Mephistopheles

Incidentally, my respect for AMEX went up tremendously a couple of weeks ago. I had signed up for a credit card a few YEARS ago which had a minimum purchase of a few thousand in a few months, for which I would be awarded 30,000 miles. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline for the purchase because I was under the assumption that the time period begins from when I receive the card, not from when I signed up, which was two weeks prior to receiving it in the mail. So at the time I called them and tried to get them to give me a break and extend my deadline. They wouldn't bend, they said a deal is a deal. The other day, nearly 3 years later, I got a $300 check from them with a letter explaining that this it was for the missed miles. I couldn't believe it; they certainly won me over all over again.

I had a similar experience with Bank of America. Although they took my side, I wasn't very satisfied. It was over a $50 bill at Pizza Hut on the other side of the country. I told them I haven't been in that region in years. They refunded me and investigated. I thought that was the end of it but then they mailed me a picture of the receipt, which clearly wasn't my signature, and said I need to sign the accompanying page saying it's not my signature and get it back to them the very NEXT DAY. Luckily they let me fax it, but it was annoying. I would think that they can a) see for themselves that it's not my signature by comparing w/their records and b) see that the purchase was on the other side of the country, with no other purchase in that area years before or after; and trust me based on that. I've disputed a bill with AMEX as well and it's much smoother. They make it clear that they trust you and want to be on your side.

But they have not produced any documents either, right? What will happen next if they just delay the requests for production of documents forever? Maybe there is no document at all. If that's true, they cannot produce any documents unless they fake the documents. Will they eventually admit that there were no documents produced at that time? If they do, the defendants will surely lose the case, right? The case in the Federal Claims Court is currently in the discovery phase in which documents are being handed over.

;D :P

Guys, we are getting carried away. When I open this thread I want to find a good joke without having to sift through stuff like this. Please post all serious matters in the SHLD Investments thread, which can be found here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/shld-sears/.

This is a beginner law, perhaps naive, question; why would it end so quickly? Don't complicated cases that involve serious matters and tons of money last much longer? Like for example, didn't the BP case(s) last like 3-4 years? I know the Exxon Valdez one went on for well over a decade. I cite these two because I had invested in BP when the spill happened, so they're the first that come to mind.

LMAO. So you just stood there doing it over and over again??? I would have thought that they would pull the plug on you after say, the first couple of transactions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-mae-settles-shareholder-lawsuit-204627878.html $170 million settlement for misleading shareholders. So where does this money go? To the Government?

It would be weird to go from mattress section to tools section....what kind of weirdo stuff were you planning.. Hahahahaha The two sections were right next to each other. As an aside, they said they were going to expand their mattress section because it was doing well, FWIW.

My friend and I went once for scuttlebutting. We walked around, asked questions in the mattress section, then went to the tools section. A couple of the employees gave us weird looks, I'm not joking. I guess they're not used to having customers who are younger than 80. Or they're not used to having customers.

The leverage re the litigation. I think the government wants to keep the current state as it is forever, but that seems impossible. They cannot exercise their 79% warrants on the common because then they will have to account for the trillions of liabilties on the national debt. But they can't just let this 79% value go away. That would be too stupid either. What will they do then? Letting the warrants expire and then keep taking all profits each month from Fannie and Freddie? Is that their plan? I believe as long as they own less than 80%, they don't have to take on the liabilities. That's what I'm afraid of too, keeping the status quo. Govt continues to make money to waste on earmarks and they get political bragging rights for taking the evil financial company money for the "benefit of taxpayers". Such a shame that our country has gotten to this point. I suppose it's normal for post-crisis eras.

That clip was totally unrealistic. I mean it showed shoppers at the Sears. No way that happens in real life. Believe it or not, Sears is still an actual company. They have locations and employees (and presumably) some customers. I just don't know what they are going to do when their customer base (over 70, no internet access, still has a rotary dial land line phone with a 25 ft cord and answering machine with a tape as the only way to get in touch with them, and sometimes uses their phones to order from catalogs) dies off? You've seen these people. They are the women with white hair that are always in the grocery store line in front of you trying to pay with a check then take 25 minutes to back out of their parking space in the parking lot. They own K-Mart too, but I think it has been about 10-12 years since I've seen an actual K-Mart store, so I'm not sure if those still exist. They do exist, about 1200 of them. They're closing down but IMO it can't happen fast enough.

(1) is correct. (3) also will not count -- I checked with my accountant about this last week. (2), on the other hand, I'm not sure about. I don't know if it's substantially the same or not. Thanks, Merkhet. If #3 is okay (swapping from one series of Pfd to another), then I feel like #2 (common to pfd) should most certainly be okay given that common and pfd are less "same" than 2 series of pfd.

I know I've asked this before but am still not clear on the answer: 1. If I swap from FNMA common to FMCC common, I know the wash sale rule doesn't count. 2. If I swap from FNMA common to FNMA preferred, I am pretty sure it doesn't count. 3. If I swap from FNMA preferred to another series of FNMA preferred, I am not as sure. Does anyone know #2 & 3 for sure? The SEC website's description is a bit vague.

But wouldn't there be a long appeals process? I feel like this is one of those cases that lasts many years and ends up in the Supreme Court.

Here's to hoping it continues. Would love to roll my common shares into preferred and hoping this difference in momentum continues to maximize my preferred exposure. Theres been 50% difference in the performance between the twp since the drop. Fannie Mae common: On 09/30: $2.69 On 10/14: $2.49 Fannie Mae Preferred S: On 09/30: $9.20 On 10/14: $4.25 I can't imagine a scenario where the preferred gets screwed but the common comes out unscathed. I thought about this. I think one reason the common have outperformed is because when Lamberth threw out the possibility of immediate injunctive relief, it meant that any positive outcome will take longer than expected, whether it be a year, 2 years, 5 years, whatever. The prefs have a ceiling on their value, while the common will continue to increase in value. It wouldn't matter so much if we won in a year, but the longer it is expected to take, the more of a differential in value there should be.

Wow, the common have come back nicely since the case was tossed out. I sold all my common for the tax loss and switched to prefs which also happened to be down more, but they haven't recovered nearly as much. :(

Dumb question, but why is the NAV at $2.7 billion ($24.41), and they say the stock is selling at NAV, but at the same time it also has a market cap of $6 billion?

I don't mind the mistakes so much. Everybody makes mistakes and in this case he's right far more often than he's wrong. It's the inaccurate track record that bothers me.

I love Ackman, but I have to agree with this. Let's not forget the failed golf course investment in his old fund, which was closed down, and replaced by Pershing Square - which included a fresh new track record.

Thanks that helped. I made a spreadsheet with all the tickers that I found and their discount to par linked to the internet, if anyone is interested. I know someone had this on Google spreadsheets but I've just updated to include all relevant tickers and delete the ones that are not traded. Let me know if there are any errors. GSE_Tickers.xlsx

Thanks. So am I right to assume that "Series T" corresponds to FNMAT, "Series S" to FNMAS, etc.? I was thrown off by the $5 price, so I assumed it was a cheap selling $50 one, but I guess it's a really expensive $25 one. Great, thanks.

Does anyone know what the terms are for the FNMA preferred stock symbol "FNMAT"? It has consistently traded well below the other preferred shares. It's currently selling for $4.74, and I'm assuming it's par value is $50. I was under the assumption that all of the preferred shares are pari passu. I looked in the 10-k but they don't show what tickers correspond to what classes, and neither do the offering circulars that they offer in the investor relations section.

Thanks!

Merkhet, do you know what the conference idea is for Epstein's call?