This week's video presentation quotes the Forman court as saying: "...people who intend to acquire only a residential apartment in a statesubsidized cooperative, for their personal use, are not likely to believe that, in reality, they are purchasing investment securities simply because the transaction is evidenced by something called a share of stock. The inducement to purchase was solely to acquire subsidized lowcost living space; it was not to invest for profit." Suppose that those who purchased coops did have an expectation of profit. Suppose, for example, when they left the apartment, they were able to sell the shares of stock at more than the $25 that was paid. In light of the Howey test, does this change the analysis?