merkhet Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Looks like there were two things that happened today. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit accepted Perry's Supplemental Appendix. (A win for us.) The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa reinstated the stay for the administrative record unless Defendants somehow fail to file a motion to dismiss by March 18th. (A loss for us, sort of.) I'm mostly waiting for two things now: A decision on the motion to compel in Sweeney's court A scheduling for oral arguments on the motion to dismiss and the application for certification in Sleet's court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Looks like there were two things that happened today. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit accepted Perry's Supplemental Appendix. (A win for us.) The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa reinstated the stay for the administrative record unless Defendants somehow fail to file a motion to dismiss by March 18th. (A loss for us, sort of.) I'm mostly waiting for two things now: A decision on the motion to compel in Sweeney's court A scheduling for oral arguments on the motion to dismiss and the application for certification in Sleet's court Hmm.... No one knows what happened behind the scenes when Northern District of Iowa reinstated the stay for the administrative record. I thought there would be an oral argument for this matter first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Folks Help me understand the processing of information by the market here - it seems to me that these other cases now are a bit of a side-show compared to the Delaware case and the 9th circuit discussion above? As this may decide everything fairly quickly (albeit in a way different to what Fairholme et al originally were shooting for). Seems the market doesn't think so? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Folks Help me understand the processing of information by the market here - it seems to me that these other cases now are a bit of a side-show compared to the Delaware case and the 9th circuit discussion above? As this may decide everything fairly quickly (albeit in a way different to what Fairholme et al originally were shooting for). Seems the market doesn't think so? Thanks. My best understanding of how the market processes information is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Honestly, if I could correctly anticipate or interpret how the market processes information, I'd be trading futures on leverage and much, much richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Folks Help me understand the processing of information by the market here - it seems to me that these other cases now are a bit of a side-show compared to the Delaware case and the 9th circuit discussion above? As this may decide everything fairly quickly (albeit in a way different to what Fairholme et al originally were shooting for). Seems the market doesn't think so? Thanks. My best understanding of how the market processes information is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Honestly, if I could correctly anticipate or interpret how the market processes information, I'd be trading futures on leverage and much, much richer. i dont believe the market is processing the litigation with any degree of independent insight. by this i mean that i believe many in the market think carney understands the cases well and is offering a view worth following because he writes for wsj. the market is also aware that some very smart investors (perry, berk, ack) are contra, and the market is trying to digest that. and of course, the smart investors have lost one round with judge lamberth and of course, everyone knows, you cant fight city hall. the market has a hard time with legal issues because legal issues are both difficult to understand (even for lawyers) and so unpredictable (since they are decided by judges subject to human foibles). so i would be shocked if the market could process the GSE litigation in the first place (understanding that many in the market think they already are processing it correctly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Cherzeca, has kinda hit it spot on. Lawyers tend to give you an answer as to how they think its going to go and say "but theres always the possibility of not winning." And I think that to a degree they are correct in doing so. The markets may think that since the lawyers dont know then they default to the "group think." That being said a number of "the guys" i talk to off line are skeptical of its potential. But they are guys who deal in Futures and option trading in Chicago. One works for a fund in DC but i think they all take their cues from the markets and say well the "market is all knowing and correct all the time" they must have discounted this properly. The guy who works in the fund in DC is a much more value oriented guy and he just doesnt have the skill set to dive into the law stuff....nor the time..nor willing to make the time. Ive even talked to a Law student at top-teir university,whom is intelligent enough to get a good job at a great firm right out of school, who thinks what Cherzeca and Merk have said is correct, and ive given him other highlights also but he still discounts the fact that the market knows something that we dont know. That may be a function of time and energy he puts in. Hes into other things at the moment. For the record, Hes actually the one that found those academic articles i posted a few days ago. And I think thats it...they just dont trust their analysis enough to counter the "markets all knowing" characteristic....[sarcastic] after all if the markets were wrong on MBS in 08 well that was a one off thing.[sarcastic] I know im kinda "credential" dropping here but the people i am asking are what i would consider to be above average intelligence market participants. Lets put it this way...I expect to get a number of phone calls if some of these cases start getting called in the shareholders favor..... The other answer that i usually get from these guys is, and i think is a tad bit hypocritical, the "its the government they can do anything they want" argument. So there it is again the lawyer answer "we may be right but theres still a possibility of loosing" The attractiveness to me was when i first looked at Third Aves. letter and they mentioned it...i cant even remember which one it is but then fairholme got into it so I became more aware....bought my stake sometime then.....after that Ackman(who i think is a pretty good independent thinker) and a few of those other guys got in. Theres a number of firms out there that have taken stakes in it basically the fairholme split between common but heavier on the prefs....but i think are seeing what fairholme sees and think the same thing...after all everyone of these firms i think sees the same thing.... Similarly along these lines...there are a lot more people who think the same way...just the sheer number of cases tat have opened up against the govt. in the last 18 months says more people are "ambulance chasing." i dont know if thats good or bad that they all see generally the same thing. Its certainly what i see from our chats and such. 2 more thoughts. 1) I think if we got a administrative record we would see the insider dealings and just see how much the govt has extended its mandates. The lack of insight and some of the redacted material that has come out in the last year or so makes me question the integrity of the govts position. I think there is some scandalous? stuff under there. 2) I think there is a bit of half truth telling on the part of Carney and i think that has added to the confusion of the trade...after all he reaches millions of readers and i think that they read some of his headlines and automatically dismiss what the hedge funds have to say...I think Carney has some sort of cognitive bias towards Hedge funds and he sees it as his mission to do what ever to impede their progress. So naturally, guys like my buddies read his headlines and it looks much more grim than it is. Edit: I often wonder what a young Buffett would do in this situation. He's not going to purchase a stake in it now but im sure hes well aware and may just stay out because they want to keep their "reputation."