Eye4Valu

Spent a lot on the wedding and engagement ring. She later lost her engagement ring and I bought an even bigger one. Had a total blast at the wedding. Am still married. Totally love my wife. I save a lot of money. Wouldn't change a thing. Go big or go home.

If Sweeney grants the Motion to Compel, I think settlement negotiations could resurface, but not until then. There are of course a number of factors that could play out here that we're not aware of within the Administration and FHFA. Assuming bear case scenario is in fact remand/produce administrative record, do you think Lamberth would be more willing to find for Plaintiffs? Does it depend on the instructions provided by the DC Circuit? If Plaintiffs lose upon remand, isn't the next appellate level the U.S. Supreme Court? Would they grant certiorari? I know that if the government loses, the Supreme Court would likely grant certiorari. I think the Solicitor General just has to whisper a few sweet somethings in their ear. What about the thesis that FNMA/FMCC are too big to replace, i.e. there are no substitutes. We spend a lot of time debating legality of NWS, but perhaps not enough analysis on whether FNMA/FMCC could truly be replaced. As I understand it, there is not enough private capital to fill the void. If Treasury cronies slide through the revolving door to private sector big banks and try to finish what they started, which is what I understand they're doing, could they even accomplish it?

Is it correct to say that there is no breach of contract claim with respect to the common, only a takings claim. But with the preferred, you have both?

What gets me is that ratings agencies always appear to be looking in the rear view mirror. They change their ratings after any given crises, but usually not before. Investors who look at ratings likely do so before they invest. The ratings agencies need to look through the windshield more often and give investors adequate warning of trouble ahead. After the fact, it is too late. I feel the same way about sell side analysts. Look at VRX for example. 9 out of 10 had high price targets pre-crises, then lower them post-crises. It soon becomes abundantly apparent that you cannot trust ratings agencies or sell side analysts opinions one way or the other.

You all forgot about Sears! Could be a joke...or not!

What's interesting to me is that Bruce holds a relatively small common position in Fairholme Fund, but not in Fairholme Allocation Fund. He holds relatively large amounts of preferred in both. The Allocation Fund is supposed to be for small ideas that could have a large impact. You would think he would own some common in the Allocation Fund for that reason. The fact that he doesn't suggests to me that he sees the common as more of an option, and placed his allocation of it in the larger Fairholme Fund.

I put the odds of God having a handlebar mustache at 60%. Don't ask me why.

"Lawyers tend to give you an answer as to how they think its going to go and say "but theres always the possibility of not winning." And I think that to a degree they are correct in doing so." They are 100% correct to do so. Nobody can guaranty a particular outcome. They can tell you whether you have a strong case or a weak case. Either way, many are willing to take your money to put up a fight. An ethical lawyer (yes, such a species exists) will turn down a case when he/she thinks the likelihood of winning is de minimus. I think Prof. Epstein sums it up well. He thinks the plaintiffs have a strong case, but realizes that much deference is given to the government and its actions. What more can be said? We'll find out at the end of the day what happens, and then think we should have known better or forgone cloning if we lose (similar to ZINC thread), or we should have invested more, if we win.

I am guessing that one of the books was called Supply and Demand.

My 2 cents is there is 0 chance of a settlement. This will either be resolved by the courts or congress, or both.

Merkhet-You've expressed your concern over the procedural bars the government claims the plaintiffs can't overcome. What are your thoughts on the "conflict of interest" exception in the context of HERA? Would love to read DeMarco's depo with this exception in mind. Would be more fun than whistling in the dark.

I don't buy the government's procedural argument because it basically claims that nobody has the power to judicially review what has occurred. This would give the conservator a carte blanche to do whatever he or she pleases, e.g. NWS. If the procedural argument wins, then there is no judicial review in America for our government's actions, and we should admit that we live in a banana republic at that point.

Also keep in mind that is more difficult for outside observers to know how these cases are proceeding since we do not have access to the discovery materials. Bruce recently mentioned that the current share prices do not reflect what has been produced in discovery. Being long entails some blind faith in what has been discovered and in the judicial process itself. You would like to think that the government would be held to account for unlawful actions. On the flip side of that, the government is a 1,000 pound gorilla. I must say that I admire Bruce and the others who are willing to contest the government's actions here. While we're all interested in the potential to make a buck, it's also about what is just and right. Don't be afraid to get or stay long in support of the American way of life. (With no offense intended for board members from elsewhere)

So Scion is all Burry's own money now correct?

He is super convinced its worth $125 a share.

As we all know, the only opinions that matter belong to the judges. Everyone here can debate these points all day and night trying to get comfortable with their position or lack thereof. Even if I think the plaintiffs have the better legal arguments, a return on investment is far from assured. The only question in my mind is what is my risk tolerance toward FNMAS. Its a question only I can answer, and is probably the best question of all.

Buffett drives a Caddy my friend!

Instead of a Lamberth 2, how about a Winstar 2. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rfi/papers/damages.PDF

What about Seritage? Was it purchased by Ted or Todd?

It ain't over until it's over

The WSJ must really like Fannie and Freddie. What "fair and balanced" reporting.

Buffett was saying that NIRP in Europe makes it difficult for Fed to truly lift off. We may see some smoke at the meeting next week, but not a rocket launch.

I think recent weakness is tax loss harvesting at year end knowing you can wait 31 days and repurchase for low prices as we all know this isn't going to be resolved in the next 31 days, or at least, it's very unlikely that it will.

Sounds like Christian Herzeca is/has joined the board? Looking forward to his contributions on this thread!

I admire his conviction. Not talking about VRX, just in general. He's not always right of course, but he definitely has brass balls.