Mephistopheles

This thread is exactly the type of stuff Bill Maher talks about in this clip:

This thread does suck because of the absurd analyses by certain posters as Richard pointed out. As far as changing minds, and fact based arguing: I'll give an example of someone I disagree with incredibly (on gun control) - rkbabang. Still; I don't mind debating with this guy since he's civil and level headed. Hasn't changed my mind but has got me thinking at times and challenging my own beliefs.

That article is a year old...Obama ain't even president anymore lol

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim? Do you have proof of this? I can't find anything proving this. Edit: Seems like a load of bs

FWIW I just got back from a 3rd date with a girl. On the 2nd date we went to 2nd base. After which she said she didn't want anything physical on the 3rd date. 3rd date came and we went to 3rd, and left with her asking for more. Hmm, maybe Buffett is right after all.

Great, thanks Luke

+1 But I think the point of the OP was to discuss the Unilever fallout, maybe?

For some reason the dropbox page keeps crashing for me every time I try to play this. Tried it on 2 computers. Happen to anyone else?

Weschler and Combs would obviously be on that list, making the total >10 counting all the names presented here Another example of people taking Buffett way too literally. I'm sure he can name quite a few more than 10.

So what's the bias or fake news here? The article points out the fact that he was practicing in back of the car. I'd relate to your sentiment if they knocked him for it, but they didn't. Newsworthy? no. Fake? no.

Thats true, and quite fine. What is trite is that there is a huge double standard with the media, and with a lot of folks out there. A lot of people didn't vote for Obama yet you didn't see riots and widescale protests either time he was elected. Now the shoe is on the other foot and there is no shortage and people whining and crying about the injustices of "they didn't get their way". Trump comes in and you already have people licking their chops to call him a phony and a fraud for not doing what he said he was going to do. Then, unlike the modern day politician, he starts doing, exactly what he said he was going to do, and people are flabbergasted at the audacity of what he's doing. And no, I'm not even talking about the moronic, non educated silver spoon Hollywood types like Katy Perry, Scarlet Johanssen and Madonna. You can see examples of this here. Double standards exist everywhere - in the media and with the people, nothing we can do about it, hence stick with the merits. You can say people didn't riot against Obama, and I can say Obama didn't take on a campaign to question the legitimacy and legality of his predecessor, and it goes on and on. And again if people say Trump's a phony, well if they have a constructive reason, I'm all for that discussion. If it's just bullshit, well I'm all against it. Here I'll give you one just from today - the PC outrage that Kellyanne Conway was sitting on her knees in the oval office. Btw I'm no Obama fanboy and I think it was criminal how he treated private shareholders FNMA/FMCC. Just saying it to point out I'm capable of being unbiased.

"Obama did it too" doesn't make what Trump did right or wrong. We should judge every action on its merits. If we want to use that logic than I should point out that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Anything Trump does hasn't even come close.

if trump delivers justice, he will have a handful of community bankers + policemen + nurses in his office ---- they sold tens of billions of preferred securities to pension funds and community banks a mere months before the conservatorship. keep in mind i'm not talking bad about hera, some times investments fail. but the nws has stunk since the day I first read about it. I think the story can be told the way it is - instead of making the companies safe and sound, the previous Government "looted" them to fund failing Obamacare, or at least to balance the budget. This will lead to their needing another draw in the coming year at Taxpayer expense. Now "we" will make them safe and sound and bring in money to the taxpayer. We're going on the deep end of speculatory behavior, but just to add to the fun: "Communist Obama STOLE from mortgage companies to fund Obamacare which is a total disaster, making it harder for the blacks to get home loans! Homeownership levels are the lowest they've been in 47 years. SAD! Nobody knows real estate better than me, only I can fix!"

Yes there is remand for breach of contract, but people have very little faith in the Judge that it's remanded to.

Is there a scenario where the 3rd amendment is invalidated but the companies can't redeem the senior preferreds, and have to continue paying dividends on the full amount? Under the 2nd amendment, what power do the companies have to redeem the prefs? It appears from the language that they can't redeem as long as Treasury's funding commitment is ongoing. So Fannie, for instance, would continue paying $11.7 billion in dividends here, almost equal to their net income, leaving scraps for the junior and common. Fannie obviously has $117 billion liquidation preference, well below the $200 billion threshold for ending commitment, referenced below. This assumes that the companies stay in perpetual conservatorship without the NWS, because if they exit, obviously Treasury wouldn't have a funding commitment. But it gets me thinking that it is possible for the NWS to be overturned and we STILL getting screwed. Thoughts? Fannie's 2nd amendment to the SPSA: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095012309074293/w76743exv4w1.htm Fannie's 2011 10-k: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312512087297/d282546d10k.htm

