Peregrine

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. Only financially-interested hedge funds are complaining. When did my personal assets morph into a hedge fund? Haha, duly noted.

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. They are not under "constant jeopardy" as they are under government conservatorship currently. The case can be argued that without the government's backing, these entities would cease to exist and the common and subordinated preferred stock would be worth 0 so why should they receive anything? The GSEs are currently in a weird limbo state, but interestingly enough the mortgage market is functioning well. Only financially-interested hedge funds are complaining.

Not if charters (Congress mission) disappear together with the implicit guarantee. Perhaps Mnuchin recommends an explicit, pay-for guarantee from Treasury for specific segments of mbs. If it's an explicit guarantee, then the GSEs will fall under the purview of the US government. Americans love the 30-year mortgage and the 30-year mortgage simply isn't possible without federal government backing. No private entity will lend long for 30 years at fixed rates when their liabilities have technically 0 duration.

I don't think many people understand what they're getting into by buying into these companies. It is clear that the former system with Fannie and Freddie as private entities with implicit government backing was unsustainable and led to perverse market effects. There is strong bipartisan opposition to turning these two GSEs into the hands of private ownership again.

This. Given where interest rates and corporate profits have gone, the case can be made that stocks are cheap (relative to other asset classes).

For those who enjoy long-form journalism, the following New Yorker piece on Obama is one of the best articles I've read this year. Whether left or right, I think we as human beings can all admire the man's rationality, integrity and perhaps most importantly, optimism. I think that we will miss him. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

Now much of this may be isolated incidents, but this is highly disturbing nonetheless: It seems like many of these people, who were previously silent, are now more emboldened than ever.

Surely you are kidding. Surely you realize that Hilary is the worst thing to happen to the democratic party in living memory. She is unelectable for prez. The pundits should have realized that point. She comes in as the early favorite and when people really have to think about it hard and make a decision they just can't vote for her. I mean her campaign against Sanders was a warning to the party.... Sanders should have been a lightweight. I hope many of us have changed our world view after this election. I thought I was cynical, but my pre-election cynicism is nothing compared to after. I was so wrong at understanding the US - where I reside BTW. And I think Hilary being the kind of woman she is cannot be prez. This is my theory of course. But I have thought about successful women leaders. They are the kind of low key non pushy types in male-dominated societies who don't threaten the status quo between men and women. For example, Butto or Thatcher. Thatcher can never be considered a feminist. She looks so motherly with her trademark purse. But Hilary is different she is a strong and smart and elite woman. If she runs the country, many will think that women have a strong place in america. And that is a threat, to both men and women. It is upending their view of their society. I cannot otherwise cannot explain the visceral hate towards her. I mean all they got on her is some improper handling of emails?? I think a lot of people who voted against her think of her as a unelectable bitch. (sorry I just cannot find a more apt word) The unrelenting, sensational and unsubstantiated attacks on her over the years ultimately took its toll.

This may be the best piece I've read on this election.

I still LOL hard at "accomplished businessman".

Re: Fox: I found this interesting: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/04/white-racist-kills-two-cops-iowa-ambush-and-fox-news-goes-quiet/214294

Say what you will but this is what I like about Trump. Most politicians would have coughed up the money because 1) Its not theirs 2) They don't want a bad publicity. Not Donald. He saw the charge he didn't like and now this guy has to explain. Very powerful message and these idiots at WaPo think they landed a scoop. If you've agreed to pay x amount for a product or service provided and then reneg on that obligation, what does that say about you? If the product is defective only a fool(or someone using money that isnt theirs) would pay for it. What defines defective and substandard? This is subjective. If we allow one side to define acceptable quality then the transaction is asymmetric. There needs to be compromise and that is usually hashed out in contracts prior to the work being done. Besides, I'm not even sure Trump even saved any money from stiffing his vendors with all the lawsuits, lawyer and court-related fees that followed.

Say what you will but this is what I like about Trump. Most politicians would have coughed up the money because 1) Its not theirs 2) They don't want a bad publicity. Not Donald. He saw the charge he didn't like and now this guy has to explain. Very powerful message and these idiots at WaPo think they landed a scoop. If you've agreed to pay x amount for a product or service provided and then reneg on that obligation, what does that say about you?

I find it funny that this election for some reason or another has been a referendum on politics. What the people who rail on the "mainstream", "the establishment", "career politicians" et al don't realize is that wherever there is people, there will be politics - it's unavoidable. People have some kind of idealistic, utopian view that there is some better form and they have a very mistaken view in how people and our society actually works.

