maybe4less

I know you don't talk much but would you care to support that a bit? In order for a $100b hole to be covered it would take a decade if tax reform goes through, or still a long time even if it doesn't. How is that a solution to building a capital buffer fast enough to ward off the next recession, which may already be overdue? I think the point is that you will only find private capital to fill that $100B hole if the capital gets the earnings from the guarantee fee. The government therefore has to stop taking those profits. Now, whether that happens via the existing entities or totally new ones is the big question.

Yeah, it's the too hard pile for me at the moment.

Any word on refinancing that debt?

Related party transactions and stuff about compensation like this example are the big ones. I think in a lot of ways the proxy statement is more important than reading everything in the 10-k.

What does working on private label deals have anything to do with how someone feels about FnF? Also, Mnuchin had a senior role at GS in mortgages since at least 1994 (when he was name Head of Mortgage Securities), and started in mortgages in 1985. He would have done a lot of work with all type of mortgage securities, including FnF securities, during that time. By your logic, he should love FnF, given the decade plus he spent working with their securities.

Any update on when the board's atom/RSS feed will be back up and running? Thanks.

I couldn't access it today either. The RSS feed also stopped working on Saturday and has yet to recover.

dont disagree, but mnuchin may have come along in his thinking enough to know that this could be a "jumpstart" on rebuilding capital, so he would lose a quarter or two of capital building Plus if he thinks that his plan (whatever it ultimately is) for the GSEs will help increase GDP growth, he would want to get the effects moving through the economy ASAP. This administration is hell bent on GDP growth and midterms are just around the corner.

Yeah, mainly doesn't like the origins of the businesses because it was/is kind of scummy based on getting the cable franchises, feels he's a tax zealot, and (me talking here) let's be honest he's probably one of the biggest proponents of alternative metrics (like ebitda) which is partly used to enable his use of massive leverage and obfuscate the nature of the huge capital investments. Also, in my humble opinion, one should not be surprised that the would not automatically like/admire the largest private landowner in the U.S. or whatever, or someone who engages in all these corporate transactions and tracking stocks to "highlight the value". IIRC, he basically said that, because of the scummy way the initial franchises were acquired, he's ignored the industry and therefore Malone. I believe he did say that Malone is obviously a genius or something to that effect.

Does he own more than 10%? Form 4s don't apply to 5%+ holders. How did journalist find out on his purchase? I believe from this 13g filing (which does apply to 5%+ holders): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315090/000119312515399523/d103925dsc13g.htm

Does he own more than 10%? Form 4s don't apply to 5%+ holders.

I am for "no politics" policy on investment boards. The benefits of ignoring ~50 members of this forum are not really outweighing the fact that the forum is likely going to disintegrate from the divisiveness. I am considering to leave CoFB. Not that many will care and not that my participation matters, but just an example of where this goes. Good luck. FWIW, I appreciate your viewpoint Jurgis (even if I don't always agree) and would be bummed if you left CoFB.

You mean the cartoonist who correctly predicted a landslide win by Trump, one year before it happened? Landslide!? Lol... "Guy who predicted Trump" is like "Guy who predicted financial crisis". Just because they got one right doesn't make them fortune tellers and sure doesn't make their other views valid. But they do love harping on that one time they got it right. He called a win against 17 Republican opponents, when the media said he would never win. He called a win against against HRC, when media said he had almost no chance. To me seems pretty long odds for a fluke. If you'd rather put your trust in CNN, be my guest. Sample size of one, etc.

I don't have an answer for you, but I share your frustration with IB. However, assuming you don't have a BB terminal, you can frequently get cusips from FINRA's bond database: http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp?part=3

If you are US-based, look into Fidelity. They have about the same foreign markets as IB and I've never had any issue with pink sheets or otc stocks.

