Eye4Valu

@dougishere Why not answer your own question?

Seriously, why does the market as a whole go up? Same thing that makes it go down as a whole. Animal spirits. Fear & Greed.

Nice

Merk and Christian, what do you all make of this: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-5100.Opinion.8-16-2016.1.PDF

I think the advantage for Watt doing so is two fold. Stave off another taxpayer bailout, and prompt congressional action. I'm sure Congress would move if Watt started retaining capital, as they would be scared to miss the bus on having their say. Everything they've said has turned out to be a lie? I think the advantage for Watt coming out is to save face....no? Hes the Ted Cruze of the GSEs. Building capital is what they should have been doing for the last 4 years. Watt hasnt done this and it was his job to do this.....Watt hasnt been doing his job. The hedge funds, sorry to say this, were the first ones to say this. They are a step ahead of Watt et all and it pains everyone in the anti-gse camp (Joe and John included) to admit this...... All true with respect to Watt personally. Of course, he has been under Treasury's thumb. It would be a big move on his part. Otherwise, the courts have to stop it or Congress has to revamp. In my view, the courts are unlikely to stop it prior to the exhaustion of capital in 2018. I don't think the cases will be resolved by then, but hope I'm wrong. I think either Watt decides to retain capital, at which point I suspect Congress would move to act, or the GSEs need another bailout in 2018, which should prompt Congress to act as well. The legal cases will continue irrespectively and are another wild card in the timing of a resolution and potential monetary recovery.

I think the advantage for Watt doing so is two fold. Stave off another taxpayer bailout, and prompt congressional action. I'm sure Congress would move if Watt started retaining capital, as they would be scared to miss the bus on having their say.

Which Liberties are most interesting? Are there threads on them?

I don't understand how they are claiming that losses have been socialized. Clearly more money has been returned than was borrowed, which equals no socialized losses. It's just a stop me if you can money grab.

Pretty sure Trump is a 3:1 dog to win the Presidency. If you're looking at this from a political angle, I would not have too much faith in a Trump victory. No bone of contention to pick here, just trying to assess what is likely to occur in November.

Adding insult to injury. https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2016/08/08/far-less-than-meets-the-eye/

Seems to me that if you win in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, you're getting paid. Can you all point to an example(s) where a successful monetary judgment in the Court of Claims wasn't paid?

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2016SemiAnnual.pdf Did Bruce unload all of his common shares? Looks that way based on semiannual report.

I don't know that there is a outer bound, but maybe someone else has knowledge on this. i think you can talk about delay in a criminal trial presenting a due process issue, but not a civil case Moreover, I agree with Hamish Hume that the longer the judges spend on this case, the more they may realize that what Treasury/FHFA have done here needs to be remedied. In other words, I think it is to the plaintiff's benefit for the judges to examine this case in depth. I don't think we should be hoping for an expedient ruling.

Ps looking for injunctive relief. looking to vacate NWS. money is out door. best to hope for is to recoup it back @grenville judges are weenies by and large. no doubt. you dont see heroes often wearing robes. we're just trying to find one judge who isnt a hump w/o a backbone. my money goes on brown/ginsburg I don't think Sweeney is spineless either.

Look, what's most important is what the judges had for breakfast that day.

In other words, the markets were more than two standard deviations from their mean.

A market top can only be defined in retrospect and doesn't have to be in bubble territory. Grantham defines a bubble as being a two-sigma equity market. You could define it other ways. There is no hard and fast definition, although Grantham found that all markets later defined as bubbles exceeded two-sigma.

Didn't Grantham say that he thinks the market formally reaches a bubble at around 2300 on the S&P, or a 2-sigma equity market. Based on his thinking, we're close to a bubble, but not quite there. In other words, stocks are expensive, but not wildly expensive, but getting closer to wildly expensive. If the S&P climbed above 2300, I think we would all agree things would be looking wildly expensive.

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."

Was the Kentucky case that important? Seems to me that Ct. App. for D.C., Ct. of Fed. Claims and Delaware cases are the big ones. Am I missing something? Was Kentucky closest to being adjudicated?

Haven't a lot of people pointed out that Watt has the power to release them from "conservatorship," and called on him to do it? I suspect that Watt is beholden to the O. Administration and/or Treasury, who do not want that to happen, so I guess he wouldn't take that step. But theoretically speaking, isn't Corker powerless to prevent Watt from doing so. I know that Congress can always change their sponsorship going forward, but it seems to me that Watt is the captain of the ship, and can feel free to disregard Corker. Obviously that scares Corker and his bipartisan sidekicks. If Watt went behind everyone's back and released them, he would have 80 pound balls!

Or is the District Court not the same?

I thought the Delaware Court of Chancery was known for its expediency in addition to its well defined corporate laws?

I have a golf ball with Bill's face on it that says underneath "a good lie everytime." Although that of course is not true since some of Bill's lies were hilarious. "I smoked, but I didn't inhale." That may be true of a cigar. I guess Bill has another use for that though!

Do you like personal freedoms? Do you like personal choice? Fiscally conservative but socially liberal? I'm telling you all, Gary Johnson should be Commander in Chief!