Sunrider

Thank you - doesn't seem much hope for an ultimate "out" there.

Another, likely, stupid question (or a simple question with an obvious answer for a layman but perhaps less obvious for a lawyer). If it were indeed the case that the government passed a law that takes said law out of the review of the judiciary, would that not be unconstitutional (checks and balances, etc.)? Alternatively, does such a low not, in effect, create a fourth branch of government aside from the executive, legislative and judiciary branches and would that not be fundamentally at odds with basic/established legal and democratic principles? Thank you.

Folks Help me understand the processing of information by the market here - it seems to me that these other cases now are a bit of a side-show compared to the Delaware case and the 9th circuit discussion above? As this may decide everything fairly quickly (albeit in a way different to what Fairholme et al originally were shooting for). Seems the market doesn't think so? Thanks.

Thank you both

Thank you. Fingers crossed.

Thanks Merkhet Then, assuming that it goes the way you consider likely (Sleet taking 9th into account and ruling not an instrumentality, therefore Delaware law breached), then I guess this is done? I.e. NWS illegal (and not possible for government to retroactively change it. Of course it could put something like a 99% sweep in place but I would think that is more trouble than it's worth politically at this point ... So only a question of time now (under the above assumptions)? Thank you. C.

Chris, Merkhet Apologies if this is a stupid question by a non legally trained person - what are the chances that either Delaware Ct. (or another) decides that for the purposes of this question Fannie/Freddie are instrumentalities of the US government? Or, for that matter, that another (higher?) court decides that the 9th circuit judgement that FHFA steps into the shoes of GSEs with rights & obligations, not other way around, is wrong and will be revised? Thank you - I really appreciate your contributions to this board. C.

Apologies if this has been answered - when should we expect to get something in the other cases? It seems very odd to me that the Fairholme one should drag on that long (semi-voluntarily from what I gather here) ... Berkowitz has been in this longer than I have and every additional year reduces the CAGR. How much discretion did they have with this schedule? Thank you - S.

The prefs have been beaten down by what? 25% in the last two months --- anyone think Berkowitz is getting out?

Hi Merkhet Not sure if I'm daft or whether there's some subtlety I don't get. The Bloomberg piece states that the proposed law would forbid Treasury to sell its GSE holdings and that in turn would make it impossible for the hedge funds to get paid for their stakes. I don't see why one would follow from the other? Also, my understanding was that the current cases are principally about whether the sweep was illegal and must be reversed. Granted, if the GSEs then still have to pay an inflated pref dividend to Treasury then that reduces return to shareholders but I'd expect the main part of the value uplift as the sweep being removed ... Thanks - C.

How about Jeremiah from Manitok? I remember dimly some comments about him rather repurchasing shares when the oil price was high rather than overpay for other firms' land or flowing barrels. C.

Hello everyone I am doing research on leadership teams that are also great at capital allocation - i.e. The Outsiders story. One question I've been grappling with is what the operating model across the group of businesses (so HQ vis-a-vis operating businesses) typically looks like for these kinds of firms and, secondly, what types of capabilities the HQ actually had/built. On the latter, I would presume that the core competency has been more around evaluation of the investment opportunities to bolt onto (or enter by) the Group and much less financial reporting, HR, management, etc. since that part of the business is not really operational for these kinds of firms as they often appeared to have been very decentralised, judging by the book. I suppose Buffet also points the way in that a strong tax team is required, at least in the US. I was wondering if members here can point me towards information on this (as well as, of course, any other examples of such firms or write-ups about their approach)? Thank you - C.

When do you think this will happen? thanks - C.

to add to this ... and lest we forget. Current nuclear plants exist only because of very generous government support early on in their development and commercialisation. As society we've always spent on some aspects of progress heavily ... arguably more or less efficiently (and the private sector tends to be better at being efficient than the government ... just sometimes government must lead/set the right incentives to get the private sector going ... see solar subsidies that led to the enormous drop in unit costs due the increase in manufacturing, attendant scale benefits and the incentive to research more efficient cells and commercialisable cells). C. But of course as others have pointed out we don't need nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is already very feasible. It is also extremely dangerous to humans and extremely harsh to the environment (from Uranium mining to the constant nuclear waste created and a power plant that is difficult to permanently decommission. Fusion energy is the future or the future won't be as Jetsons-like as we think :) I have never understood why nuclear fusion research is so absolutely stupid. We spend 27 billion on a single idea that doesn't even work that well. But we had NO reason to believe it would work well because it had never been tried before. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spend 50 million on 400 different ideas? Or a billion on 20 ideas. I think we would have gotten a lot further. I assume you mean stupid expensive :) Don't let me ruin your opinion of fusion research, ITER is proving this is worthwhile to invest in, which is simply HUGE!! The US is left ITER without contributing much (maybe $1b total over a decade?) for the same reasons that frustrate you. Europeans have a much larger appetite for this research because of their energy dependence (they really got an average continent at best land-wise). Even if it eventually balloons to $50b, it's still no different then early investment in solar power since it will be able to produce 500mw in 500-1000 seconds (not a whole year!). It also has zero carbon emissions, trivial raw material costs (basically just cost of electricity to turn on machine; 50mw input for each 500mw output), and is environmentally safe. It also provides economical reasons to study some of the most extreme phenomenon known to man. Current nuclear fission plants cost roughly $6b - $9b to build and come with all sorts of environmental issues that scare folks from building these in the US. If a fusion reactor can be built for 2.5x the cost with up to 2x-4x annual capacity with zero carbon emissions and unlimited fuel reserves (almost literally considering the size of the oceans and natural replenishment from sunlight) then it would be ignorant of the US/world not to invest. The technology involved makes it unlikely that this process can take place on smaller scales (ITER is built over 100+ acres; see cool facts below) while still providing mass electricity, regardless of what Lockheed Martin says :). Comparison of energy source costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States Someone posted a Lockheed Martin article on fusion not long ago. Here's their promotional website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html Cool/Fun Facts: https://www.iter.org/factsfigures