They are the best I've seen for managing SMAs, but that does not mean there are a ton of flaws. The account opening and permissions process is chief among them. There are also a lot of rules that help them but are not customer friendly, like the rule against partial IRA conversions. They also just banned MLPs from IRAs (FELP anyone?), presumably because they just brought IRA custodianship in-house and they can't be bothered to file tax returns for IRAs.

You probably have the "Penny Stock" Trading permission enabled in your IRA, but not in your individual account.

Agreed. All the preferreds are at least partly trading on dividend rate and potential yield.

Trying to explain market moves is always dangerous, but I'll give it go. First of all, it's a little misleading to look at the percentage changes in the price of long-dated bonds like those in TLT. With rates so low, bond durations have extended significantly. With TLT's duration in the high teens, small moves in rates will have a big price impact. $100s of billions in market value have been lost because duration is very high and the bond market is huge. It's also important to point out that these moves are not that unusual. For example, there has been at least one 50+ bps point move in the 10-yr Treasury every year since the crisis, and looking back further, such moves seem equally common: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=bSE4 10-yr breakeven inflation expectations have increased this year from a low of about 1.2% in February to 1.90% today. And only about 15 bps since Trump was elected. So if you want to attribute a 50 bps rise in the 10-yr to Trump, then perhaps the market is saying that he will increase inflation by 15-20 bps and real GDP growth by 30-35 bps. Meaningful if it happens, but perhaps not earth shattering. Despite the volatility in rates post-crisis, US real GDP growth been remarkably stable at about 2.1-2.2%, while inflation, as measured by the PCE deflator, has been between roughly 1.5% and 2%. The 10-year is now at 2.3% after having been as low as 1.4% this year. Which is more consistent with the recent fundamentals? I'd argue that rates had undershot and are now going back to more appropriate level. There has been a tremendous amount of risk aversion in the markets and maybe investors are realizing the outlook isn't so negative.

Well, I mean these phenomenons have been common to humans since, like, ever, right? Maybe our societies evolved this way because these phenomenons drive us to improve our lives. Like, if everyone was happy sending letters via post, would we ever have email? Looks like you're making an evolutionary argument, but there is not necessarily any overlap between phenomena that improve evolutionary fitness and those that "improve our lives."

The concept of illegal insider trading doesn't really exist in the commodity markets and especially didn't before 2012. http://agfax.com/2015/08/19/market-insider-trading-apply-commodities-dtn/ http://www.marylandbusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com/2012/09/insider_trading_in_the_commodi.html

I think you've actually been proven right. The Fed has wanted to raise rates since 2013. They feel forced to continue ZIRP by the markets and current economic conditions. Sure, they have control over the Fed Fund Rate (FFR) and their reverse repo rate, but "real economy" rates are not within their purview. They can barely even influence short-term rates. Look how deposit rates at banks haven't budged since they raised the FFR last year and how Libor has been rising this year despite the fact that the Fed as been on hold.

99.999% sure this is incorrect. The standard is material, non public information obtained from somebody that had a duty not to disclose. You can't ask the CFO of a company what earnings will be next quarter then trade on it and say I never agreed not to trade on it. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN11S2RQ I know it sounds completely illogical, but that is basically the law of the land right now. A few cases are making their way to the Supreme Court (one will be there next term) that should shed some more light. But this "technically" wasn't insider trading. thinking about this, didnt insider obtain a benefit by currying favor with cooperman. admonishing not to trade doesnt absolve when tippee trades...so there is a classic breach of fid duty/nonpublic material info Ignoring the Newman court's ruling that a personal benefit received by a tipper must be "objective, consequential, and represent at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature", isn't the insider here arguably currying favor on behalf of the company (i.e., to stop Cooperman from selling and driving the price down)? If so, there was no breach of his duty.

I think Matt Levine's article gives a good summary of the legal arguments: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-21/one-cooperman-thought-another-s-trades-were-pretty-fishy (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

I don't have a solution for you, but am planning on using IBKR soon for my own SMA business. Is there some problem with IBKR that is forcing you to switch? Thanks