Mephistopheles

This is bizarre, he seemed so enthusiastic about hearing this case.

+1 I agree. Let's inverse and assume all else was equal except the Judge was Lamberth in this case. Would the defendants really cause a fuss over $32? My guess is not. Prolonging the case is particularly beneficial for defendants in this instance: 1) Nobody is personally footing the legal bill for all the delay tactics, 2) Meanwhile the government lawyers continue to punch the clock, 3) Delay also means pushing more briefs/arguments to beyond the election, a significant benefit for Clinton, 4) The further out from Obama's Presidency this is settled, the less affect it will have on his legacy, or the legacy of anyone else involved. So, as silly and self-damaging trying to get him to recuse over $32 may be, it helps with the greater goal for the govt. There's really no reason for the defendants or their lawyers to act rationally here as would a private party in the same situation.

Wouldn't the whole thing be resolved if he simply sold his shares? I don't understand why this has to be such a process.

Silly Judge. The preferreds are obviously the better bet!

Me too. I always maxed out my post-tax 401k contributions. Then when I quit my job, I rolled my 401k plan into two separate accounts at the same time. The pre-tax contributions all went into a Rollover IRA. The post-tax contributions all went into a Roth IRA. Pretty cool. The post-tax 401k contributions were all allowed to go directly to a Roth IRA once I quit the job. It was not considered a "Roth conversion", and as such was not restricted by income limits. It's what some people call a "back door" Roth contribution. Are you legally able to allocate 100% of the pre-tax to the Rollover and 100% of the post-tax to the Roth? The reason I ask is because if you want to do a Roth conversion from a Traditional IRA, I'm pretty sure you can't do just the post-tax portion and ignore the rest. Meaning, you have to do it proportionally from what I know. So if only 10% of your total IRA assets are post-tax, only 10% of every conversion you do can be considered tax free. I may be wrong on this though, or the rules may be different for 401k transfers. But I know for sure this is true with state taxes in NJ; you can't just count your entire Roth conversion as the post-tax contribution amount, has to be proportional. I was a tax resident of Washington state where there is no state income tax. Here you are: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans Distributions sent to multiple destinations at the same time are treated as a single distribution for allocating pretax and after-tax amounts (Notice 2014-54). This means you can roll over all your pretax amounts to a traditional IRA or retirement plan and all your after-tax amounts to a different destination, such as a Roth IRA. That's awesome, thanks!

Me too. I always maxed out my post-tax 401k contributions. Then when I quit my job, I rolled my 401k plan into two separate accounts at the same time. The pre-tax contributions all went into a Rollover IRA. The post-tax contributions all went into a Roth IRA. Pretty cool. The post-tax 401k contributions were all allowed to go directly to a Roth IRA once I quit the job. It was not considered a "Roth conversion", and as such was not restricted by income limits. It's what some people call a "back door" Roth contribution. Are you legally able to allocate 100% of the pre-tax to the Rollover and 100% of the post-tax to the Roth? The reason I ask is because if you want to do a Roth conversion from a Traditional IRA, I'm pretty sure you can't do just the post-tax portion and ignore the rest. Meaning, you have to do it proportionally from what I know. So if only 10% of your total IRA assets are post-tax, only 10% of every conversion you do can be considered tax free. I may be wrong on this though, or the rules may be different for 401k transfers. But I know for sure this is true with state taxes in NJ; you can't just count your entire Roth conversion as the post-tax contribution amount, has to be proportional.

TwoCities, I thought in my first reply you understood I agreed with your point. Why are you beating me over the head with it a second time? LOL Sorry - was quoting that more for Mephistopheles and less for you. Not trying to beat you over the head with it - just demonstrating that even once you have a full understanding of the double taxation, that it doesn't really matter. Haha thanks, I got what you're saying :)

Right, the 8606 is for non deductible contributions for Federal purposes. But take a Traditional IRA which is fully deductible at the Federal level (up to $6k or whatever it is). Then you wouldn't need a 8606 because it's not post tax money for federal purposes right? But in some states, there is no such thing as IRA deductions. In which case that amount is deducted from gains as you say. I don't know what the form is for NJ, I'll have to check.

Boy would it be nice for all this to work out just as the rest of the market is crashing. Let's pray to atleast get to half of par by end of August!

