dowfin1

This working paper supports your view that productivity gains will come. The final paper is behind a pay wall however. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14007.pdf

Financial losses suffered by investors from losing all the cases would be dwarfed by the immeasurable loss to the rule of law in the US.

My guess is that this team was hired to kill the SHLD thesis, and cannot do it but is still trying.

Try this planner which allows for variable returns, inflation, expenses, income etc. Its' versatile and lets you stress test your results. http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/planner-launch-page/

Truly deserved Sanj. Congrats.

Zach, theres a good chart in note 14 of the FNMA 10-k

Agreed. Quicken can track everything including investment returns by stock, account, time period, asset class etc. Have all my data input since 1993 and available in 1 file.

Post-C capital is more problematic than I thought which means that a substantial new capital raise with long transition rules will likely be necessary for the GSEs to emerge with substantial value for the common. It's a political calculus not a legal issue. IMO the jr. preferred is the smarter bet but a blend ala BB is not a bad idea either just in case.

I thought capital requirements for the GSEs were set by statute in 12 USC 4612: "For purposes of this subchapter, the minimum capital level for each enterprise shall be the sum of— (1) 2.50 percent of the aggregate on-balance sheet assets of the enterprise, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles..." As of 6-31-14, FNMA had total assets of $3,218 B and equity of $6.1 B or less than .2%. But with the remaining credit line from Treasury under the SPSA ( about $83 B), one could argue under sec. 4502 (23) that FNMA has total capital of $89 B available under conservatorship or 2.76% which meets the statutory minimum. Note that FNMA had cap ratios of 4.66%, 4.92%, and 4.98% before the crisis for YE 2005-07. While I agree plaintiffs are likely to prevail in court, you are correct that the consequences of a victory are uncertain -- and that's what gives me pause from increasing my position. Bad case scenario: 1. plaintiffs win 2. Treasury ordered to return $80 B. 3. Treasury terminates the SPSA under sec 6.7 and/or 6.12, and demands full repayment 4. FHFA deems the GSEs critically undercapitalized and converts them to a receivership. Obviously there are other possible scenarios, but it's obvious that we need Treasury cooperation/support even if the cases are won.

Attached is a copy of the discovery order. We'll see document demands, frivolous objections, multiple motions to compel/sanctions, and ultimately depositions of DeMarco, Geithner, Lockhart, and Paulson even before any hearing on the dismissal motion. Promises to be a great sideshow. discovery_order_2-26-2014.pdf

Great job over the years, Sanjeev. I'm in.

Here are more excerpts from Sequoia letters that provide contemporaneous explanations. Sequoia_1973-74_letters_excerpts_WSJ_5-7-01.pdf

A very good presentation by a criminal law expert on talking to police.

valuecfa, Shrinking mortgage assets to $250B over time will reduce earnings for capital build, even if some of the illegal sweep is applied to principal on the senior preferred upon successful litigation. With a prolonged litigation, I worry that a liquidation at the end is insufficient to pay the preferreds at par or even close. How do you think about this? Thanks.

The environmental intelligentsia may be changing their minds about nuclear.