hardincap

What incentive does the gov have to settle now vs taking a "wait and see" approach?

What happens if every court decision turns against shareholders? Is it game over, a zero for the stock?

Thanks. This explains the weakness in preferreds.

preferreds crashed nearly 25% in a month. did I miss something?

Why does zinc show as unchanged? He added in July http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385544/000154692715000212/xslF345X03/pabraizincform4080215.xml Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction 7,890,301 shares

what. is up. with the glamour pic?? I'm almost embarrassed for him.

Wonderful way to go broke in investing. Tilson also said sodastream will go up "at least 50% in 2015, mark my words." What kind of value investor says things like that? In college I knew someone looking for a guitar player for a band. I asked what level of talent he wanted, he responded with something I won't forget. "I'd rather have someone who's confident and not talented verses someone talented and not confident." I've seen confident people will things to happen because they believe in something so strongly.

John Carney ‏@carney 2h2 hours ago This CRS report on $fnma from September 2008 supports the argument that govt misled shareholders. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/110096.pdf … $fnma

Wow. For Buffett to attack someone like that means he is PO.

as opposed to rewarding paulson, perry, et al with "only" 8-10x?

ackman rally. he specifically recommended commons over preferreds. also, commons are much more liquid than preferreds (30m shares traded today vs .7)

is anyone here going with commons over preferred? i have zero exposure in commons; trying to handicap all the possible scenarios gives me a headache :P. There seems to be numerous scenarios where preferred are restored but commons get wiped or severely diluted. Would love to hear from anyone who agrees with ackman that commons are a better risk adjusted bet.

Yes, he's going for the maximum gain scenario. I guess I'm wondering why he believes thats a more attractive risk-adjusted bet than the more simple and straightforward preferred scenario, which still has 6-8x+ upside if the 3rd amendment is reversed. I think he has been pretty clear about this - he could make 25X his money on this position if it goes well, it could also turn out to be a zero because of the litigation risk - so it is sized accordingly.

Anyone else wonder why Ackman confidently proclaims the 3rd amendment will be reversed, and yet he does not own a meaningful position in the preferreds? Yes, he owns quite a bit of the commons, but its still <3% of his asset base. If he were so confident, you'd think he'd be building up a big position in preferreds. Makes me think he's being coy about the risks he perceives...?

He said on the call he's not allowed to see any of it, only his lawyers are. Doubtful his lawyers would keep it totally private from him though.

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- On Thursday, January 29th at 9:15am EST, Mark A. Calabria of the Cato Institute and Michael Krimminger, Partner at Cleary Gottlieb, will release a new paper which explains how the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) have breached both the spirit and the letter of the law in their administration of the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102369918#

https://www.scribd.com/doc/252822489/Treasury-and-Conservatorship-by-Timothy-Howard-Jan-11-2015

+1, thank you merkhet! +1. :) +1

Beautiful family :)

This makes no sense, and is not at all how Buffett or Munger invests.

Except thats not how he invested in his partnerships. People need to stop taking what Buffett and Munger say as the gospel truth, and look at what they actually DO. It doesn't mean it's not good advice, though. Especially for people who aren't a young Munger or Buffett (which is almost everybody who will hear what they say)... Most people are probably best following the advice that they give. But if you want something harder to pull off that could potentially give higher returns, then it's fine to go to the next level and read 10Ks from company A to company Z for 90 hours a week. Finding companies worth holding forever isn't exactly a walk in the park either. And its exceedingly rare.

Except thats not how he invested in his partnerships. People need to stop taking what Buffett and Munger say as the gospel truth, and look at what they actually DO.

Dao of Capital by Mark Spitznagel. Read it and then re-read it a couple of times.

70% death rate in Africa where the healthcare is inadequate. No one knows what the death rate will be in the US if a large number of cases appear. Hopefully we don't need to find out, but I suspect it would be less than 70%. hardincap, what happened to your post? The fact of the matter remains that it's pretty unlikely and/or difficult to get infected with Ebola if you're not a healthcare worker in direct contact with an Ebola patient. (And even then, I suspect that someone missed a checklist item at that hospital which is why two nurses have now been infected.) When you say stuff like "If someone with ebola sneezes next to you, you have a real chance of becoming infected," it's pretty close to saying "If you buy a winning lottery ticket, you have a real chance of becoming a millionaire." Well... I suppose so, but the pre-conditions and/or assumptions that you are using have to be seen in the context of the full universe of possibilities. I don't know why you think I'm "getting so defensive about this." I am trying to inject some rationality into a discussion where rationality seems to be extremely lacking. If you want to call that "getting defensive," then by all means, please go ahead. deleted it. socializing over this topic is certainly entertaining, but not very profitable :P. how about them gm shares?

per cdc: "if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease" That is not what it means to be airborne. The Ebola would be living in the fluid droplets and not the air itself. That's a big difference in terms of transmission. Also, your chances of coming into contact with a symptomatic Ebola patient are slim assuming you're not medical worker. If someone with ebola sneezes next to you, you have a real chance of becoming infected. That is not a controversial statement. That warrants significant precaution. And maybe a minor panic isn't such a bad idea, if it means we do a better job containing the virus.