New lawsuit filed in the District Court of DC http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Voacolo/16-01324-0001.pdf From GSE links: Peter Chapman writes, "David J. Voacolo, a New Jersey resident who purchased 50,000 shares of Fannie Mae common stock in Aug. 2009, sued Fannie, FHFA and Treasury earlier today. A copy of Mr. Voacolo's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is attached above. Mr. Voacolo is proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act and alleges an illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Based on what the government said following his purchase of Fannie Mae stock, Mr. Voacolo alleges that the government has earned a sufficient return on its investment and Fannie Mae's future profits should flow to common shareholders. Mr. Voacolo is represented by Alexander J. E. English, Esq., in Jessup, Md., and Afia SenGupta, Esq., and Angela Lipsman, Esq., at Brus Chambers LLC, in New York City. You'll recall seeing Mr. Voacolo and Brus Chambers' names in Exhibit 1 to FHFA's Transfer Motion presented to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Mar. 15, 2016."

Sorry to hear that. A friend of mine had a similar experience with his iPhone in NYC. He was fell asleep on the subway, and was awoken to a guy who took his iPhone out of his hand. He tried following him to retrieve the phone, the guy turned around and revealed a gun in his waistband, threatening to use it if he continues to follow. My friend called the police. Apparently since this occurred in the subway system, he had to specifically call the MTA police. So he called them, and they set up a time to interview my friend so he can file a report. 3 cops showed up to his apartment. My friend told them what happened and they immediately started interrogating him, as if he was the bad guy. He stuck with the story. They continued to intimidate and vigorously question everything he said. He wouldn't back down from his story. Then they told him that if he files the report, they will check the security cam at the place and time of the incident. If they don't see anything, then they'll go after him for lying to the police. This is when he gave up. No report filed.

Well the fact that the interest is doubly taxed is a deterrent for one. The interest paid comes from taxed salary. Then when you retire and withdraw that interest money it is taxed again. Secondly if there isn't a meaningful interest rate it is like free money, money that has never been taxed free for you to spend. When you say double taxed - do you mean since you can't deduct the interest rate that you pay to your 401k, as interest expense, as opposed to mortgage interest? Also, whatever you earn on the 401k, you'll have to pay taxes on when you take distributions, no? So what's the difference if you earn that from charging interest to yourself or you earn it from investment gains? It's not really a tax loss if you owe taxes no matter what. What he means is that the money you put into your 401(k) is tax deferred. You don't pay taxes on those deposits and their earnings until you withdraw money in retirement. So only one set of taxes - those paid when you withdraw. If you take a 401(k) loan and spend that money, you're paying back pre-tax contributions that you borrowed with post-tax dollars from your paycheck (tax #1). Then once it's paid back, you'll pay taxes on it again when you withdraw in retirement (tax #2). People say it's a bad idea to borrow from your 401(k) because of that double-taxation, but the point that I made above is that ALL forms of borrowing are paid post tax, so if you're going to have to borrow, that shouldn't be what keeps you from doing a lower interest option. Hmm ok. Say you take out a $100k loan, and pay back with interest $110k. When you retire and take distributions, you have to pay tax on the $100k which I agree is not really double taxation. But do you have to pay tax on the $10k interest as well? If so, then wouldn't that portion would be double taxation? I know when you take distributions from an IRA account, you don't have to pay state taxes on the amount you deposited post tax, at least in NJ which doesn't allow IRA deductions. So if you contribute $6,000 to an IRA, and that grows to $10,000. While you would owe Federal tax on the full $10k, you only owe it on $4k in NJ. Edit: On second thought the $10k isn't really double taxation because the lender/investor (401k) made a profit, just as you would from dividends on stocks. Therefore of course it would make sense to owe taxes on it. It just sucks if you're the borrower as well, but it makes sense.

Well the fact that the interest is doubly taxed is a deterrent for one. The interest paid comes from taxed salary. Then when you retire and withdraw that interest money it is taxed again. Secondly if there isn't a meaningful interest rate it is like free money, money that has never been taxed free for you to spend. When you say double taxed - do you mean since you can't deduct the interest rate that you pay to your 401k, as interest expense, as opposed to mortgage interest? Also, whatever you earn on the 401k, you'll have to pay taxes on when you take distributions, no? So what's the difference if you earn that from charging interest to yourself or you earn it from investment gains? It's not really a tax loss if you owe taxes no matter what. Which makes me wonder, can you borrow against a Roth 401k, or a Roth IRA? What is stopping someone from borrowing from themselves at like a 20% interest rate from a Roth, which can be used as an indirect way to contribute even more money to a retirement account? Or even if it's not a Roth, but a Traditional, what's stopping someone from overcharging interest to themselves in order to contribute more? Or are there laws preventing this?

Haha, I like all personal freedoms except the right to bear arms. He's more pro 2nd amendment than Trump unfortunately.