...lets face it buffet does have to protect his rep now since hes so big. And it would bring some ire with shareholders as well as others....plus i think buffett likes to be more passive now...its much easier to get along with people than to fight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 my touchstone is to ask someone to explain to me the difference between the perry case and the hindes/jacobs case. if someone gets that, then that is a person worth listening to. most people will shrug and say something like, look to see whose signature is on the federal judge's paycheck...its is lew's, you think the judge is going to rule against lew? or ruling against the federal govt is a career killing move for a federal judge these are fair points, and all i can say is that if this republic is worth a damn, those points should not rule the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I guess people don't understand lifetime appointments. If people need a story, one story is that the markets are backward looking and extrapolating that the plaintiffs haven't won a single significant battle in the past (not counting discovery). As to whether that's the actual reason that the preferred shares are priced where they are? Impossible to know. But it sounds good and logical, so it's got that going for it. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 FWIW some of the preferred is trading near the common. If the market "knows" more then we do then maybe "they" could explain why the common is getting close to the same risk benefit? I added some more preferred on weakness today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 YEah so heres an intersting tidbit I just looked up Guess who's at the Harbor investment conference today? Mona Sutphen, Served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2011. She is ... https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mona%20sutphen http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-02-05-at-10.06.09-AM.png Same Person? Special envoy to the Shareholders? Most likely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Another, likely, stupid question (or a simple question with an obvious answer for a layman but perhaps less obvious for a lawyer). If it were indeed the case that the government passed a law that takes said law out of the review of the judiciary, would that not be unconstitutional (checks and balances, etc.)? Alternatively, does such a low not, in effect, create a fourth branch of government aside from the executive, legislative and judiciary branches and would that not be fundamentally at odds with basic/established legal and democratic principles? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Laws_limiting_judicial_review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 "Lawyers tend to give you an answer as to how they think its going to go and say "but theres always the possibility of not winning." And I think that to a degree they are correct in doing so." They are 100% correct to do so. Nobody can guaranty a particular outcome. They can tell you whether you have a strong case or a weak case. Either way, many are willing to take your money to put up a fight. An ethical lawyer (yes, such a species exists) will turn down a case when he/she thinks the likelihood of winning is de minimus. I think Prof. Epstein sums it up well. He thinks the plaintiffs have a strong case, but realizes that much deference is given to the government and its actions. What more can be said? We'll find out at the end of the day what happens, and then think we should have known better or forgone cloning if we lose (similar to ZINC thread), or we should have invested more, if we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morningstar Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Folks Help me understand the processing of information by the market here - it seems to me that these other cases now are a bit of a side-show compared to the Delaware case and the 9th circuit discussion above? As this may decide everything fairly quickly (albeit in a way different to what Fairholme et al originally were shooting for). Seems the market doesn't think so? Thanks. It's also worth pointing out that there are economic/fundamental considerations here as well. For instance, it's highly unlikely that a judge is going to restart dividends on these preferreds. The government has enormous discretion/capacity to control the path of the GSEs as companies. So when you look at the prices of the securities, there is a lot more informing those price movements than just the prospect of litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 "Lawyers tend to give you an answer as to how they think its going to go and say "but theres always the possibility of not winning." And I think that to a degree they are correct in doing so." They are 100% correct to do so. Nobody can guaranty a particular outcome. They can tell you whether you have a strong case or a weak case. Either way, many are willing to take your money to put up a fight. An ethical lawyer (yes, such a species exists) will turn down a case when he/she thinks the likelihood of winning is de minimus. I think Prof. Epstein sums it up well. He thinks the plaintiffs have a strong case, but realizes that much deference is given to the government and its actions. What more can be said? We'll find out at the end of the day what happens, and then think we should have known better or forgone cloning if we lose (similar to ZINC thread), or we should have invested more, if we win. poor choice of words on my part. I agree with your comment....mea cupa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinwalt Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I think Prof. Epstein sums it up well. He thinks the plaintiffs have a strong case, but realizes that much deference is given to the government and its actions. What more can be said? We'll find out at the end of the day what happens, and then think we should have known better or forgone cloning if we lose (similar to ZINC thread), or we should have invested more, if we win. +1 I get how people can take a shot at this, but I don't get how Berkowitz can have > 16% in this (as per the annual report) - that really seems to say that he doesn't see anyway he can lose here... Or he's crazy, but I don't think he's crazy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I get how people can take a shot at this, but I don't get how Berkowitz can have > 16% in this (as per the annual report) - that really seems to say that he doesn't see anyway he can lose here... Or he's crazy, but I don't think he's crazy... We need Picasso quoting Eminem here pronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 final perry briefs of class action plaintiffsperry_class_P_final_brief.pdfperry_final_class_P_brief_2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I get how people can take a shot at this, but I don't get how Berkowitz can have > 16% in this (as per the annual report) - that really seems to say that he doesn't see anyway he can lose here... Or he's crazy, but I don't think he's crazy... We need Picasso quoting Eminem here pronto. "Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity, would you capture it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 GSE reform is happening: Are people paying attention? http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/36479-gse-reform-is-happening-are-people-paying-attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Laws_limiting_judicial_review Thank you - doesn't seem much hope for an ultimate "out" there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picasso Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Would you capture it, or let it slip? Yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Awesome lyrics, awesome movie. Every time I see Anthony Mackie in a movie I always think of him as Papa Doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Oh, there goes Berkowitz, he choked He's so mad, but he won't give up that easy? No He won't have it, he knows DC's whole back ropes It don't matter, he's dope, he knows that, but he's broke He's so stacked that he knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Everyone check to make sure your safety's on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now