tede02

Shock Top Pumpkin Wheat. Tis the season.

Did anyone see this over the weekend? Looks like nothing really new but it is a negative viewpoint: http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-and-freddie-shares-still-look-unappealing-1440189097 This paragraph in particular struck me: "The district court’s dismissal assumed that Fairholme’s allegations about the government’s motivation were true. Yet it ruled that even so, Fairholme’s lawsuit had to be dismissed because the law authorizing Fannie’s and Freddie’s rescue barred courts from second-guessing the decisions of the conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The government’s reasons were irrelevant, the court said." It still seems like quite a stretch to argue that the net worth sweep was necessary to "rescue" the companies.

I missed out on buying an iShares ETF, HDV. Down over 40% before trading was halted. Already back up. Tried to get a limit order in but was too late.

The list is not what I was looking for (it's right on Freddie and Fannie's websites). I'm just interested in discussion regarding the differences between the various issues to speed up the learning curve a bit, that's all (why do some issues seem to be more popular than others for example). Thanks guys.

Looking for a little help here. I've been going through the entire thread looking for discussion around the differences between the various series of preferreds. In the first dozen or so pages several people posted attachments with info around this but they are no longer available. I'm looking at FAIRX's holdings and see that Bruce owns a variety but is most heavily invested in the Series Z Freddie and Series S Fannie. Any suggestions here? Thanks in advance.

I don't know anything about "all the oil bugs on this site," but I've found it interesting that Buffett has been pretty horrendous with his own timing of oil investments. As I recall, he bought Conoco Phillips in 2008 around the time oil was peaking. More recently he bought a big chunk of Exxon when oil was over $100 per barrel. Figuring out the direction of commodities in the short run seems to be an impossible task. But it is interesting looking out decades. Population estimates are generally very accurate as I understand it. The world is projected to have an additional 2 billion people by mid century. Its hard to imagine that not putting significant upward pressure on commodity prices over time. But year to year seems impossible to predict.

Highly doubt there would be a question on this. My guess is over 95% of the American public have no idea what Fannie and Freddie even do.

LMAO! Sure didn't expect sharpton to weigh in on this issue.

I purchased NLY and SIR this week. If you're looking for income, they may interest you. I believe both have been punished due to the threat of rising rates. Both are selling comfortably below book which should provide some margin of safety (though I would expect they'll temporarily decline if/when rates rise). But I'll probably just buy more. Added to BXE and CHK this week.

Is the FINRA number the same as your CRD # (central registration depository)? If it is, type your name into broker check at http://brokercheck.finra.org/. This will give you your number. I personally hold the series 7 and 66. Can't help you on the 65 unfortunately.

This is an interesting development. I never read her first book but I did see the movie which was excellent. It just appears that the pressure on this entire situation continues to build. I agree with doughishere that it appear that maintstream media is starting to catch on to this story more. My instincts say that the pressure alone will force an outcome at some point. This is really an interesting story. I haven't followed it as closely as others here. My exposure is indirectly through my holding in FAIRX. Nonetheless, thanks to Merket in particular for the ongoing deep analysis and commentary on this subject.

This kind of reminds me of a point that people in law enforcement talk about. There's always a new batch of young men coming of age to do a bunch of stupid stuff. The same point goes for bull markets. There's always a new batch of people who haven't gotten burned and jump into the fray. I also chuckle about those who get into day trading during a bull market. These people fool themselves into thinking they are actually doing something of value. All the while they probably would have made more money just owning the market and doing nothing.

This little bit really resonated with me from Stanley Druckenmiller. Its from a Bloomberg article where he's talking about picking managers: Druckenmiller looks for “almost a sick compulsion to win and compete.” Citing his own experience, he said that passion fades when managers have other interests, including children. “Go young,” he advised the audience, saying that the best money managers are between 35 and 45 years old. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/druckenmiller-says-rates-could-remain-near-zero-10-years

I'll put this out there. Maybe one can think of value investing as a mistake because it doesn't work all of the time in every market (as evidenced by others here, notably the big mutual fund managers during the most recent bull market). But that's the beauty of it. It works over time, but not every time, and that's why everyone doesn't adopt it. Joel Greenblatt talks about this in his book "The Big Secret."

Its baked into human psychology. Robert Shiller's book "Animal Spirits" couldn't have a more appropriate title. Human beings are extremely influenced by herd behavior. Very few people, in my experience, are true contrarians naturally. "What everyone else is doing" appears safe. Being a contrarian appears dangerous or imprudent.

I read two Navy Seal memoirs over the winter. Couldn't put either one down. Easy reading: Lone Survivor: Marcus Luttrell Seal Team Six: Howard Wasdin About a year ago I read Nate Silver's, The Signal and the Noise. I would also highly recommend it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2013/01/10/ts-official-gurus-cant-accurately-predict-markets/ This is a great study. I used some of the data here in an annual presentation I give every January. My favorite part of the article is the data on Jim Cramer's accuracy (or lack- there-of). Sadly, a lot of people take his "advice".

+1 One of my favorite quotes: More money has been lost reaching for yield than at the point of a gun.

