merkhet

Munger also has another relevant quote here:

If Wheeler comes out the way I think he's leaning, it's going to be pretty positive for Fannie Mae shareholders.

Treasury has given a response to Grassley http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/04/21/treasury-department-fannie-freddie-bailout-wasnt-a-loan/

I think that research was done by Ian Ayers and Barry Nalebuff. They wrote a book called Lifecycle Investing.

To quote Munger on the difference between the Chinese and the Japanese: I suspect that Americans are gamblers as well. The Japanese have played the role of Mark Twain's cat to a tee ("having sat on a hot stove, he never sat on a hot stove again, but he also never sat on a cold one"). We're probably a little different than that.

Exactly this. It's natural to be a little worried when the sums become bigger, but keep in mind that it's always been and always will be a percentage of your savings anyway -- regardless of whether it's $1,000 (out of $10,000) or $100,000 (out of $1,000,000).

I also got the chance to ask Profess Shiller about negative rates. He mentioned that he was not too worried because they're only a little bit negative. He'd be more worried if they were more negative. In his estimation, he figures that it's a question of "well, what else are you going to do with your money?" His thought experiment is to imagine that you have $10 million, and your banker calls you up and says, "your rate is going to be negative." What are you going to do? Withdraw your money and put it in cash? That's a lot of suitcases to stuff under the mattress. Are you going to invest it in European equities? Well, most people are terrified of how Europe is doing economically, so they'd rather not -- i.e. it's a matter of taking a guaranteed very small loss (negative rates) versus gambling and possibly taking a very large loss in the markets.

He falls in the sometimes efficient and sometimes irrational crowd. Thanks. I wish I could be in a small roundtable discussion with him. Judge Sweeney next? Or is she disqualified for being a non-Yalie? Oh, believe me, if I could have a small roundtable discussion with Judge Sweeney, I'd be all over it -- pending a determination from my lawyers on the legality of such a talk, lol.

I didn't see anyone recording the talk, so I don't think there is a video.

He falls in the sometimes efficient and sometimes irrational crowd.

He didn't quite answer this about equity markets, but he addressed this in terms of bond markets. He stated that in the history of the bond markets from 1850s or so, there hadn't been a serious crash of any sort in the bond markets -- nothing on the level of equity markets. The worst dip he could find was a blip during 1982 when Volcker hiked up interest rates severely to break the back of inflation -- and even then bonds dropped 12%. Shiller thinks that Yellen is unlikely to do more damage than Volcker.

ARE WE IN A BUBBLE YET! And if we are what asset class? Assuming you meant equity markets. Not quite. Valuations are certainly high, but it's not quite irrationally so yet.

Anyone have experience with Wedbush as their prime broker?

I get to introduce Bob Shiller at the National Press Club tonight. Anyone have any questions they want me to ask during the Q&A?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-04-16/has-senator-grassley-been-co-opted-by-hedge-funds- Grassley interview on Bloomberg.

From one of the Noble Prize winners in economics upon going from academia to investing: "The view from the Hudson is different than the view from the Charles."

I've found the same thing. Not only does exercise help me modulate my sleep, it also helps me modulate my mood during the day. I'm also wondering about the people who sleep for only 4 to 5 hours a day. Most of the research that I've seen on the matter supports the idea that more sleep is necessary for proper storage of information and/or cleaning out the cobwebs. I get somewhere between 7 to 8 hours on average according to my FitBit.

No idea. I'm trying not to engage in idle speculation. It's a net positive, IMO.

I think that's from March 3rd, 2014. They mention winning a recent ruling on discovery, which was February of last year.

The name licensing agreement has the dual effect of providing a poison pill and enriching the CEO at the expense of the shareholders. Which one is more important to you, Mr. Biglari, and would you consider adopting a poison pill that does not impose such an onerous burden on shareholders?

I suppose the lack of credit purchases might make a difference on the margin, but does it really matter if most of the purchases are all cash or not? After all, the marginal buyer sets the prices. The margin only matters for the knock-on effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/business/charles-grassley-questions-diversion-of-fannie-and-freddie-earnings.html?_r=2 Charles Grassley Questions Diversion of Fannie and Freddie Earnings

It's strangely early for them to bring in a damages consultant.

Ah, I took that to mean that the 2% and 1% were realized losses compared to the net worth of the company versus investment loss -- i.e. let's say that operating companies comprise 90% of the value of the company, and the realized investment losses were 10% of the investment portfolio. As opposed to a 1% or 2% realized investment loss on the portfolio with the portfolio being the denominator. One of the things that helped Buffett with the Graham-type stocks was that he was quite the activist in his day -- though he currently eschews the strategy.

An alternative explanation for the 2% and 1% comments is that he's talking about permanent loss and not temporary markdowns.