Mephistopheles

Also yes the Takings trial hasn't started but again to me it seems extremely likely that we do get a trial with the newly unsealed documents.

not so fast. first, remember fairholme is still in jurisdictional discovery phase. the taking trial hasnt started, whether or not a motion for summary judgment is filed. second, remember starr won on liability and lost on damages (on illegal exaction, which is similar to taking). i am looking forward to an invalidation of NWS which will result in what i expect to be an acceptable remedy, rather than a takings which looks to valuation of what was taken in 2012 Thanks for the response In regards to the Starr case, from what I understand the logic for not awarding damages was "but for the deal, AIG would be worth 0, so no damages". In this case, if it wasn't for the deal, then the companies would be a hell of a lot richer, no? Didn't the AIG case have to do with the legacy shareholders before the bailout, whereas the FNMA/FMCC case is not about a class of shares being diluted but the company itself being subject to over payment, which "but for the deal" should simply get a reversal of payments. In other words, I feel valuation is not an issue here, but maybe I'm missing something? Edit: And the Starr case was focused on the exaction of the equity (dilution) component, so valuing the shares in that case makes more sense than in this one imo.

merkhet and cherzeca: Question for you guys; the newly unsealed emails very obviously show that the WH/Treasury was a) calling the shots and b) had a motivation to kill the companies. To me, this screams of a taking. If this is not to be considered a Takings under the 5th Amendment, then what is? And then of course imagine what could possibly be in the other 11,000 documents. And then Sweeney's particularly strong choice of words "the only 'harm' presented is the potential for criticism". Would you guys say that this makes the the Court of Claims case a near guarantee? I know nothing is for certain, but I can't imagine anything short of Sweeney being bought out (which perhaps is a real risk) that would result in a loss for us.

Viewership. He's like the only journalist who's against the Plaintiffs in favor of the Defendents. He's monopolized the "journalism" supporting that side of the argument. It's also probably about pride and saving face at this point.

Got it, thanks

Cherzeca, any thoughts on the below?

Here is a link that contains "Exhibit 1" that Sweeney is referring to which is a list of the sample documents: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0272-1.pdf Several of these documents are marked Presidential Communications Privilege. Does this mean that the sworn affidavit must come from the President himself?

Don't you guys have anything better to do than pick on random people on the Internet? We all make mistakes, and unless we have a complete track record from you and from the one you called out, what's the purpose?

Well, I suppose I should take back my Trump joke Corker is just the intermediary.....Trump is going to ask Ackman to be vp. Dow 20K here we come! Lol, the ultimate activist play

Well, I suppose I should take back my Trump joke

Lets not drift down the polics road on this thread......although if you dont have 2-3% of your AUM in this you are a moron. You've said this before in this thread. The first time I assumed you were being sarcastic. In this case was making a joke...but truth of the matter is politics very much is relevant here. I really think that if Trump has a chance, that increases the odds of Obama ending the Cship. At that point he'll do everything he can to help Hillary - and a headline that states "$200 billion profit for taxpayers" will MOST CERTAINLY help her odds. On top of that, why not take the 79.9% (minus the cost of junior preferred) up front, instead of doing 100% of profits shared ad infinitum with all future administrations? ESPECIALLY if the next 4-8 years might be a maniac in the WH. On top of that there are real concerns of handing Republicans the GSEs (keeping the GSEs in limbo), as expressed by Mel Watt. And do you really want to risk the release of 12,000 documents in the middle of an election cycle? Which makes me think - I know Sweeney is a GWB appointee; I can't help but wonder if she may have an ulterior motive in this (subconscious or not). So yes I think politics absolutely matters in this case.

Someone needs to threaten to bring this to Trump's attention if the govt doesn't settle. He'd have a field day at the expense of Obama/Clinton.

How about this exchange between Jim Parrott and Peter Wallison: Wallison: One question: Do the dividend payments amortize principal, and if so how? For example, if the 10% dividend rate were in effect, a payment of more than 10% would amortize principal, but from the press release it sounds as though the profits that are swept into Treasury are replacing the 10% dividend. Parrott: No principal is written down no matter what the quartely payment is. Dividend is variable, set at w hatever profit for quarter is, eliminating ability to pay down principal (so they can"t repay their debt and escape as it were). Wallison: That could be a problem. From the perspective of the budget, if Congress were to eliminate them it would be eliminating a revenue source. If principal were amortized that problem would eventually go away. And then the next 4 emails in the thread are blacked out How the fuck is this legal? This also shows that the budget was in fact a concern for the administration. If we don't win this I sure hope to God Trump becomes President because at that point we might very well need someone to go in there and blow shit up.

For sure they will take over the entire portfolio; that's already been decided. I'd argue that the #1 skill needed is allocating capital across a variety of industries - which they already have a good sense for as they manage investment portfolios. In contrast, Ajit Jain, Matt Rose (or whomever the BNSF CEO is now), and Greg Abel allocate capital in very specific industries. They also spend their time in operations of their specific companies. It would be hard for Jain, for example, to manage the insurance companies and also manage the rest of Berkshire and filter through hundreds of potential acquisitions every year. On the other hand making acquisitions goes right into Ted/Todd's job function, only instead of just public companies they'd also be looking at privately held companies.

