Mephistopheles

Wow What's amazing is that the previous judge was ready to go ahead with oral arguments! I'm beginning to lose faith here

Nope. Some May arguments have been decided while still waiting for some in March. Those are the 3 months I checked. There have also been some releases from as far back as last October in the past month. And a fair amount from January/Feb. My guess is before NYE, but after Thanksgiving. Just a guess

More than half done with the April arguments. GSE case is likely much more complicated than many others, but it's good to see they are working through April cases at a decent clip... better than 3 or 4 from April being completed. GSE case likely will be an outlier and have a longer timeframe than most, but that's not such a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The Captain Kirk side of me wants my emotions to be catered to with a quick decision, but the Spock side of me is comfortable with a lengthy decision process (especially given what Hume has said on the matter). Plus, the longer it takes the more of my shares gain long-term tax status which will save me a pretty penny on any gains. After 3 years, I can safely say that all of my shares are long term :D

There were 33 arguments in April; so far we've had 18 decisions.

How did you know that? :o But I guess that's normal with this guy. Having been burned by the Chinese reverse mergers, I guess he finally saved enough money to get back into the game again, so he is desperately needing to swing through the fence and make a large profit. Then he can start bragging about his legendary trade. In his Seeking Alpha I believe he's disclosed taking out a loan and owns 60,000 prefs or something

He's also apparently invested 150% or so of his net worth in the prefs...

So they are either: a) incompetent b) conforming/cowardly c) lazy d) bribed Lamberth and Cacheris could have been any of the above; as they didn't prove otherwise. Sweeney has proved that she is not lazy by allowing this to go on for this long and extend it until at least next May at the very least. She's also proven she has guts by releasing these documents not only to the public but to other Courts. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if she's competent or not. Millet, Gingsburg, and Brown have also demonstrated lack of laziness by following up for more information. Based on Brown's history, I assume were it the right choice, she'd have the guts to do it. Also not sure of competence. So, as long as the above don't get bribed, I think we're in good hands. If they wanted to clear their desks, they would have done so by now. At least these judges have given the plaintiffs the light of day, unlike Lamberth and Cacheris. And I think this is where Hume was going when he said the longer it takes for the appeal decision, the better it is for us. But I may just be biased. Only time will tell.

Just like Lamberth's. And I can tell you that as someone who has limited knowledge of the law, I felt Lamberth's was embarrassingly awful and cringeworthy. And now this one. Makes me seriously wonder if these judges are getting paid off by the Govt.

@merk, Why would they not want to say that the direct claims were transferred? What's the benefit to them?

Slow in Sweeney's court Slow in Sleet's court Nerve wracking wait for appeal decision Could Sweeney and Sleet be purposefully delaying to see what Ginsgburg and co say? If so that doesn't sound like a good sign. And then there's the Kentucky case with the recused judge, and no update from new judge. Getting kind of burned out waiting around like this. Justice delayed might as well be justice denied.

There were 33 oral arguments in the DC District Court of Appeals April, and thus far 17 of them have been opined. If anyone's holding their breath for a release any time soon, don't. :/

I really hope we get reversal although we probably won't. Remand would be nice and I'm sure the shares will pop until we realize that now what, another 2 years for the new decision? Going to be rather anti climatic.

I don't think it does, as they have to have unanimous agreement to whatever they decide. Just a guess

Cherzeca, can the Piszel ruling mean that if the District Court were to affirm the dismissal of the breach of contract claims in our case, that then our contracts qualify for a takings in the Court of Claims? So in effect, does it ensure a safer backstop for us were we to lose in the DC?

Sometimes you need to indulge in a vice for your sanity lol So...over/under (before/after) Labor Day?

Serious question, do you guys want to take bets on decision date? We can even give better odds to the near term dates. Waiting around like this is agonizing, might as well have some fun with it. Anyone interested let me know.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment. Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

Big reduction in Walmart. Looks like Buffett sees it as a serious disadvantage to Amazon.

Ah, got it. I agree this isn't going to be as big as housing. And I get the concept of the car being more essential than the home. My concern is the 2nd and 3rd cars. If you have a family of 4 with 2/3 cars, well maybe they can manage to lose all but one of the cars.

Yes, it does. Although people losing their car(s) is obviously much different than losing their home. I doubt there will be much economic significance if a large number of people default on their auto payments. When we're talking about the poorest borrowers their car is their lifeline. Outside of major metro areas like NYC/DC/SF if you don't have a car you can't make money. People can find a place to stay at night easier than finding a new job. This is much worse than homes, the impact will be smaller, but it's a canary in the coal mine for other issues. Why do you think this will be much worse than homes, by which I assume you're referring to the housing crisis?

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket. The veto is in the power of the President/Governor. It's one of the powers granted in the separation of powers.

I did a limitsd sampling of DC Appeals Court decisions that were delivered in July and August so far, and most of them were argued from Mar-May, but a few go back as far as Oct or Nov of last year. Based on that timeline, we may not get an answer until Jan/Feb. Given the significance of this case, I'm not holding my breath for it to happen sooner... Hopefully we hear more from Sweeney and Sleet by then. What a drag though :(

lol , pretty obvious right? I'm surprised that Obama hasn't taken the "make $100B for the taxpayer" path yet... Probably waiting for push comes to shove from the Courts as we get to see more and more documents.

Because both Paulson and Icahn are (I'm assuming) significant donors to his campaign and potential re-election bid in 2020. If it's helpful to follow the money in politics, in this case it screams in support of GSE release/recap. He did consider Corker, but I'd be surprised if he had any idea of his GSE proposals. But in any case, he didn't choose him. Maybe Uncle Carl disapproved? ;) In contrast, Clinton is definitely worse for us as her housing policy is likely a continuation of Obama's + ties to the big banks.

I think it's because he likes to focus on absolute returns rather than comparing to the market in every single time period. This is to prevent a total reliance on the market. For instance if the Dow drops 20% and he loses 18%, that would mean he takes compensation for beating the market even though clients lost money.