merkhet

Yup, just made an edit to reference that, but it's interesting to me. Also, I recently mentioned to someone that it's curious that Millstein has been particularly quiet lately, and then saw that the HuffPo article went after him pretty hard.

The HuffPo article is particularly interesting: This fight seems to be heating up, and it's curious to me why it's heating up at this exact moment. Clearly, folks on Capitol Hill are starting to feel a little hot around the collar (Corker's ambush of Ackman makes more sense now) but it's not clear how that's going to play out.

Two more articles: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lobby-firm-tied-into-barney-frank-nancy-pelosi-uses-lefty-groups-to-help-fannie-invested-hedge-funds/article/2591280#.VzYPPBTplGA.twitter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vulture-fund-lobbying_us_57350001e4b077d4d6f2a374

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/12/hedge-fund-cash-flows-to-gop-lawmakers-seeking-to-loosen-government-grip-on-fannie-and-freddie/?mod=WSJBlog And another article on campaign contributions.

It seems a little odd that the WSJ is reporting on the Fannie & Freddie lobbying just now. This has been going on for a while, no?

Haven't re-read the whole thing, but I don't disagree with your points.

As they themselves mentioned at the meeting, you don't go to church to hear something new; you go to church to hear the old things harped on again and again.

The Wesco letters have some interesting things to say about Freddie.

Another unsealing request I'd like to see some more pressure on the government. This has dragged long enough.

They already mentioned that Watt said the GSEs need capital in their 4623 brief. (It's towards the end.) Not sure what the FNMA CEO says matters he is not part of FHFA.

I quite enjoyed that. Thanks!

This one has been on my radar for some time, but never been 'at the right price'. It has recently had a pullback along with financials more generally. I believe it to be a very well run bank. Any thoughts on whats a 'right price' for such a company with a fair bit of growth runway ahead of it? Thoughts on the Carson Block presentation on Bank of the Ozarks?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fannie-mae-ceo-says-its-not-sustainable-to-operate-without-capital-2016-05-05?siteid=yhoof2 I think this is the second time that Mayopoulus has mentioned this?

Yea, I'm not sure what the hold up is at this point...

The George Will article helps a lot.

I'm not saying he is mentally slowing down. But literally the pace of his answers was very slow, which kind of gave me the impression of fatigue. And he did certainly have trouble catching the gist of some of the questions, although I agree that some of those questions went on and on and on at ridiculous lengths. I had at the same He did seem to measure his answers as he gave them out. Wonder how much of it was because of the new format where the whole world could be listening, not just the shareholders. He's in his element with this being a shareholder only event, the intimacy goes out with the webcast. I had the same thought for the morning portion, but Buffett seemed to have gone back to normal by the afternoon. Maybe he was just hungry. The afternoon felt like the other years.

Must be nice having access to bespoke options I've never heard of a bar bet being labeled a bespoke option before, lol. Maybe Dan can get some bespoke reinsurance from you for a share of the liability. :P

I bought 1/100th of a put option on VRX @ $9 w/ a strike price of $33 expiring on 1/20/2017. Friendly bet with a friend & fellow annual meeting groupie.

Yes. They are pass through entities, so if the entities have taxable realized gains, then you have to pay them. It sucks, but remember, it is better than the alternative of claiming a tax loss. :)

Yea. The implication is that there wouldn't be a reason to move to Kentucky if he was going to dismiss the original case given that it just means that he'd take on an increased case load, but the alternative theory is he could just dismiss all of them on 4617(f). It's interesting that Judge Thapar mentions in his filing that he agrees with the plaintiff that "justice delayed is justice denied." Image attached. Sure, but he could view justice through the eyes of the government. Always remember, no man is the villain of his own life story. There are always people on the other side who believe just as fervently that they are on the side of righteousness.

Yea. The implication is that there wouldn't be a reason to move to Kentucky if he was going to dismiss the original case given that it just means that he'd take on an increased case load, but the alternative theory is he could just dismiss all of them on 4617(f).

I think you are taking the "not seeing" part too literally. It is more that a person might give a heavier weight to favorable aspects of a thesis and a lighter weight to unfavorable aspects of a thesis -- regardless of what the objective weighting might be. That is one of the key takeaways from Tversky & Kahneman. Alternatively, you can read Dan Kahan's research (http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/09/24/political-beliefs-affect-objectivity/) on internal biases towards objectivity. Two men can see through the same window, and one can see the stars while the other sees the mud. It does not mean that either of them has an eyesight problem. But we can take this offline so as not to muck up the Fannie thread. You have my email.

@cherzeca, I did not miss your point. I think you're way over-reading into the word "bias" some form of "denigration of your aptitude to reason." Charlie Munger is miles more rational than either you or me, and even he has mentioned that he has various cognitive biases that are hard to root out. (Daniel Kahneman has mentioned the same thing, and he was one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on cognitive biases.) It would be the height of arrogance for either of us to believe that we are wholly without cognitive bias and/or the only Spock-level rational being on the planet. One can have all the facts, have done all the work, be reasonably intelligent, and yet, surprisingly, still fall into the realm of succumbing to a cognitive bias. (See any number of CoBF threads in which reasonably hard-working and intelligent people have misinterpreted every poor turn of events as the harbinger of sunshine and rainbows right around the corner.) The reason being that such cognitive biases are hard wired into our biology. This is not casting aspersions on any given individual but rather casting, appropriately, aspersions on a species whose development was necessarily crafted to have cognitive biases as various cognitive biases function rather well as heuristics in a particular time period and/or context outside of the one we currently inhabit. I believe that I have done a pretty significant amount of work on Fannie Mae. I believe that I have marshaled a fairly decent understanding of the facts at work here. I believe myself to be reasonably intelligent. I have a pretty good amount of conviction in my investment thesis on Fannie Mae. Having said all of that, I am still cognizant of the fact that I might be missing something because of some cognitive bias that makes it difficult for me to see things from a purely objective basis. To put it another way, I think you see worries of bias as a reflection of ability -- I see worries of bias as a reflection of humility. We can, of course, agree to disagree on this.

i thought bias meant that you had assessed the other side and discounted it, but others haven't done the work that you have done and cant understand why you have discounted it, and they therefore conclude that you simply dont see it... Sure, bias can also mean overly discounting it (i.e. finding it hard to see the other side) but we're largely talking semantics now. I found it incredibly odd that Corker would take his time to talk about Fannie and Freddie...

Bias means you find it hard/impossible to see the other side. Conviction does not mean that. You can have conviction and still see the other side.