Cardboard, you seem rather incapable of viewing things in its appropriate contexts.

Look at RWAs, not simple asset/equity calculations. There's a reason why A/E is way higher but their tier 1 common equity ratios are in line.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment. Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us. See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic. That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps. I agree. The whole ISIS mess stems from the US intervention into Libya, so Trump's claim that Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS aren't that exaggerated, though I know he is definitely joking. But the media picks this up as another sign that Trump is unfit and immature. Lol.

+1. Trump himself might be just a middling racist and xenophobe on the par of water-cooler brogrammers and jocks who just don't think it racist or misogynist to call someone n word or ho, bitch, etc. The problem is that he's running a campaign based on raising and supporting that hatred. I don't know if the fact that this strategy is working says a lot about our society or if it just shows how bad his competition is, both in the primary and now in the general election? Whatever it means it isn't good. The USA is extremely pluralistic. A place like Texas would seem almost alien to those living in New York - and vice versa. In a largely heterogeneous country, differences and divisions are unavoidable. Some group or another will feel marginalized and it just takes one guy willing to exploit these real or perceived slights to build an unspoken feeling of animosity into widespread anger, resentment and hatred. Mob mentality is real and a strong facet of human nature. As far as the latter? I'm not even sure if Trump supporters even know why they hate Hillary so much other than the fact that she represents the opposition.

This is where you and I differ. I don't believe that for an instant. What drives Trump to say the things that he does? Is it really beliefs in policies and principles that will help his country? Time has shown again and again that he has no policies or beliefs or anything grounded in principle - in fact, he has regularly shifted from one to another. No, he does what he does to pander to the biggest group of people that he believes will support him. I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

No, I'm not about to assume that you are insane or stupid. No one is infallible and for people who have been in the political arena for decades, like a Bush or a Clinton, their choices and mistakes are magnified. I am not trying to absolve Clinton for the mistakes she made. You can't. She has made some big mistakes that above all has called into question her integrity. That has already happened and it will probably forever have a mark on her career. However, I do not think anyone reasonable can call into question her competence and perhaps most importantly her desire to help her country. Many say that she's just power-hungry but she has been involved in public service for her entire public life and for much of the last 30 years has endured a microscopic lens on her and strong criticism from both the left and the right and ever-increasing amounts of slander and negative propaganda from the extreme right. I don't know, but I don't find that trade-off particularly envious if you're only out for public prominence and stature. Put it this way: when forced to choose between 1) winning the presidency and 2) the country and its citizens, do you really think she'll choose the former over the latter? For the other candidate, I have a hard time seeing him choosing the latter.

I don't understand why you think Clinton is a poor candidate. Do you?

The issue is sane vs. insane. I'd put it more as evil vs. insane. Why is she evil?

It's interesting that many repeat that almost verbatim. But I'm curious - what exactly has she done to spite so many?

So you would basically advise your candidate to tweet a 13 year old article written when the economic situation was much different than it is today. An article which ascribes the cause of the trade deficit to a wholly different issue as your candidate and which prescribes a completely different and opposite solution as your candidate. Yep. That sounds about right for Trump. Did you even read the article? The problem with trade deficit is transfer of wealth to other countries. That nature of trade deficit does not change with time. It is like the law of gravity is same in year 2000 and year 2016. The solution advocated by Buffett is tariff, same as Trump. To quote the article "To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10%, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000". It's not a blanket across-the-board tariff that Trump is endorsing, which can have very distortive effects. The credits that Buffett references will have a market-clearing type characteristics that will continually adjust the level of the "tariff" in accordance with market supply and demand. That is a very crucial difference. Tariffs are not just black or white or good or bad, it's the use of it that matters. Either way, Buffett concedes that tariffs, regardless of the magnitude, will raise costs for American consumers. Trump just paints them as creating "millions and millions' of new jobs and getting back at the crooked Chinese. Also, that article was written over 13 years ago and the circumstances of the US economy currently are very, very different.

Hillary is rational and this significant leftist movement in her party (or perhaps more accurately, the country in general) has basically left her no choice but to give credence to those voices. At heart, however, she is a centrist. Obama was thought to be the same prior to him becoming president, but I do not see this drastic shift to a socialist economy that so many on the right have decried. Socialism is really anathema to American culture.