FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[TonyG]

Agreed. Most likely from our favourite "journalist".

[BTShine]

Also he said Ackman on his CC said that Corker's Jumpstart bill was a head fake but Corker said he disagreed and explained why he thinks Congress should fix the issue and even extend the jumpstart bill regarding f and f even further

 

yup yup....i think he was just trying to probe Bill a bit and make it look as if hes a baddie hedge fund guy........trust me this will hit the press sooon.

 

I thought it was fantastic theatrics and shows that Corker is clearly biased against Ackman's camp on the Fannie/Freddie fight.  Also, that Corker is clearly ok with the government expropriation of FanFred property. 

[doughishere]

Also he said Ackman on his CC said that Corker's Jumpstart bill was a head fake but Corker said he disagreed and explained why he thinks Congress should fix the issue and even extend the jumpstart bill regarding f and f even further

 

yup yup....i think he was just trying to probe Bill a bit and make it look as if hes a baddie hedge fund guy........trust me this will hit the press sooon.

 

I thought it was fantastic theatrics and shows that Corker is clearly biased against Ackman's camp on the Fannie/Freddie fight.  Also, that Corker is clearly ok with the government expropriation of FanFred property.

 

This whole thing is unreal.

[onyx1]

Corker vs. Ackman video here:

 

 

http://www.aging.senate.gov/

 

 

Forward to the 2:00:05 mark

[orthopa]

You can tell Corker takes this personally. He says FnF cost tax payers 189B and then Ackman said, yes and were paid back 260B and Corker quickly moves along. He didnt seem to have a good retort or want to continue that part of the discussion. 

 

Corker says Congress is going to "reform" FNF over the next 2 years. Ill take the over on that one.

 

Rhetorical question but...Why are hedge funds making $$ so bad?

[doughishere]

You can tell Corker takes this personally. He says FnF cost tax payers 189B and then Ackman said, yes and were paid back 260B and Corker quickly moves along. He didnt seem to have a good retort or want to continue that part of the discussion. 

 

Corker says Congress is going to "reform" FNF over the next 2 years. Ill take the over on that one.

 

Rhetorical question but...Why are hedge funds making $$ so bad?

 

 

^ This guy  ;)

 

[Steve_Berk]

I'm going to listen to that corker exchange later on. But reviewing the oral arguments, I think there are some who still believe there may be hope that Millet could come around because she asks tough questions of the FHFA and Treasury. But one telling thing I noticed is that the way she asks her questions is different depending on who she's asking the questions to. When she questioned Olson and Hume, her questions were direct, skeptical and pointed. However, when she questions Cayne and Stern she repeatedly begins her questions by saying "they (plaintiffs) would say..." To me she's doing this not purposely but because she doesn't believe the arguments she's presenting and is trying to elicit a response. There's conviction in her questioning of plaintiffs, but couching in her questions to the defendants. I know many already see Millet as a lost cause so maybe this is unimportant. But it stood out to me as I started to look at her questions carefully

[deadspace]

What Akman should have said is you want to trumpet that $189 billion number  - well lets open the books and see what that money was used for - was it Fannie losses or was it used to support the whole countries mortgage markets and swallow the bad loans from TBTF banks -  the lies needs to stop

 

You can tell Corker takes this personally. He says FnF cost tax payers 189B and then Ackman said, yes and were paid back 260B and Corker quickly moves along. He didnt seem to have a good retort or want to continue that part of the discussion. 

 

Corker says Congress is going to "reform" FNF over the next 2 years. Ill take the over on that one.

 

Rhetorical question but...Why are hedge funds making $$ so bad?

 

 

^ This guy  ;)

[hardincap]

I'm going to listen to that corker exchange later on. But reviewing the oral arguments, I think there are some who still believe there may be hope that Millet could come around because she asks tough questions of the FHFA and Treasury. But one telling thing I noticed is that the way she asks her questions is different depending on who she's asking the questions to. When she questioned Olson and Hume, her questions were direct, skeptical and pointed. However, when she questions Cayne and Stern she repeatedly begins her questions by saying "they (plaintiffs) would say..." To me she's doing this not purposely but because she doesn't believe the arguments she's presenting and is trying to elicit a response. There's conviction in her questioning of plaintiffs, but couching in her questions to the defendants. I know many already see Millet as a lost cause so maybe this is unimportant. But it stood out to me as I started to look at her questions carefully

 

+1 appreciate you pointing these things out.. our biases are something to really be on guard about

[Guest cherzeca]

I'm going to listen to that corker exchange later on. But reviewing the oral arguments, I think there are some who still believe there may be hope that Millet could come around because she asks tough questions of the FHFA and Treasury. But one telling thing I noticed is that the way she asks her questions is different depending on who she's asking the questions to. When she questioned Olson and Hume, her questions were direct, skeptical and pointed. However, when she questions Cayne and Stern she repeatedly begins her questions by saying "they (plaintiffs) would say..." To me she's doing this not purposely but because she doesn't believe the arguments she's presenting and is trying to elicit a response. There's conviction in her questioning of plaintiffs, but couching in her questions to the defendants. I know many already see Millet as a lost cause so maybe this is unimportant. But it stood out to me as I started to look at her questions carefully

 

+1 appreciate you pointing these things out.. our biases are something to really be on guard about

 

agreed.

