orthopa

Just thought about this. We are r getting into hurricane season and there are a couple that have been percolating in the Atlantic. Does that even have an effect this year with deep sea drilling the last thing that companies want to do? What effect would a hurricane have on knocking out a bunch of refineries and deep see drilling platforms.

I don't know why the Fed has to do anything. They back themselves into a corner bc of their verbage. For some reason they feel they have to respond to the markets. They could have just sit back and said we may sit still for a long time we may not, and just leave it at that. There is no perfect time to raise rates but when it becomes obvious ie inflation, out of control growth its the right time to do it. Trying to time it like they have is a fools game. There is no perfect time when the economy is what it is. As a young (early 30's) investor Im happy as a pig in $hit with the recent drop. Just wish I kept more dry powder as always. Sucks to look at the net worth but it will be worth it in the end. As value investors we should live for these moments and get giddy for 20% drops. Some I'm sure are but for some reason as Buffett says its perverse that lower prices scare people. Maybe its the red on the screen, or the scary forecasts. If it was hamburgers everyone would be loving it.

Interesting, so now the White House wants to see if there is an obvious smoking gun now?

BP, XOM, CVX, AAPL, V, BRK-B. All in IRA

If (us) Americans were smart we would welcome this chance to keep our precious resource in the ground and over time use up everyone else -s oil. I think Charlie Munger made this point. Its not going to go bad, keep it in the ground. Capitalism dictates otherwise though.

I agree, I feel like I am biased bc of my long position but where are the counter points and arguments? Either there really are none or no one wants to stick their neck out and look like a fool. I have'nt read much from Carney lately. Is he still publishing stuff?

At some point I read he was going to systematically decrease exposure as the price rose. Presumably because value was less. I have a decent % of my portfolio in the warrants and happy with their return so far this year. He has a big chunk of those too but not much relative the his AUM I presume. The warrants were at steal at 5-7 a couple of years ago. FWIW the AIG investment has been much more successful for him then others, namely SHLD but that story may still have a way to play out.

Im in the camp that oil will eventually will be higher in the future. I of course have no idea when or by how much for how long. I am comfortable though holding a diversified major like BP/CVX/XOM at current prices. They seem committed to the dividend (well aware that may change) and have diversified sources of revenue as well as the ability to cut costs to cover the dividend. Since these companies spend so much a say 10% cut in spending would cover ~30% of the dividend. The lower cap ex not only cushions the dividend but reinforces lower output over time. Im happy with a 6.6%ish dividend from BP with chance of upside.

In the NYT response "The potential harm to FHFA in its ability to operate the conservatorships, and the grave market consequences should sensitive information be made public vastly outweighs the concededly non-existent “right” to access discovery material" What ability? How exactly are they "operating the conservatorship"? Grave consequences? Really? Sounds like we got a lot of important shit we dont want coming out and we F'd up. "The information contained in the deposition transcripts is Protected Information, as defined in this Court’s valid protective order, and public disclosure of this information is likely to cause tangible harm" Sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Im buying more today. :)

Just read the gov response. What the hell besides incriminating documents would affect markets so much 6-7 years later? "the grave harm to the nation’s economy that would result from the disclosure of information subject to the protective order, inadvertent or otherwise” Makes no sense. Something really good must be protected, not that this point hasn't already been made.

With today as important as it is both the common and preferred are pretty quiet today.

It does make me wonder why Fairholmes lawyers didnt think of this already. No, I mean the idea that the briefing suspension has to do with a Delaware ruling of some sort. The Delaware amicus brief is incredibly credible. It's just that no one has any evidence as to the why of the briefing suspension. I agree, who knows with the briefing suspension but the Delaware amicus breif makes perfect sense. I think it pretty much in black in white says that all of the profits cannot be sweeped in totality and in perpetuity for a Delaware corporation. Takes a lot of the time consuming interpration of the whole situation otherwise out of the discussion.

Maybe I'm just highly gullible but reading that value play link and its reasoning makes perfect sense to me. Granted it seems like everything I read is published by pro Fannie shareholder outlets, value play, SA, Fairholme, Pershing but I'm having a hard time seeing how shareholders lose this one. I have both common and preferred as I have a hard time arguing against both Fairholmes and Pershing's reasoning. Not sure which is better. I have about 4% of my portfolio in common and preferred and spend more time every weekend thinking it should be more.

I wont be/wasnt able to listen. Please let us know if anything good was said.

FWIW bought more common today. Hopefully not anchor bias but hard to see how shareholders lose this one.

