virtually every policy that he has implemented and conceived.
By the way, what do you think he means when he tells his supporters that he's not finished uh that uh he hasn't finished uh the job.
I mean, what is what what is he thinking?
He's letting them know that he is aware that he has not succeeded to the extent they had hoped.
And he needs more time.
He hasn't totally destroyed what he has set out to destroy.
He hasn't given us full-fledged single payer health care.
He hasn't come through with closing Guantanamo.
He has not succeeded yet in getting us out of Iraq in Afghanistan.
He hasn't, but that's all going to happen if we're just patient and give him more time.
Well, uh he cannot be gone soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Exactly right.
For the sake of the country.
This is uh uh this is why I again I say I I start cringing a little bit when I hear people on my side start getting themselves into pretzels over whether or not our people are qualified.
Over whether or not our candidates are qualified.
Everybody on that debate stage last night would be infinitely better by a factor of ten over what we have now.
It's not even close.
Somebody who has never been in politics, but who knows the Constitution of the United States would do better for the country than who we have now.
I don't know how else to illustrate this.
A full-fledged rookie, but one who loves, appreciates, understands the Constitution, the rule of law would be an improvement over the bunch that's in charge of our country today.
That's how dire this is.
That's why I say I'd vote Elmer Fudd if he's on the ballot.
Okay, very quickly here, just uh answered a question here on the General Motors or Chrysler, the bond situation, the case of General Motors.
What happened was General Motors went to Obama and worked out a deal first for the takeover, and then after they had a deal, they went to the bankruptcy.
Judge, they rubber stamped it.
Which is fine.
That's the way a judge would prefer to handle it.
Same thing with Chrysler.
The uh the government uh deals were set up before they went to court.
The judges just signed off on them.
Now the Chrysler deal was appealed.
The General Motor deal uh motors deal was not Chrysler deal was appealed.
That appeal was upheld by a circuit court and then refused a hearing by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court refused to hear it.
Now, it was the Chrysler bondholders who were pushing the appeals because they were basically shafted by it.
And the appeals process finally stopped when Supreme Court refused to hear it.
Plain and simple.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Barney Frank refused to bite on it.
Thank you.
Citing his own past, Barney Frank refused to bite on the question of whether or not Wiener should resign.
Citing his own brush for the sexual scandal, Representative Barney Frank said Tuesday that he's in no position to judge the lurid actions of colleague Tony Weiner.
Given the circumstances where I was myself engaged in activity that died, I should have been like I don't think it's appropriate for me to set myself up as uh jump to it.
So you you're not gonna give me to bite on that one.
Here now, ladies and gentlemen, the entire exchange, Newt Gingrich and John King on immigration last night, where Gingrich said that one of the reasons we had so much trouble here is that we give ourselves nothing but catastrophic alternatives.
President Bush, Senator McCain spent a lot of time in this, Mr. Speaker.
I want your view.
There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.
People have different numbers.
If you were going to round them all up, Congressman Tom Tancredo on this stage four years ago would have said, round them up and kick them out, they broke the law, they shouldn't be here.
Uh I don't know where the money would come from in this environment.
So I want your sense.
Do you do you is that what the state should be doing the federal government should be spending money and resources on, or like President Bush and like Senator McCain, at least in the McCain Kennedy days, should we have some path to status for those who are willing to step up and admit where they are and come out of the shadows?
One of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives.
You either have to ship 20 people out of America or legalize all of them.
That's nonsense.
We're never gonna pass a comprehensive bill.
Obama approved that in the last two years.
He couldn't get a comprehensive bill through with Mancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, and he didn't even try because he knew he couldn't do it.
You break this down.
Herman Cain's essentially right.
You break it down.
First of all, you control the border.
We can ask the National Guard to go to Iraq.
We asked the National Guard to go to Kuwait.
We asked the National Guard to go to Afghanistan.
Somehow we would have done more for American security if we had had the National Guard on the border.
But if you don't want to use the National Guard, I'm one just one last example.
If you don't want to use the National Guard, take half of the current Department of Homeland Security Bureaucracy in Washington, transplant it to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
You'll have more than enough people to control the border.