I have never understood why nuclear fusion research is so absolutely stupid. We spend 27 billion on a single idea that doesn't even work that well. But we had NO reason to believe it would work well because it had never been tried before. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to spend 50 million on 400 different ideas? Or a billion on 20 ideas. I think we would have gotten a lot further. But of course as others have pointed out we don't need nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is already very feasible. Are you for real? If that's your view on life and progress and the world was full of people like you then we would still be sitting in caves huddled around a fire. "Nobody's ever tried to go down into the valley and see if we can domesticate these lumbering cows. That won't work well because nobody ever tried it. It's a stupid idea." I bet you have a computer (obviously). By your standards, it was a stupid idea because nobody ever tried it and so it shouldn't exist. I suggest you think about progress and how it gets that way a bit more deeply before you mouth off on technology that you likely don't understand. Whether money on research is well spent or not (or efficiently spent) is another matter and often only clear much much later (well at least the "well spent" part). C.

Main reason I see is technological - the bitcoin implementation of the blockchain (think: ledger) is inefficient - all clients need to have the entire ledger (several gigabytes). There are solutions to this: Check out Ethereum (very broad vision) and the papers they publish, which should give you a very good overview. Also check out for an easy intro and interview: https://www.singularityweblog.com/vitalik-buterin-ethereum/ (actually, if you're interested in exponential tech, etc. then you may want to explore that site - disclaimer: I went to University with the site's author). Cheers.

... more like a series of 12 swaps since salaries have to, presumably, be physically paid every month?

It seems to me that the couldn't / didn't want to issue any further B warrants directly so they issued C warrants with "substantially the same terms as B warrants" and are forcing a conversion from B to C (issuing new Bs, cancelling the Cs in the process) once they have approval from the TSE. Once it's done there will only be B warrants outstanding. I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right ticker here (also not sure if the terms are in CAD or USD) but it seems the warrants are trading at $2.2 or so. With exercise at $5 and another 7 or 8 years till maturity, they'll have to deliver substantially better than a 10% annual increase in value (book and thus share price, one presumes) for this to be an attractive investment. Say they are at about $5.7/share today so 5.7 x 1.1^7 (conservatively) = $11.1, @ 15% CAGR it'd be $ 15.16. The RoI, p.a., would be 11% in the later case. Seems the warrants are bit expensive? Any views? Did I make a mistake somewhere in my thinking? Cheers - Sunrider

If you are interested in such topics more broadly, check out: https://www.singularityweblog.com Disclosure: The author is a friend of mine. He's currently running a social media campaign to get one of his 1:1 video interviews with Elon Musk (and is taking audience questions ... so that might be interesting for readers here).

Let's not forget - he was at the Motley Fool ... where promotion of track record is fundamental to the business model :) (Ever got your inbox bombed by their advertisement ... might as well be buying gizmo X on that makes lost hair grow back and provides you with espresso, too!)

Hmm ... how about Eurobank? Good enough for Wilbur Ross at prices much higher than today :)

I recall reading somewhere that UPL has been for some time and remains the lowest cost gas producer ... not that it gets any credit for that...

Manitok just announced one ... I liked the CEO on a previous call saying that he'd rather buy his own property at a low multiple than pay up for other properties at a higher multiple.

That may be wishful thinking - or rather it doesn't matter whether they want US oil off the market or not ... it'll just happen if they keep the price at a level below whatever the marginal cost is. Oh .... and I'm long LTS, MEI, PWE :(

Hello everyone Not strictly investment related but I was hoping someone on this board may know something about this. Are there Bank Holding Companies in the US/Canada that also own (majority) an insurer? If so, are they regulated as a bank at the licence level (e.g. BIII capital adequacy) ... i.e. at the bank (not BHC) level? And is the insurer then also regulated at the insurance company level? Or is there some regulatory regime around capitalisation that also has teeth at the HoldCo level (e.g. requiring consolidation and aggregation to BHC level, which would be difficult if the BHC were treated like a bank because under BIII rules it would not be able to recognise a fair amount the capital tied up in the the other investments (here the insurer). Thank you very much, C.