Mephistopheles

Well you wouldn't have to put in all your trades, just the deposits/withdrawals from your account. Actually, you should include all of your investable liquid assets, whether they are in your investment account or not. So basically you would need to know the net aggregate inflows/outflows into your liquid asset accounts.

Not from a political angle. If Clinton wins, the odds are still pretty good with the legal avenue. If Trump wins, they're significantly better, so even at 3:1, it makes a difference. That's a 25% shot at maybe 80-90% chance of release? And Trump is coming off his worst couple of weeks, who knows what will happen in the next few months? It might all reverse as HRC is still very much hated.

I do dollar weighted. So if I put in x amount of money into my portfolio, I assume I've put in the same amount in a total return index. I think this is a more accurate and fair comparison of ones abilities.

Agreed. The more that I think about it, I firmly believe that a Trump win significantly improves our odds. He's made it loud and clear that he wanted Icahn not just as an adviser, but as Treasury Secretary. Maybe Icahn refused both of these positions to avoid any sort of conflict all together? Maybe he plans on loading up on FNMA/FMCC if Trump wins... I'd like to see Ackman join the Trump train - if so, it's a near guarantee that a Trump win = shareholder win. Has anyone looked into Trump's financial disclosure from last year? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TrumpFinancialDisclosure20150722.pdf Pg. 35, line 15, 16, 17: $1-5 million each in 3 of Paulson's funds Pg. 43, line 28: $500,000 - $1 million in FNMA Edit: it also shows "interest" of between $1,001 and $2,500 for the FNMA position, so he owns bonds and not stock. Still, the Paulson investments make this interesting.

I agree with Vinod. Just because Buffett doesn't voluntarily pay more taxes than he legally owes, doesn't make him a hypocrite for advocating for higher tax rates! I don't understand the logic of people who say otherwise. The idea isn't for him to pay more taxes himself; everyone hates paying taxes, including him. The idea is to have a fiscal policy in place that is in his view fairer. He can pay 100% of his net worth in taxes and it wouldn't make a difference if the policy remains the way it is! The goal is to fight social inequity, not to personally pay more in taxes! And needless to say, he is putting 99% of his money where his mouth is in helping solve these inequities. It's like saying: "If you're concerned about inflation and think the Fed should therefore raise rates, you would be a hypocrite for taking advantage of 0% financing." Does that not sound silly? Having said that, I don't agree with many of Buffett's arguments and do believe that a lot of what he says on this topic is misleading and self serving.

Agreed. The more that I think about it, I firmly believe that a Trump win significantly improves our odds. He's made it loud and clear that he wanted Icahn not just as an adviser, but as Treasury Secretary. Maybe Icahn refused both of these positions to avoid any sort of conflict all together? Maybe he plans on loading up on FNMA/FMCC if Trump wins... I'd like to see Ackman join the Trump train - if so, it's a near guarantee that a Trump win = shareholder win.

It's amazing that people refuse to acknowledge that many of Trump's comments are bigoted, and call it a "media bias". I'll point to one tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701084443889381377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw If this isn't bigotry (on multiple levels), then what is?

And how is Paulson going to handle the conflict of interest? It doesn't have to be a conflict of interest. He's already been lobbying Congress for a recap and release, same idea here with the Executive Branch. It's not like he has to be the one who goes in and makes the decision.

So Trump just announced his economic advisory team, and it includes John Paulson, who's a GSE shareholder. Icahn was also offered a spot apparently which he declined, but Trump has made it clear that Icahn would have his ear if he becomes President. I think this tilts the odds in our favor, perhaps significantly if he wins. Thoughts?

Don't have the link on me but just go to the website and they have a whole section on preferreds in the investor relations

I'm extremely non-interventionalist in my beliefs. I think the Iraq War was a disaster and criminal. But when we overthrew the government and fired the entire military, we took responsibility for stabilizing the country. That responsibility didn't absolve just because we elected a new President. I think Bush was awful but I give him credit for "the surge" as it was called, when the entire country was against it including Rumsfeld and the rest of his cabinet. And it worked; it helped stabilize the country. He was also a close mentor to Malaki, Iraq's President and worked hard to smooth the transition to a new Govt. Then came Obama, and he wanted nothing to do with Iraq and decided to pull out our troops, our commitment, and his attention from the situation; and now we have ISIS. If Obama was more experienced, he might have recognized that despite it being a needless war, you can't just pull the medication without killing the patient. He was gung-ho about his anti-Iraq War beliefs and let that get to his head. Then he spent hundreds of billions more chasing bin Laden, all while Rome was burning. But blaming Clinton for it a stretch. On the other hand she's a war hawk and I hate that. Trump sucks but at least he's vehemently against interventions, and has the balls to say he's neutral on Israel. If he actually believes this, then I'd consider voting for him. But, who the hell knows what he believes. All I know is that he's a dangerous demagogue.

it was all already redacted. P counsel unseals what it wants to unseal (and what it is permitted to unseal). Oh ok, got it. So the parts that are redacted remain redacted regardless of what's unsealed? Even if Sweeney decides to go ahead with motion to compel?

So the plaintiffs decided to black out the rest? Interesting

As much as he likes to say otherwise, from everything I've read about Trump, it seems he's able to be bought out. He cares about money and his brand, and that's it. I don't see him damaging our trade relations to any significant degree. The lobbying and donations will work on him, maybe more so than on other politicians. So from an investing standpoint, I think we will be fine. With trade in particular, protectionism is not only damaging to the country but also to his businesses, so I can't imagine him doing any harm there.

How can two people see so eye to eye on this issue, but total opposites on the 2nd amendment? Not trying to start another argument but I just find it fascinating. Anyway +1 for pointing it out. Terrorism or not (as per Eric above), targeted civilians or not, those lives are every bit as important as the ones lost in France - but won't deliver a blip in the media. And God forbid we apologize. Obama wouldn't even apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Pathetic.

Thanks; I'm glad to have learned quite a bit about law thanks to this forum!

I have an amateur answer, so take it with a grain of salt. I think it's because it would hurt them in the Court of Claims. They've been trying to have their cake and eat it too with the "not the Govt/are the Govt" argument, and claiming immunity would destroy that argument.

The cash and fixed income earning 0-3% is, for the most part, a holding place for them to buy more equities or companies with. So you can't value it by placing a multiple on the 3% interest rate.

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 :)