A bit confused by this regarding the BAC preferred: "If the dividend rate on Bank of America common stock – now 30 cents annually – should rise above 44 cents before 2021, we would anticipate making a cashless exchange of our preferred into common. If the common dividend remains below 44 cents, it is highly probable that we will exercise the warrant immediately before it expires." I'm assuming 44 cents is significant because that would make the common dividend > their 6% preferred dividend. However, I always thought the warrant strike price got adjusted for common divs, so not sure why he cares. But my guess is that since the common dividend effectively results in a dividend reinvestment at market price and he'd rather take the cash if it amounts to greater than the preferred dividend.

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/berkshire-hathaway/2016-letter/ http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/berkshire-hathaway/fyi-2016-brk-letter-is-out/ http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/berkshire-hathaway/2016-letter-out/

Stupidity, racism, sexism, incest, and flat out lies. But you know.... Just that damn PC shit! All good points, but at least he's not crooked Hillary !

Didn't Sessions just get the gig? He might not even have made it to these cases yet

Are you referring to them banning cnn and nyt from the "gaggle"? Yep, quite scary

Yep, a concern I've raised repeatedly. I feel this possibility doesn't get discussed enough. Maybe better to sell some and buy Fairholme (and short Sears and Joe, lol)?

No position but in agreement with this. It starts getting speculative when you have to read between the lines and analyze tones. If Trump had not won (a seemingly improbable event), I can't imagine these securities would be trading anywhere near current market prices. I think a lot of the parsing is based on the narrative post-Mnuchin comments in November of last year. That's just what people choose to focus on. And, surprisingly, people (including on this board) seem to be ignoring the fact that the breach of implied covenant (dividends) and the breach of contract & implied covenant (liquidation preference) case gets to move on in district court -- something all three judges agreed on -- though that may be a function of ownership considerations (common vs. preferred). At least for me, I have very little faith in Lamberth given our previous experience. It's also largely because I'm not a lawyer, but based on my elementary reading, it just didn't seem like he gave a shit. So I take the DC case as a free call option, but I have higher hopes for Sweeney (again based on my amateur reading of the cases).

Trying to summarize everything with a 10,000 ft view: 1) Mnuchin once again expressed that conservatorship is not the answer. Together with previous comments that a) he doesn't want taxpayers at risk and b) he wants to preserve the 30 year mortgage, it's obvious that he wants privately owned solution. 2) So the question is, will he do this by a) bringing in new capital and screwing over current shareholders, or b) by returning the companies to their current shareholders? -IMO (a) is much harder, because he'd have to deal with the existing shareholders simultaneously. And how exactly would this work? Would he have to wind them down first, and then sponsor new companies, bring in new private capital? Is there any reasonable way for them to transfer the assets and obligations of FNMA/FMCC to a new private sector company with new shareholder capital? I'm not an expert here but I feel it would a total mess while also having to deal with the legal battles. And let's not forget that the clock is winding down and these companies will need a new Treasury draw at any moment. -(b) is the more practical solution. Yes it rewards hedge funds, but it's the quickest solution. Put an end to the legal battles, NWS, recap, privatize, not have to worry about future capital shortfalls. He has expressed several times that he wants the quickest possible solution. Not only does he want it, but it's better politically given the almost zero equity left, as well as the lawsuits. And this also brings in huge warrant profits for Trump to spend - wind down doesn't do that. He could of course recap them and make them public utilities and have the Govt reap the profits year after year, but that wouldn't be consistent with 1) not putting taxpayers at risk, 2) taking the huge political and financial windfall from the warrants. I think Trump would rather have 79.9% of the equity minus jr. preferred up front rather than have 100% of the net income for 4 (ok maybe 8 ) years.

Mnuchin on CNBC: -Says they've assembled a team at Treasury to work on F&F -Spoke with Mel Watt and Hensarling about a solution -Says the companies have been in this state for too long -Won't happen before tax reform, which they're aiming for before August recess -Reiterated want for bipartisan solution

Cooper: "We are continuing to evaluate the implications of yesterday’s decision, but at a minimum, it certainly strengthens our conviction that the Net Worth Sweep amounted to a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment." Sounds great but they could also be talking their book. Do you really expect them to come out and say the opposite? haha