I agree with most of the comments here. I think it really just comes down to opportunity cost. If you are weighing a stock buyback against a specific acquisition, what offers the most attractive risk/return opportunity? That seems to me to be the fundamental question. It seems like stock buybacks are very hard to accomplish at good prices. Most businesses have cash and profits at the top of the business cycle. That likely corresponds with a high stock price. When the economy contracts, stocks can get cheap but most companies want to hang on to cash and de-lever. It seems Steve Jobs missed out on a big opportunity to buy back a lot of Apple. The story I've read is when he started running into the problem of having too much cash, he called Buffett and asked what to do. Buffett asked him if his stock was undervalued and he replied "yes". Buffett suggested he buy-back company stock but Jobs never acted on the advice. I also wish Berkshire would have bought back more stock a few years ago when it was trading around book value. Buffett knew the company was significantly undervalued (and said as-much) yet he only bought back a trivial amount in the open market and a block of shares from an old shareholder who died.

Reading Greenhaven website. Very interesting.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-sees-oil-price-below-100-a-barrel-in-the-next-decade-1431347035 This was in yesterday's WSJ. Type the title into google if you can't get access directly through the link. I've been reading more about the fossil fuel markets and oil and gas industries generally in recent months. I've learned how many variables drive the supply and demand factors (they are countless). This may seem obvious to some, but I've also learned how close fossil fuel production and consumption are in terms of volume. In other words, the world produces about 90 million barrels of oil a day and consumes about that. The slightest imbalance can cause prices to rise or crash extremely quickly (as we've witnessed recently). I think some people have gotten overly excited with OPEC's proclamation. Perhaps their policy is to keep oil prices under $100 per barrel. But, from what I've learned, the volatility in oil prices (and fossil fuels generally) isn't going to change. Changes in technology, world economics, politics, etc. are far more powerful than OPEC in their ability to disrupt supply and demand (especially quickly). From an observational standpoint, its just amazing to me how oil prices in 2008 nearly reached $150 per barrel only to drop under $40 within about 12 months. And of course last year, prices went from over $100 to around $50 in about six months. My view is this extreme volatility isn't going anywhere.

Interesting little blip in today's WSJ..... http://www.wsj.com/articles/moneybeat-deals-are-getting-dear-1429493348 16.5 The average Ebitda multiple firms are paying to acquire U.S. companies this year, the highest on record. Not only is U.S. deal making surging, so are valuations for U.S. companies. Buyers are paying 16.5 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, for companies. That is the highest level since 1995 when Dealogic began tracking the data, according to Dealogic, and easily exceeds the previous high mark of 13.3 times Ebitda recorded last year. Rising U.S. valuations also have lifted the average valuation globally to its highest level on record. The average enterprise value to Ebitda multiple stands at 12.4 world-wide. Enterprise value represents a company’s stock market capitalization minus a company’s cash, plus its outstanding debt. The increase in valuations comes as deal activity is surging. So far this year, buyers of U.S. companies have announced $448 billion worth of acquisitions. World-wide, $1.08 trillion worth of deals have been signed. Both are at their highest levels since 2007. Yet buyers are paying just 25.2% above where the sellers’ shares were trading the week before the deals were announced. That stands as the third-lowest level for a year on record, according to Dealogic. With U.S. stocks hovering near record highs, but having lost some of their momentum, and the Fed looking to raise rates for the first time in nine years, the modest premium suggests sellers aren’t holding out for an even richer payoff.

I would be very careful with REITs at this stage. We are a long way into the current cycle and prices have been juiced by additional factors, low interest rates and foreign money in particular. Non-traded REITs are likely abhorred by most on this board and there is merit to being skeptical of them generally (fees are high and lots of conflicts of interest exist with the outside managers). That being said, one portfolio I like is KBS III. I primarily like it because the REIT bought its first property in 2011 and has continued to raise money and purchase properties throughout the real estate recovery. The year 2011 was right at or near the bottom of the real estate market and thus a significant amount of this REIT contains properties purchased at attractive cap rates. I also like the manager of the portfolio, Keith Hall. As I understand it, Hall worked at Drexel Burnham with a number of people who eventually ended up at Oaktree Capital. Hall implements a value strategy. He likes properties that are not fully leased because he can buy them cheaper, inject capital if needed, and bring the occupancy up to increase cash-flow and therefore value. The current dividend is over 6%. I think some margin of safety exists mainly because of the timing the portfolio was assembled (it seems like the probability for some capital appreciation is good). However, I wouldn't expect any huge total returns. My anticipation is in the upper single digits annualized over time. The high internal expenses of these instruments really act like gravity on returns. Because this is non-traded, you can still buy today at a fixed IPO price. However, keep in mind you don't have liquidity with these instruments either. Full disclosure: I am a shareholder.

Good video. Nothing I haven't heard from Greenblatt or Marks before. However, I think Greenblatt's advice to look where others aren't looking is spot on and can't be repeated enough. The big boys simply can't play in the "kiddie" pool and the "kiddie" pool is actually huge if you're an individual investor. I also liked how Greenblatt addressed the idea that today its a lot harder to deliver returns because more smart people are involved, technology, etc. Greenblatt basically said that although its true more smart people are involved today, the ones who are really good typically get too big very quickly. Therefore, they can't play in small & micro caps for example. In other words, his view was that there are new people always recycling through and making the same mistakes all novices make.

Check hotels in Council Bluffs and west Omaha. Those will likely be your best shot.