merkhet

No idea. Too vague a question. It'd be difficult for defendants to reference materials that plaintiffs don't have without having to hand over those materials. That's certainly a possible outcome, but I think it's unlikely. I think the analogy I used before is that you plant an apple orchard and a few weeks later, the government takes the property. Do you get paid the value of the raw land or the value of the orchard? It'll depend on how the damages section gets litigated and where the judge sides on it. Also, another reason to not to own the common. It's hard to argue what the common will be worth. There's no anchor that you can latch on to and provide a valuation. It's a lot easier to argue that there was going to be $X dollars coming into the enterprise and therefore preferreds should be valued at par.

They actually don't charge for the annual meeting. Years ago, Buffett realized that some shareholders might try to scalp the passes to his annual meeting, and he didn't want people to have to pay some exorbitant sum to come see him. He decided that he would charge $5.00 to cover the cost of shipping & handling to thwart scalpers.

I wonder if there is some "intensity" aspect to the threads that underperform. In other words, it's not just popularity but rather the intensity of devotion of some particularly passionate folks that is the signal to the underperformance.

I believe the 40% CAGR was prior to the recent swoon in the markets. Still a fantastic record though. Also, many of his investments started as a venture-type investments, which I suspect helped. Picked up a lot of "_____ but for China" type tech investments at the startup stage.

My judgment of a stock (or a basket such as these stocks) is whether it (or they) beat the market. So if I make a equal weighted basket of these stocks, how would I do? I am guessing here but holding basket of these stocks for the last 5yrs would lag the S&P 500 which returned 80% cumulative. That's a very different statement than your initial one. I suspect that many of the most talked about threads do underperform, but that's not the same as saying that the top most talked about stocks are not good performers.

Hun? It shows that out of 13 stocks, 5 were good performers and 7 were poor performers. (You have FCAU as unknown...) How does this show that the top most talked about stocks were not good performers?

Footnote 4: There are quite a few issues that we have not addressed here that would need to be in converting this general model into legislation: the details of the charter creating the NMRC, how to address Fannie and Freddie’s shareholders, and details on how this model would function in the multifamily market, to name but a few. Interesting that they bothered to call out the shareholder issue at all.

Looks like they've posted the eBay listing for 2016 Berkshire Shareholder passes http://www.ebay.com/itm/172143089973

@cherzeca, I wasn't saying that the MDL would necessarily be successful in consolidating the Jacobs case w/ the rest of the cases. I was merely saying that there is no requirement that a case have two or more common questions of fact. For some reason, there is an idea floating around out there that two or more common questions of fact are required, but that's just not true from a statutory standpoint. I haven't a clue whether in practice the courts don't consolidate unless there are two or more common questions of fact. @mm The reason @cherzeca said that FHFA might have reconsidered trying to consolidate the cases into DC is that if the Perry Appeal is favorable towards plaintiffs, then they have basically checkmated themselves because a win in Perry would be binding on all the pending cases before the DC district-level courts.

Confirmation bias in action. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1407 The actual statute allows for transfer if one or more common questions of fact exist. In fact, the thing you googled states exactly the same thing a paragraph before the quote you pulled out: So one common question of fact is enough to allow transfer. Whether, in practice, the courts require two or more common questions of fact is an entirely different question.

Out of curiosity, how are people playing this? Short Canadian banks? Canadian development companies?

Interesting numbers, JBTC. Too bad they didn't segment it out in terms of metro. Would be interesting to see if owner's equity is significantly lower in Vancouver & Toronto.

They might. Depends on how badly they lose the case. Also, I believe an en banc rehearing requires a majority vote of active judges and is somewhat difficult to put together. Basically, you'd have to bring everyone together for the implied purpose that your judicial colleagues screwed it up royally. Then you have to see each other in the lunch room.

Ginsburg is now teaching part-time @ NYU. Coincidentally, his former professor Richard Epstein also teaches there. :)

Already been assigned to Brown, Ginsburg & Millet. The calculations are just for fun.

Right. I'm assuming the other 15 are neutral, or evenly balanced. So 1 favorable could end up tipping the scales favorably. Ah, gotcha. I would much prefer to have the two slanted in our favor as we have been screwed before. :) if i were judge sleet, i would be pissed that fhfa filed a motion to dismiss, has it fully briefed, asks for oral argument, and then decides to move the case away from me. but then again, i am not sleet...not even a lite drizzle. Agree. It's a pretty naked ploy to delay, and I'm hoping Judge Sleet sees it as the same.

Two words: platform value

Except you need two to win. 2 out of 3.

From Peter Chapman: The Clerk made a notation on the docket sheet in Jacobs v. FHFA this afternoon that Judge Sleet has directed the lawyers to organize a teleconference at 10:00 a.m. on Mon., Mar. 28, 2016, and patch his chambers into the the call once everybody's assembled. The purpose of the call is to discuss the government's motions to dismiss (which are now fully briefed) and the transfer notice FHFA delivered to the Court earlier this week.

I feel like I have made this argument to many of my friends on both sides of the aisle who are flummoxed by the rise of Trump. People keep saying that they don't understand how anyone could logically support Trump. Except that's just the thing. People aren't logically supporting Trump. Logic has nothing to do with it. Trump is a masterful emotional manipulator. He's hijacking people's System 1 and using that to just completely bypass people's System 2. It's why rational people outside of his vortex look at his supporters and think, "wtf?"

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/412/133/544710/ I would note that the discussion of Chamber of Commerce vs. SEC was pretty interesting in that Judge Ginsburg found that the SEC did not do enough to justify its actions despite having been able to show that it did do some things to satisfy the APA. One wonders what Justice Ginsburg will think of an administrative agency's (A) inability to produce an administrative record and (B) lying as to what it did or did not consider in making its decisions.

Hahaha. This panel of judges is shaping up to be a murderer's row!

Thank my fiancée for her infinite patience while waiting for me to finish that research/post while we are on vacation in Malaysia. :) Side note: I highly recommend that people visit Kuala Lumpur. This city is fantastic.

So I've been doing some research this morning on Judge Douglas Ginsburg. Here's what I've found: http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/magazine/2011/introducing-douglas-h-ginsburg/ Note that originalism and textualism are not quite the same. Arguably, Lamberth examined things in a (half-assed) textualist way while originalism seeks to interpret laws in a fixed context. http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/douglas-ginsburg-2015-hayek-lecture http://www.hks.harvard.edu/index.php/content/download/70574/1255106/version/1/file/RPP_2014_22_Sunstein.pdf The article is clearly written by Sunstein as an opprobrium on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and, in particular Judges Brown & Ginsburg, but it seems like he is indicating that they would be both be favorably inclined in our case. Moreover, there is a section where Sunstein mentions that both of these judges tend to rule in ways that validate their extrajudicial views of a libertarian administrative law framework. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/law-journals/gjlpp/upload/zs800112000001.pdf I do not think I would want to argue in front of Ginsburg & Brown as the government in this case.

Indeed. They cost of carry is what made that risky. Agree that prices weren't sustainable, but it's not altogether clear to me that the market couldn't have continued staying irrational long enough for Burry to have paid out all his AUM as carry. Remember too that his CDS bets stayed largely worthless until things got very, very bad. Prior to that, scaling down wouldn't have netted him much money. It would only serve to reduce the cost of carry and reduce the notional payout. But hey, maybe Burry had done enough research to know that the particular loans he bet against would sour at a particular time irrespective of how the broader market held up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