james22

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?

Has been. But I've turned the corner. Might as well be entertained. I'm paying for it.

Sure seems like it.

What orthopa and cherzeca said. I've made my bet and I'll live with it. The last thing I'll do is trade around Bloomberg "news" and White House corrections.

What makes you think that, muscleman?

Thinking of this as simply as possible means asking cui bono, and no one benefits from the status quo. I believe the most significant risk today is the housing or stock market crashing. Two years is too long for that reason.

Yes, please. I reckon Buffett would be willing to buy the whole business if he were allowed. I think he's very fond of the core mortgage guarantee business. my thoughts were that Buffett would detoxify the GSEs if he invested. it has been fashionable to hate on the GSEs but if warren buys in, GSEs become apple pie and motherhood I would just be afraid that Buffett's terms would be unfavorable to all current shareholders. He can certainly crush the commons if he gets to dictate the terms, and he could probably find a way to hurt the juniors too if it benefits him/Berkshire enough. Sure, but the value he would add might more than offset?