This is probably what the Government will be arguing in its response to Fairholme's Motion to Unseal -- that the jurisdictional discovery does not require anything other than legal analysis, so there's no reason for Fairholme to have to involve anyone else in the analysis. However, that's not actually the standard -- the standard is that the information actually be required to be kept under seal because it falls under the definition of protected information. This is nonsensical given that I can't tell how Fairholme received any sort of economic benefit from disclosing the privilege log in February 2012. And also, still not the point! The point is whether the information deserves to be under seal. Redacted Deloitte Motion: There is an internal memo dated March 23, 2012 from Deloitte that indicates that Treasury is in control of FHFA. Redacted Fannie Mae Motion: There is a July 19, 2012 board meeting presentation that shows that there was no GSE death spiral. Also, there is apparently an August 9, 2012 Treasury meeting presentation showing the same. Redacted Grant Thorton Motion: The redaction seems to show that Grant Thorton's documents/analysis does not show that the GSEs were going to have a circular draw. There is a lot redacted here, so it's hard to tell much more. Redacted PwC Motion: There is apparently a Freddie Mac consultation memo that directly contradicts the idea that Treasury does not control FHFA. Moreover, there seems to be an August 7, 2012 PwC memo that also contradicts the idea that the GSEs would be unable to meet the 10% dividend requirements. Redacted Treasury & FHFA Motion: (save the best for last) There is apparently an August 2008 memo that talks about the DTAs. Probably indicating that they would have to write down the DTAs but that the DTAs would come back with profitability. Mario Ugoletti wrote an e-amil which suggests that Treasury does have control of FHFA. And last, but not least, there is an e-mail suggesting that there was a political motivation behind the Net Worth Sweep -- my guess is that the e-mail suggest that the Administration could use the GSE cash flows to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. These all seem to be pretty damning documents. Makes me wonder how shareholders could lose now? Its it as obvious as it seems or am I missing something. I can keep up on this legal verbage for sh*t though.

I have averaged down LUK since 2008. My average price is about $22. There has been a few times in the past where it has reach $35 and it has come back down again since then. I am fine with holding it a long time. I guess I should hold on to it and get ready to reduce when it reach mid $35 (around 1.2 BV) probably. Has the IV of the company increased since you bought it in 2008?

I think its also important to understand why its under performing. If you feel like you can truly value the company and the market is just not giving it the value justified then I dont see that as a reason to sell. In Grahams words the market is there to serve you not guide you. If a stock is under performing because the business is consistently under performing then that is a clear sign to sell or rethink its value to see if you made a mistake. I have a large portion of my portfolio in PM and it has traded sideways for a couple years due to currency issues. The underlying business is doing great. It has been a slight drag on my portfolio outside of the divs but I believe the currency issues will eventually swing to a tailwind. As a result Im comfortable holding it. If the underlying business fundamental deteriorate then I need to re examine things. Under performance is usually magnified by gross exposure so lightening up a little will make it a less painful. Again if its a stock you believe good enough to hold for 10 years even if the market closed (quoting Buffett again) the under performance could be a market misjudgement that you have to wait out.

Im not terribly versed in Teledyne but I would imagine some of this had to do with Buffetts ability to invest in many sectors/companies as well as structure or participate in favorable deals such as workouts, spin offs, sanborn map situation. Singletons circle of competence was maybe implied to be limited to his business and its sector. Singleton did a lot of smart common sense things for his company but likely didnt have the ability to go through moodys manual and find stocks that were undervalued in many different sectors or find business qualities that made up a great business to make alot of money a

Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any? +2. Why cant legal speak be straight forward?

Yes, or is it just looked at as non sense.

Bought some more BP today, 6.2% div yield. :)

Its interesting that the NYT now wants access to the depositions. Public pressure is at least palpable now. For those with a legal background is this meaningful or just a lot of noise?

A large cap name I have a big chunk of my net worth in is PM and is currently going through the same issue. Current earnings would be 25% higher if the dollar reversed to where it was 1-2 years ago. Over the past couple of years it has traded sideways as a result and its been running into the FX wind head first. I look at it as a company growing eps ~12% a year on a currency neutral basis plus a 5% div at today's prices. Im OK holding PM for a very long time so although while annoying I know the piece of the business I own in growing faster then what eps is showing. I would say your willingness to invest would be based on how long you plan on holding and your short to medium term view on Fed interest rate policy and what the dollar will do. Holding a business for a long time smooths out currency issues in my mind. The shorter the time frame the more it would change whether or not I would invest as realized value would likely be due to currency changes alone which I cant predict.

Looks like the price of FNMAJ with its div is pretty attractive vs other issues. Im going to get some monday if there is a decent ask. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EppcoQ2bZtoEb25XmXSdpZiQGnnB27mP_gCORsoP6F8/edit?pli=1#gid=0