muscleman

I think he is trying to play both sides and see what the other side would say. The other assumption is that Ginsburg told Millet to play for the government's side and himself playing for the P's side and let Brown be a neutral judge, so Brown didn't talk much during the whole session.

very hard to say. for example, will judge sweeney release from priviliege 11,000 docs? perry plaintiffs will want to see those. if she does, will there be an interlocutory appeal? can 't say i know whether govt will have the right to appeal her order to compel. etc. judge lamberth is known to run a tight ship in terms of discovery but he was adverse to plaintiffs first time around. will lamberth try to stick it to perry plaintiffs? who the f knows. but if anti-injunction bar holding is vacated, then hindes/jacobs can proceed if that judge follows, and that is a question of law not fact, so the question whether delaware law applies to fnma pref stock terms and then the question of whether NWS is valid under delaware law can also proceed to decision. If we get the remanded decision soon, then MDL panel might decide that all cases go to judge Lamberth for consolidation, and the government suddenly gets a slam dunk. I think the possibility of that is low but not zero.

Yes. One of the major blowups is the Greek banks. I kept saying in the Greek banks thread that the investment made no sense, especially when compared with Bank of Cyprus, and people told me that they don't actually understand either, but they felt like Wilbur Ross and Watsa and both in Greek banks, so that must be a better vote of confidence than Bank of Cyprus, which only Ross invested but not Watsa. 2 years later, Greek bank investors have been wiped out by the recap. Bank of Cyprus is down 20%. We will see.

Read their 10-k about the NOL. I think they mentioned some IRS rules about ownership change that can lose the NOL. That's why they approved unlimited preferred stocks, in order to raise money and realize this NOL without either diluting existing shareholders or losing this NOL. However, they have only been able to issue $6.6 million preferred so far, and it is convertible preferred. Exactly. A takeover ruin the NOLSs. Anyone interested in Kingsway should read T11's letters. He expects a big transformative acquisition. I think it's interesting but find it difficult to value. Insiders keep buying stock though. I didn't see any form 4s in the past 12 months showing insider buys. Where did you get that? I am also looking into PIH, which KFS IPO'ed in 2014. I think if KFS decided to sell the major stake in PIH and retain the other insurance business, that maybe a potential bearish sign that either: 1. They think PIH is not as good as the other insurance line. 2. They need money badly and PIH is the only quality asset that they can sell for a good price. Which one of the two is true? ::)

Read their 10-k about the NOL. I think they mentioned some IRS rules about ownership change that can lose the NOL. That's why they approved unlimited preferred stocks, in order to raise money and realize this NOL without either diluting existing shareholders or losing this NOL. However, they have only been able to issue $6.6 million preferred so far, and it is convertible preferred.

I am puzzled by the bull thesis. Book value is only $42 million. Even if they could earn 20% return on the book, it is still impossible the realize that $849 million NOL. They tried to issue preferred stocks and bulls say that the capital from preferred stocks can be used to realize that NOL, but they only issued $6.6 million so far, and it is convertible preferred.

For a US mutual fund (they pay their gains as a distribution near the year end), yes, this is true. To compensate, the fund NAV is reduced by the distribution amount, so it's really just a timing issue (you could sell immediately and offset the 'gains' with losses on the sale). However, in certain cases, the timing issue and size of the distribution can be quite troubling. However, it is truly just a timing issue. It happens in your personal account too (you can have a year where your returns are negative, but your tax liability is big), it's just a timing issue in all but esoteric cases. Does this mean the fund has to estimate each investor's tax bracket and distribute cash for him to cover tax? If I bought a fund at the year end, I got "gains" that may push up my tax bracket by one notch, even though I haven't actually gained anything from this fund.

One thing that puzzled me. Please help me clarify. If a fund realized some gains and I invest in the fund at the end of the year, I still have to pay my share of the realized gain of other people, even though I gained nothing. Is this right?

Anyone who could help me please?

Is there such a PPT online that I could see? :)

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/investors-unite-teleconference-update-on-oral-arguments-and-unsealed-documents-300256761.html Anyone planning to participate? "Pagliara will be joined by Hamish Hume".

Um, footnote 13 & 14 from the Class Plaintiffs' brief seem dispositive. So, if FHFA conceded that §4617 does not bar direct claims, and Ginsburg + Brown and/or Millett decide that a receivership (in everything but name) has occurred, then that's the end of the game right there. The only way Lamberth avoided this was to say that no liquidation had begun. (In the back of my mind, though, there's a nagging question about whether an appeals court can make that seemingly factual and/or fact-specific determination...) If receivership did occur legally, then there is still a question of how much money should go to junior preferred stock holders. In receivership, the senior bond holder can be paid at most up to principal plus interest. I don't think the senior bond holder can claim all assets regardless of the amount of its principal. In this sense, the NWS is still illegal as it essentially gives all assets to the senior debtor. So in this sense, common shareholders may be wiped out and junior preferreds may still have a shoot in the court.

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Robinson/15-00109-0045.pdf "The Court agrees that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Accordingly, the Court will stay this action only temporarily. This temporary stay will give the MDL Panel a chance to rule on the motion to transfer without significantly delaying this litigation and prejudicing the plaintiff. If the MDL Panel has not ruled on the motion to transfer by July 1, 2016, the Court will lift the stay and rule on the underlying motions to dismiss by July 29, 2016." This means in addition to Perry Appeal which we will likely heard back in a few months, we will hear from the Robersons's case by July 29th. I haven't tracked the progress of that case closely. Does anyone know if the judge will likely rule in our favor or in government's favor? I felt like this judge does not like government's delay strategy when he used the language above.

