doughishere

Johnny on the spot, Luke. I was just going to get to that. Sullivan twetered this Berkowitz "In late 2015 there were settlement negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants" in GSE litigation $FNMA

4617(f) is pretty short. Am i in the right place? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617 (f) Limitation on court action Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver. My answer would be that the FHFH isnt acting like a conservator........Mel said that the other day. Edit: Found this....http://seekingalpha.com/article/2578025-fannie-mae-an-analysis-of-the-cases-and-statutes-that-require-judge-lamberth-to-be-reversed-on-appeal Not ROLG

I got called away during the good part....last thing i heard was him talking about how the Govt isnt really dealing in good faith....

I highly doubt there will be anything substantial...we shal see.

I thought his comments on the Bern were great. Munger is really a great source of wisdom. Dare I say he still doesn't get enough credit even for all the credit he gets.

Transcript. Sry in advance if repost. http://latticeworkinvesting.com/2016/02/13/charlie-munger-transcript-of-daily-journal-annual-meeting-2016/ Whose he refer to in the Sanders section. Thomas Piketty, the economist?

Bundesbank seems to agree https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Publications/Discussion_Paper_1/2014/2014_10_27_dkp_27.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Rhetorical question, but If Watt isn't running the company the way he thinks it should then who is responsible for running the company and making the decisions?

Why all of a sudden go against the Administration then? Why reverse course now? Is this an election year tactic for the dems?

Someones been commenting On Carney's latest. ;) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Foreclosing on Investors’ Hopes http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-foreclosing-on-investors-hopes-1455914265

Jim grant calls this a bull market in liabilities, for this reason. From a psychological standpoint, negative rates are deflationary because people start saving more, spending less..., and then Incomes decline because someone's spending is another's income. Debt as percent of income increases and then that reduces ability to spend and ability to borrow..and the cycle continues. Increase this off sets the Increase in M2 everyone loves to point at.

I just pulled out my accounting text book. Is it meaningless any more because now you have a negative number with a 0% discount rate? Surprise! That means something now.

You have things like annuities and perpetuity which are so heavily dependent on interest rates. Huge chunks of the markets are based on assumptions of greater than 0% interest rates. If youre an old guy who's lived for so long managing funds and stuff then you have most likely not even considered if rates could ever have gotten to 0. so you just get schwacked by it. For instance, you have all these Universities out there that have all these scholarship funds(the old guys managing them) based on interest rates at say like 4%, assuming tuition costs stay the same, you need some sort of present value to establish the fund....present value of a perpetuity is 1/ DiscountRate times amounts per year...nothing exciting. So if you need to increase your amounts you need per year get 1/(DiscountRate - GrowthRate in CashFlows)...again nothing exciting well....whats that growth rate needed if that DiscountRate goes to zero or negative? Its generally assumed that people are pretty shitty at estimating the growth rate. So you throw in a negative or zero DiscountRate....suddenly you need a lot larger amount to establish that fund to get just the same tuition cost. Where do you get that? To me thats all you need to know about ZIRP. Its almost a self sustaining deflationary(is it deflationary?) policy. And now its not even just the Universities...Social security, pension plans..yadda yadda yadda. Is the logic wrong?

Do they say why?

Were in agreement. Chapter 1 - Security Analysis Intrinsic Value Vs. Price In all of these instances he[the security analyst] appears to be concerned with the intrinsic value of the security and more particularly with the discovery of discrepancies between the intrinsic value and the market price. We must recognize however that intrinsic value is an elusive concept. In general terms it is understood to be that value which is justified by the facts.....But it is a great mistake to imagine that intrinsic value is a definite and determinable as is the market price.

You can not count 8-1 as meaning there is great chance in winning.....the Intrinsic odds of a win in the court case are completely different than the "payoff" odds. I know were probably saying but its worth repeating

Am I missing something about the joke at the beginning? Sry off topic.

We appreciate the insights filling in the blanks and all, Merk and cherzeca. Edit: And everyone else.

I think we would be having a very different conversation if we could see some of the discovery.

Isnt BAC trading at like 50% BV? Edit: Ok not 50% BV but below.

Wonder if there was any GSE talk. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

Is this for real? http://howardonmortgagefinance.com/

From the Google boards 10.1 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected the very argument that FHFA advances here, correctly observing that “[n]o federal court has read the statute that way.” Levin v. Miller, 763 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added)." I found this in the Boeis reply brief. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1596847.pdf It might be a reason why they decided to pursue a case in IL.

Some Bits from ROLG, Comment section SeekingAlpha: Q: I the gov't now files an amended motion to dismiss on the new complaint filed under seal, couldn't the court's previous order to postpone the creation of the administrative record be restored? ROLG: good question. but if that was the court's reasoning, then the court would have granted leave to fhfa to amend motion to dismiss and not put fhfa on the clock to produce an administrative record. i wouldnt be surprised if fhfa is scrambling to get an amended motion to dismiss into judge reade's court, and if she accepts it, then never mind. but that would be a strange way to run a courtroom. another speculation: the order to deny motion to dismiss #60 on the saxton court docket has not been filed yet. now, judge reade may be in the process of writing her opinion now, having already decided to deny motion. judge reade has a reputation for running a tight ship, and she likely wants to move schedule along. so we may not know the answers to your questions until we read that opinion. but i thought it was appropriate to take the court docs that we have access to at face value, at least for the time being

@orthopa Yeah, so what do you say to the judge..."well we uhh ummmm...we were supposed to keep records and we uhh we didnt." Remember: A large part of the governments argument, to me centers around the "Were the US Government we can do whatever we want to do." Suck it. If the government commits a crime is it really a crime? If the government doesn't do what its supposed to do is it really in violation of anything? Little political here, and maybe a degree to far: But if a Cop shoots a citizen in the back, while running away, who poses no immediate danger to that cop and is not armed. Is it really murder because hes an employee of the government in service of the government? Most people who arnt in the trade would argue that "the government can do whatever it wants to do" and stay away from buying shares. That the cops can get away free because (in the words of tupac) "thats just the the way it is." Lot of Cops have gotten "off" this way and on the other side you have a lot of upset communities. But thats always been know. To me....Lamberth seems to say well who cares, next case. While Reade,now, seems to say "id like to see how the FHFA came to the conclusion of enacting the NWS as a necessary thing to do." So pretty much all Reade has said is that she disagrees with Judge Lamberths Perry ruling that the administrative record was "irrelevant" that FHFA did not produce an administrative record. Judge Reade seems to have come 180 degs and wants to know how did the cop come to the conclusion to use deadly force? I dont know....maybe its too simple what I said but thats what it seems to me. maybe im just loonie.