I wish there was a candidate who had Trump's foreign policy and Clinton's domestic/trade policies. It's amazing how Trump can be so rational with his fp - don't needlessly bomb other nations, be open to talking with other world leaders, even if they may not be our friends. Too bad he's a divisive demagogue here at home.

"reputable" is irrelevant here, he's done business and he's done it well. The guy is a self made billionaire which means he's pretty amazing. He has started thousands of companies during his life, and some of these have to fail and go bankrupt. That's the way business works. Well that goes back to the point, is wealth the only and definitive indicator of success? How about the Clintons? Making hundreds of millions by giving speeches to banks who want to buy their influence. Great business people? Be more specific please. Check out that NYT article, it goes into great detail. Well if it didn't make money, why would he do it? And if it didn't make money, surely that wasn't his intention. Who knows how much money he made with it? Whether he made a million bucks or 10 million, the point is that it's a dirty business and dirty product; to sell people on false hopes and dreams - it's not much different than a pyramid scheme. And in regards to the books - of course they are #1 best sellers: he's good at selling crap (his Candidacy for instance), I'll give him that. I think Charlie Munger's principle can be applicable here: "Only sell something that you would buy yourself"

Um - my response was specifically directed at the idea that Trump is a great businessman, therefore he will make a great President. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or anything else.

But that's the thing. If you're going to praise him for his business skills, then shouldn't he have a reputable business record? Even if the decline in his casinos is entirely to be blamed on the industry (which I don't think should be), well what does that say about him? It still doesn't prove how great he is. And more so, it's the shady deals that disproportionately benefited himself more than anyone else that I think is the bigger issue here. Would you tolerate that sort of behavior from a CEO of one of the stocks you own? Or look at Trump University, one of his "businesses". It was a total scam, as are his never ending series of books. He's a get rich quick con man from what I see. I wouldn't put that much faith in him as a great business person, let alone as a decent & honest one.

How is wealth and number of people under employment a real test? By the way there are serious doubts about how much of either Trump has created. I definitely wouldn't say it was spades. If wealth creation is a real test for the presidency then why even bother to hold an election. Problem solved - Gates/Buffett 2016 and let's skip the circus. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0 He certainly created wealth for himself...at the expense of his shareholders. Having a business insight is a good skill that can be used towards running a country, for sure. I'd take a Gates/Buffett monarchy over a Clinton or Trump presidency. Problem is that Trump is more like Jeff Skilling than Warren Buffett.

I'm glad that at least they're paying close attention to the supplemental briefs, which some folks wore worried they wouldn't be doing so this far along after the arguments. I hope this means they take into account the bold face lie in the 7.5% return number.

The Perry Appeal Judges just asked for more information from the parties, can't find the filing though but here is a picture on twitter:

I don't think Trump is racist. I don't even think he's a Conservative. He's a former Democrat and is on the record saying and supporting very liberal policies over the years. Clearly the things he's said for this past year have been a brilliant move on his part to win the GOP ticket. However, the hateful, fear mongering things that come out of his mouth have had consequences and not just at his rallies. For instance, violence against Muslims is at its highest since 9/11. A political strategy of inciting and at times encouraging hatred shows a severe lack of judgment and responsibility. This is not unlike what Bernie Sanders has done by demonizing the entire financial services industry.

Right, and starting an economic war with our biggest trading partners and threatening to default on our debt will help GDP skyrocket. Except Hillary Clinton never braggadociously lied about "self funding" her campaign. Hillary Clinton never made it a central selling point of her campaign that she is the only "truly independent" one for that reason. Hillary Clinton never ridiculed and mocked other candidates for taking money from the Koch brothers, only to turn around and ask them for money herself. That's the difference. And I don't know how much she contributed to her own campaign but I don't think you do either.

Today is the 1 year anniversary of the Charleston, SC terror attack where Caucasian Extremist Dylann Roof killed 9 African Americans in a mass shooting. In response, Donald Trump has pledged to ban all white people entering the United States until we figure out what the hell is going on! When asked for a comment, Mr. Trump said "This only happened because we allowed Dylann Roof's great great grandparents to immigrate to the U.S. through Ellis Island. How pathetic!"

I thought this too, but I think they avoided calculating the real return because it would involve speculation of future income - anything but a certain % number. To which the defendants can just say that it's all speculation and estimates and the plaintiff's number is just as questionable as their 7.5%. On the other hand, they might not want to suggest the 17-21% because it involves paying back the full liquidation preference without compensating for the over payment of dividends. I guess they don't want to risk this biting them in the ass. So I'm guessing they wanted to keep it simple for the judges by displaying the logic that it's obviously a bare minimum of 10% plus whatever they've received on top. But who knows, I'm no lawyer :)