But no, but it says John, no serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes-no answer in which you're either for totally selling out, protecting America, or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way.
There are there are humane practical steps to solve this problem if we get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly.
That's a great answer from a newster.
I mean, there's uh there's there's there's no question about it.
But you'll you'll notice here in even in the question King said, in this stage four years ago, Tom Tan Credo, wrap them up, illegal, kick him out, get rid of him.
On the smart days, the smart days of McCain Kennedy, smart days.
Smart days, well, bottom.
So the effort, the effort was on it's another reason why this was good last night, is because the effort was made throughout this debate last night by King and the other media people to make those people look like a bunch of fringe kooks.
And they failed to make them look like fringe kooks.
These people came off as responsible, reasonable, patriotic Americans.
It's one of the reasons why so many people were shocked at Michelle Bachman.
They they think Michelle Bachman, she's been portrayed as this fringe nutcase kook, just like Palin has been portrayed that way.
And all of a sudden she didn't come off that way because she's not.
And people are scratching their heads.
This is no, well, we it's not what we thought.
But but this question that King asked was typical of the way the media tried to construct this thing last night to make everybody, every Republican on that stage look like a tinfoil hat nutcase.
You know, like a bunch of uh Lyndon LaRouches up there.
What do you mean they couldn't play with the camera angle?
Oh, oh yeah, yeah.
When they Michelle Buckman did the State of the Union response, and they had a camera uh situated in such a way that made it look like she was not addressing the people, and she was addressing the Tea Party camera because she was doing a Tea Party response to the State of the Union.
They set up a second camera in there.
They couldn't do things like that last night.
Um but they tried.
This is my point.
You you heard this question.
This question is is is filled with okay, all of you wackos here, uh one of your fellow wackos, Tom Tancredo, uh, wanted to get rid of all these poor people.
They shouldn't be here, they broke the law, but I don't know where you're gonna get the money for that now.
So if we can't get the money for that, what are you gonna do?
Shouldn't we have like Bush did and Kennedy did and and and uh McCain, I mean, there should be some path to status for these people.
But and and Gingrich was right.
What are we dealing with a catastrophic solution?
Kick 20 million people out or not.
That's not the solution to the problem.
And so everybody in that stage last night, even Ron Paul at times sounded reasonable.
And you can see the frustration in the media faces.
You can see the frustration a little bit on King's face.
You can see the frustration of some of the local anchors that they had from New Hampshire.
Uh folks, it was uh it was it was all good.
Who's next?
Tom in a ridgely West Virginia.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you very much, Rush and Diddos from a frequent listener.
Thank you.
Right on for everything you're saying.
What a great time to be a conservative.
I'd like to ask you, please to stick to your guns and don't endorse anyone in the primary.
At least not anywhere near yet.
Why are you saying that?
Because uh you would not believe the pressure that's on me.
Well, yeah, but you gotta suspect the the motives of the people that are doing that.
There's nothing that Obama would like more than to trim right now, he's outnumbered ten or twelve to one, because you can still count Huckabee and Palin and uh a couple of Trump and a couple of other people who aren't officially in it.
Yeah, but he's outnumbered uh 10 to 15 to 1, and he would like nothing better to turn that down to one person that he can pick on and try to destroy for the next 18 months.
Okay.
It won't it won't happen, but to my mind it might be best if Obama didn't know who the last man standing was until the convention, because that would really blow his mind.
Well, he's gonna find out before the convention.
I know.
Well before that, but in my opinion, each and every one of the candidates last night came up ten percent in my in my opinion.
They all did a fantastic job of making sure they focused on Obama and recognized that they were on the media.
Here you had here you had John King.
No, we don't have the money to deport 20 million.
Illegal.
No, we don't we don't have the money.
But he has no problem housing and feeding and educating and giving all of them health care.
He has no problem with all the money we're spending on precious liberal democrats social policy.
Well, we don't have the money to uh to the uh deport these people.
Folks, let me tell you another reason why I have traditionally not endorsed in primaries.
I mean, there's there there are always the obvious reasons uh that I've uh explained, but there's something else that's even more fundamental.
It really is up to whoever the nominee is to win it.
It's not up to me to win it for him.
It's not up, it's not up to anybody else in the media to endorse them and and and win it.