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Judicial_Panel/MDL-2713-0027.pdf The JPMDL has set FHFA's transfer and consolidation motion in MDL No. 2713 for hearing on May 26, 2016, in Chicago. Well, at least the MDL training is moving at the fastest possible schedule. Does anyone know how long it takes for the MDL court to issue the order?

Have you seen the show "Lie to me"? OMG we need an expert like that to truly read the minds of Millet and Brown. :D

Does anyone understand how this is accounted for? With the merger of CHTR-TWC, this value will be written up to 60 bn. In CHTR's most recent 10-k, it says "Valuation and impairment of franchises. The net carrying value of franchises as of both December 31, 2015 and 2014 was approximately $6.0 billion (representing 35% of total assets excluding restricted cash and cash equivalents). For more information and a complete discussion of how we value and test franchise assets for impairment, see Note 6 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements contained in “Part II. Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” In 2015, we performed a qualitative impairment assessment that indicated the fair value of the franchise assets in each unit of accounting exceeds the carrying value of such assets and thus resulted in no impairment. Our units of accounting for franchise impairment testing is based on geographical clustering of our cable systems into groups or markets. For each franchise unit of accounting, the estimated fair value of the franchise assets substantially exceeds the carrying value. Based on our qualitative impairment assessment and sensitivity analyses, none of our franchise assets are considered at risk of impairment. Based on the qualitative assessment, the franchise assets fair values are more than twice the carrying values for nearly all of the franchise units of accounting. The only exception is a single market in which its fair value of franchise assets exceeds its carrying value by more than 25%. The lower excess fair value of this market when compared to the others is attributed to the recent fair value measurement of this market's franchise assets in purchase accounting." This is an asset item that's both huge and I can't understand. :o

i havent paid much attention to piszel, but if you listen at about the 10 minute mark, the circuit court talks about resisting the govt's "grand theory"...which is that the conservator can essentially do what it wants under HERA.....when piszel can still bring a simple breach of contract case against fmcc, which permits the court to simple so there is no taking not because fhfa can do what it wants, but because piszel can still sue fmcc the govt's grand theory is very much at issue in perry Got it! I think I missed the point when I listened to it. :D I kept hearing the judge interrupting the plantiff lawyer "What's been taken here? What's lost?" But I missed the relevant point to Grand Theory.

Any body followed the Piszel case? I listened to the Appeal arguments today and the judge seems to be heavily sided with the US government. http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2015-5100.mp3 I don't think there is any direct relevance to our cases here though.

very impressed with potter anderson. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Judicial_Panel/MDL-2713-0021.pdf Very well written! Does anyone know the average time for MDL panel to make the decision after hearing? GSELinks says if the parties move fast, hearing will be held in May, but I bet FHFA will drag its reply to the last minute. Do you think we can make the hearing in May? looks like fhfa has 7 days to reply. so i cant think why this isnt heard 5/26 http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Summary%20of%20Panel%20Rules_Revised_10-4-2010.pdf I am sure FHFA will file a motion to extend the deadline, as they have done many times in various other cases. :D With that said, even if they extend to April 30th, it still seems to be able to make it to the 5/26 hearing. The link doesn't say when the court will rule after the hearing. Hope it is not too long.

very impressed with potter anderson. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Judicial_Panel/MDL-2713-0021.pdf Very well written! Does anyone know the average time for MDL panel to make the decision after hearing? GSELinks says if the parties move fast, hearing will be held in May, but I bet FHFA will drag its reply to the last minute. Do you think we can make the hearing in May?

Ackman was ousted by Muscleman, siting: "My body is full of aches from the VRX saga, and I realized that an activist fund is better led by someone full of muscles and lack of brain cells than someone who is lacking both" ;D

It sounds like there is no worry if you buy PFICs in IRA or 403b. I am curious why 401k is NOT included in the exemption here. It makes no sense. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/US_persons_holding_PFIC_stock_through_tax-exempt_organizations_or_accounts_will_be_exempt_from_Form_8621_filing_requirements/$FILE/2014US_CM4364_US%20persons%20holding%20PFIC%20stock%20through%20tax-exempt%20orgs%20to%20be%20exempt%20from%20Form%208621%20filing%20reqs.pdf "In Notice 2014-28, the IRS announced that it will amend the definition of “shareholder” in the Section 1291 regulations to exempt US persons who indirectly own stock in “passive foreign investment companies” (PFICs) through certain taxexempt accounts and entities from being required to file Form 8621 for those PFICs under Section 1298(f). The Notice covers PFICs owned by Individual retirement accounts (i.e., IRAs), individual retirement annuities, qualified pension and deferred compensation plans described in Sections 401(a), 403(b) or 457(b), tax-exempt entities (e.g., charities), religious and apostolic organizations, state colleges and universities, and qualified tuition programs, but not PFICs owned by charitable remainder trusts described in Section 664."

Thanks! Hopefully someone will help me understand this issue later. I always wondered why people say LTRPA is trading at a discount. With the tax liability, it is not.

No tax expert here?

EXOR is definitely not a PFIC. The rule says if it holds more than 20% of a company's stock, then it should use look through approach. EXOR's major holdings are all over 20%, so the look through method shows it is not a PFIC. TPRE and GLRE. No. PFIC has exceptions for banks and insurance companies.