james22

Still do, yes. James, You are then certainly close by! [ : - ) ] [Note to others : Dhahran is where the Saudi Aramco HQ is located]. If you don't mind sharing - What's the sentiment about this IPO in your community? [- Please note that I respect your privacy - that goes both for if you for professional and/or personal reasons can't or won't comment.] Sorry, really can't comment. (Other than, we're all curious the sentiment about this IPO in the investing community.) Thanks for everyone's thoughts.

Still do, yes.

He argues that the government wants total control over the recapitalization and release of the GSEs and over their operations “for now and the future.” He also said that the courts will be the ones to provide “meaningful gains” for shareholders in the fight against the net worth sweep. Bove also believes that some assumptions many shareholders are making are just wrong. For example, he doesn't expect that the government will ever concede that the senior preferred shares and their dividends have been paid. He noted that during the Senate hearings, it became clear that the Treasury secretary believes the U.S. government is a creditor of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even though there is no outstanding debt. In Bove's view, it looks like Secretary Steven Mnuchin sees the senior preferred shares owned by the government as debt rather than preferred equity. He also believes the government will "take a hefty fee for providing any guarantees to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/11/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-senior-preferred-stock/

Optics are sufficient rationale, I think.

The most expensive stock.

Agree. I'm at 15% (my limit), but have to think about adding if continues to fall.

I do. But Housel needn't, for he does believe in Connections: Every current event – big or small – has parents, grandparents, great grandparents, siblings, and cousins. I'm curious why he doesn't recognize the second collorary Burke does: If history progresses because of the synergistic interaction of past events and innovations, then as history does progress, the number of these events and innovations increases. This increase in possible connections causes the process of innovation to not only continue, but to accelerate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change#James_Burke's_Connections

I appreciate it, cherzeca, thanks.

Morgan must be familiar with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns (https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns). I'd be curious why he doesn't recognize accelerating technological change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change) as the *single* most important force? Thanks.

Link? I do like your thinking.

In a scenario that might sound familiar to readers who remember the run-up to the financial crisis, new research has found that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been buying mortgages on homes in disaster-prone areas and packaging them up into securities, without charging a premium that accurately reflects long-term disaster risks. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sound-familiar-banks-are-saddling-fannie-freddie-risky-mortgages-study-finds Investors might fear the conditions that come with an explicit backstop?

Sigh.

You'd think. Yet the preferreds fall every day. Just rotation to commons?

Former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson said this week the court ruling is a major step in the right direction for Fannie and Freddie investors and has applied significant pressure to the Treasury. Tilson originally recommended Fannie Mae shares to his newsletter subscribers last Thursday, but recommended they take only a 1.5% stake. Tilson said Fannie Mae shares should be up 50% following Mnuchin’s comments. “It's clear that investors don't yet fully appreciate the implications of this ruling. That's why today, we recommend buying the second half of the position, making it a 3% holding,” Tilson wrote Tuesday. https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/19/09/14415875/analyst-raises-fannie-mae-price-target-following-mnuchin-comments?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+benzinga%2Fanalyst-ratings+%28Channels+-+Analyst+Ratings%29

I'd thought to cap my bet at 10%, but the preferred risk/reward seems very attractive. Just bumped to 15%. Now 4:1 preferred to common.

I'd sure like to see Berkshire make a private offering. Good for Berkshire: 1. They're looking for an elephant. 2. FNF is just the kind of regulated, utility-like investment they favor. 3. They've a history with FNF. Good for FNF: 1. They've the cash. 2. They can make an offer quickly. 3. They'll make a fair offer. 4. The Berkshire name will reassure some that FNF will not likely require a future bailout. 5. Buffett's name is some defense against accusations of cronyism (announce with picture of Obama draping Presidential Medal of Freedom over Buffett).

Funny, still no news coverage.

I think that's about right. The report is very positive in that it confirms many things we've assumed/hoped for. We'll see today how much of that is priced in. But necessarily vague to allow freedom of action (acknowledging the role of congress, etc.). I like to believe they've a plan they're not sharing (acting administratively), but we'll see over the next month or so.

Are you willing to bet on that, muscleman?

Not only is Berkshire selling at a large discount to our estimate of its intrinsic value, but we expect it to grow this value 8% to 10% annually over the long term. In addition, if the current discount narrows (i.e., BRK trades up from 1.26x to 1.50x book value), shares could be worth about $360 in five years, equivalent to a compound annual return of 13%. https://www.checkcapital.com/Research_Reports/BRKB_Report_0819.pdf Hat tip to mdtif. https://boards.fool.com/another-brk-bull-34280630.aspx?sort=postdate

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, der.

More BRK @ $196.37.

BRK @ $198.75

I questioned the comment because Hussman has been entirely transparent and consistent in his approach. He's no permabear. But for all his criticism of Fed manipulation, he does never question if this time *is* different because of it. That's either proof of his conviction or willful denial. He's invested into his valuation/sentiment model. I imagine it'd be hard to believe a simple 'don't fight the Fed' strategy superior today. We'll see.

In what way?