It's up to them.
Well, it's it's it's even true.
Well, if I if I would have foreseen what was going to happen with McCain and Huckabee and Romney, then you know, because I'm getting a little fed up with this BS that that I uh uh didn't endorse McCain any one anyway.
I didn't endorse anybody.
And they're trying to say the media turns, well, Limbaugh, he doesn't deliver votes.
Look at what happened.
He was opposed to McCain, McCain.
I I didn't endorse anybody uh uh opposite McCain.
I just I yeah if I had it would have been all over everybody's literature.
I didn't endorse anybody.
And I'm I made it clear I oppose McCain on certain things, but I opposed others on certain things as well.
I made it clear I oppose Huckabee.
Huckabee was calling here every week, wanting to get on the program to respond to what I was saying.
But I just maybe it's old-fashioned.
I don't I just think it's up to them to win it.
And I don't care, even it it it still holds true even now in the era of Obama.
Yes, it does.
It most certainly does.
I do not have to pick someone.
Now that's not to say I won't, but I don't have to pick somebody.
Uh yeah, at this stage, if I were to pick somebody, it'd be me.
Uh what's happening up there?
Yeah, well, except no, I'm I'm looking, I I got this special project coming tomorrow.
It's got it gonna occupy a lot of time here, and it's gonna preclude me running for office.
I I no desire to nothing's changed on that.
I don't want to run for office.
Besides, it's not my it's not my job to pick the Republican nominee.
That job that job is Colin Powell's.
Everybody knows that.
Welcome back, Rush Lindball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Here's Robert, Lakeland, Florida.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, what a pleasure, what a pleasure.
I'm a uh lending professional here in Lakeland.
I've been uh been in the business for about eleven years.
Thank you, sir.
And uh really appreciate everything you're doing for us.
Uh don't run for office, Rush.
You're one of the only solid voices in the in the system, so thank you.
You bet.
But uh just wanted to uh throw something out here.
There's quite a few changes that have occurred, and I wanted to go on the back of three points back with a gentleman who was the mortgage professional.
Uh, and to kind of add where he was.
He said the last time he was in the business was four years ago, and I want him to know, and I want everybody in the country to know what the changes that have actually occurred in the lending practices and what has been perpetrated on the back end of the uh so-called little guy.
Uh F.A. is under a greater control.
Uh changes have occurred.
You know, in in uh the Fannie Mae debacle that we've had, you know, fr uh Frank and Dodd have supposedly stood up and they brought all of these wonderful processes forward to restrict lending and to change the way that we actually lend to uh the people of America.
Right, all for the benefit of the consumer.
Exactly.
And that is not what has happened.
What has actually happened and what people do not understand.
Uh Rush, if you go and buy a house, what kind of lending do you use?
Uh conventional, right?
I mean y y if you were to buy a house with with a loan, which you don't need money, but if you were to buy a house with a loan, you would use a conventional style loan, correct?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because it's the cheapest.
I mean it's the least amount of money out of pocket.
Exactly.
And uh and so on with the fees that are associated with it.
Well, recently the small guy uh has had an increase on the amount of money that is required down.
Uh they increased it in the fall of last year to how much?
Three point five percent.
Well, it's not bad.
It used to be twenty.
That's right.
Well, now let's talk about FHA.
No, we're talking about F and Covenant FHA with you, and I and what I want you to understand is a small guy who are these small uh individuals who are in the country, they're not able to buy the larger size homes.
They don't have that twenty percent down.
So what what Frank and Dodd has tried to convince the American people of is that they're out here giving greater consideration to all these people that were taken advantage of during the subprime lending.
Well, I know it basically restarts that.
Yes.
It that's we've I know it's it's you know, not everybody's intended to be in a house.
This is why the twenty percent mattered.
The twenty percent mattered to have skin in the game.
Uh so that it would be something that you would approach responsibly and uh anyway.
I wish I had more time on this.
But we've reached the end, folks.
It's over.
Okay, uh special announcer.
Look, I don't want to say too much about it, but I'll just tell you this.
It's not anything that you're guessing.
Not a single thing that you're guessing is even close.
All in due time.
▲
Export Selection