Buffett kept a wife and mistress at the same time...and had an affair with a third woman. I guess I'm glad he's not our President. And I won't even think about letting him manage my money.

I think the CEO job goes to Ted or Todd but probably Ted. Managing the investment portfolio and acquiring businesses are tied at the hip as one provides the source of capital for the other. Wouldn't it be awkward if the CEO firmly believes in a certain acquisition but requires the portfolio manager to sell down shares he believes in? Obv the CEO makes the final call but it's clearly a better process if it's one person. In this case perhaps the two of them as a team. Also capital allocation is a broad talent which can be used in both functions. Whereas say, Matt Rose and Greg Abel have very focused skills. Furthermore we've already seen greater involvement from them, esp Ted, in operations/acquisitions. And they're young, and both work in Omaha.

What? His net worth is 10+ Billion. Not gifted enough in business or economics? Or so he says. Forbes says he's worth $2.9, I'm inclined to side with Forbes. He's also had a nice boost from his wealthy dad. Though yes he's a master brander, I'll give you that, and that's how he took the nomination. Still, with issues of economics, trade policy, taxation, healthcare and the things it take to be a good president, he sucks.

The people who are actually gifted enough in business and economics (unlike Trump) have better things to do with their time than become President (because they are so gifted). Gates and Buffett come to mind.

I thought that the U.S. VP had one job. To be there in case the President kicks the bucket. To have a ticket with a 70 year old candidate and a 74 year old vp seems a little non sensical. no? Because the 74 year old may be your only real chance to get elected.

I bet Clinton chooses Sanders as VP. She's got no choice. If she chooses someone establishment, a portion of his supporters will go to Trump. Trump is smart enough to know this and has already started to appeal to Sanders people by attacking the flawed superdelegate system.

Maybe the pro bono team can chime in. I suspect that a significant factor is the incentives of the Govt lawyers. It is in their best interest to drag this out, regardless of how much sense it makes to do so. And it's the taxpayer who is footing their bill, so there isn't a sense of waste FHFA or DoJ, so they continue to do what the lawyers recommend.

No idea where you're assuming Buffett ever said anything about raising payroll taxes. What matters (and what Buffett focuses on) is the percentage of total taxes paid by an individual relative to total income (why the secretary example makes sense: total taxes/total income). Emphasis added to WB's words: No, I said that he includes payroll taxes along with income/capital gains taxes when he goes out and says his secretary pays more. That's why she has like a 33% effective rate. I'm saying that's bs to include it in the calculation. Edit: here's the link There is also the double taxation issue with dividends and cap gains. Another reason why the numbers are dishonest. Editx2: Re raising income/cap gains above $1 million/$10 million, I wonder what he thinks the cap gains rate should be? Since he doesn't mind the double taxation and all. Should it be taxed as ordinary income? Eliminate long term capital gains? I remember on CNBC a few years ago they asked him about the double taxation. This was in 2012 when there was talk about Romney's 14% effective rate and Buffett's 17%. He dodged the question saying there is no double taxation for him when he invested in Korean securities, or when Romney invested in bankrupt companies that paid no taxes. I think he's wise enough to know this is the exception and not the rule.

Touche. But I stand by my main point about the whole payroll tax argument being nonsense.

I would be surprised if Buffett didn't cut a deal with the IRS at some point in his life. He's been in business over 60 years and we all know he is desperate to avoid taxation, did he not try to write off his bicycle as a business expense when he submitted his first tax return!? I would be shock it at some point in his career he didn't cross the line at some point. To cross swords with the IRS doesn't make him a crook, however at the same time you can't help but think his attitude to taxation is more of a "do as I say" rather than a "do as I do". This so called Buffett hypocrisy on taxes is laughable. Fact is that he made his early fortune when tax rates were much higher than now--he actually had a tougher playing field. But that's not a question of playing field. His tax hypocrisy (at least in my opinion) has to do with his stance on income tax when he says his secretary pays a higher rate then him if you include payroll tax. He's done a great job at fooling America with this idiotic argument. His secretary even made it to Obama's State of the Union Address! This argument is intellectually dishonest because a) he isn't compensating for the benefits after retirement and b) he includes the employer's portion of the tax under in his secretary's tax burden. Meanwhile he makes 99.9% of his personal income through capital gains and dividends. So even if they were to raise payroll taxes to an infinite income ceiling, or even if they were to raise the income tax rates on high incomes to compensate, it would make no difference to his tax liability! Funny how he rarely talks about raising the dividend, capital gain, or corporate tax. I wonder why that could be ...

Keep dreaming. My guess is most of that is under lock and seal. Rumors were swirling that Buffett suddenly became a champion of higher taxes because he cut a deal with the Treasury to grandfather early partners in. There are allegations of dodgy partnership situations where if a dividend were paid or if the person died there could be serious tax (if not legal) consequences. And that Buffett "solved" this problem by cutting a deal. My prediction is everyone will be shocked at what comes out once Buffett dies. I'm suspicious when the only person talking about how great someone is is themselves or their groupies. My guess (educated and somewhat informed) is there are quite a few skeletons in his closet. Of course this board will say I'm wrong, he's a saint and disregard all of this. But maybe in 3/5/10 years when he passes we can revisit my predictions. Grandfather early partners in for what? Are you referring to estate taxes?