 

but my thought process with millett is not whether she will agree with G&B, but whether she is going to vote for affirming lamberth; i would think that she wont agree with G&B unless it is simply for remand.  i say that because i did not hear millett to intimate that the facts (such as motivation) relating to conservator decision was irrelevant, which is where lamberth was...and i sure dont believe G&B will vote for affirmance

 

btw, what is the difference between bias and conviction...other than bias means you are wrong, and conviction means you are right...:>)

[merkhet]

Bias means you find it hard/impossible to see the other side. Conviction does not mean that. You can have conviction and still see the other side.

[Guest cherzeca]

Bias means you find it hard/impossible to see the other side. Conviction does not mean that. You can have conviction and still see the other side.

 

i thought bias meant that you had assessed the other side and discounted it, but others haven't done the work that you have done and cant understand why you have discounted it, and they therefore conclude that you simply dont see it...

[Steve_Berk]

well that was entertaining. it would have been fun to hear their inner thoughts behind the diplomatic presentation from both guys

 

Corker vs. Ackman video here:

 

 

http://www.aging.senate.gov/

 

 

Forward to the 2:00:05 mark

[BTShine]

Yes, exactly.  What kind of tactics was Ackman using by coming off as nice and getting Corker to commit to a meeting re FanFred, etc.  does this just give Ackman an opportunity to schmooze or an opportunity to get Corker on the record? 

[Luke 532]

Corker vs. Ackman video here:

 

http://www.aging.senate.gov/

 

Forward to the 2:00:05 mark

 

More direct link: http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/valeant-pharmaceuticals-business-model-the-repercussions-for-patients-and-the-health-care-system

[hardincap]

I'm going to listen to that corker exchange later on. But reviewing the oral arguments, I think there are some who still believe there may be hope that Millet could come around because she asks tough questions of the FHFA and Treasury. But one telling thing I noticed is that the way she asks her questions is different depending on who she's asking the questions to. When she questioned Olson and Hume, her questions were direct, skeptical and pointed. However, when she questions Cayne and Stern she repeatedly begins her questions by saying "they (plaintiffs) would say..." To me she's doing this not purposely but because she doesn't believe the arguments she's presenting and is trying to elicit a response. There's conviction in her questioning of plaintiffs, but couching in her questions to the defendants. I know many already see Millet as a lost cause so maybe this is unimportant. But it stood out to me as I started to look at her questions carefully

 

+1 appreciate you pointing these things out.. our biases are something to really be on guard about

 

agreed.

 

but my thought process with millett is not whether she will agree with G&B, but whether she is going to vote for affirming lamberth; i would think that she wont agree with G&B unless it is simply for remand.  i say that because i did not hear millett to intimate that the facts (such as motivation) relating to conservator decision was irrelevant, which is where lamberth was...and i sure dont believe G&B will vote for affirmance

 

btw, what is the difference between bias and conviction...other than bias means you are wrong, and conviction means you are right...:>)

 

as long as brown and ginsberg vote for remand, we should get remand, correct? 2/3 wins

[Guest cherzeca]

@hardincap

 

correct, majority wins.  because judicial review is inherently a-democratic, in the sense that judges are not elected, judges try to achieve unanimity to the extent possible. avoids criticism that an unelected few are overturning the desires of the electorate.  so there is a tension between G&B, on one hand, and M on the other hand, which i believe may draw G&B back from considering pure reversal to extent M will only go so far as a remand.

[merkhet]

Bias means you find it hard/impossible to see the other side. Conviction does not mean that. You can have conviction and still see the other side.

 

i thought bias meant that you had assessed the other side and discounted it, but others haven't done the work that you have done and cant understand why you have discounted it, and they therefore conclude that you simply dont see it...

 

Sure, bias can also mean overly discounting it (i.e. finding it hard to see the other side) but we're largely talking semantics now.

 

I found it incredibly odd that Corker would take his time to talk about Fannie and Freddie...

[Guest cherzeca]

@merkhet

 

you miss my point. 

 

if someone asserts that i have bias with respect to an investment position, i believe that other person simply disagrees with me and has not done the work i have done to be able to appreciate/understand/criticize my position.  if that person has done the work and disagrees nonetheless, then fine, any disagreement would be simply that, a good faith disagreement, not a denigration of my aptitude to reason through competing claims. indeed, an assertion of bias by someone on my part is an assertion of a lack of due diligence on their part, for if the work had been done by the other person, then the other person would simply say that i am wrong, not that i am biased.

 

similarly, if i admit i am biased, i am simply saying that while i have taken an investment position, i am infirm in my investment position, that my position is provisional and my reasoning is incomplete, but i have nonetheless taken an investment stand...which is not uncommon but not entirely rational.  there is a reason for my investment position, which is more faith than thought derived.  that is bias.

 

so my conviction appears to another person as bias when that other person doesn't understand my reasoning.  if that other person understood my reasoning, then my conviction would either be right or wrong, but bias would not enter into the equation, unless that person couldn't appreciate another side him or her self...which is his or her bias.

[merkhet]

@cherzeca, I did not miss your point.

 

I think you're way over-reading into the word "bias" some form of "denigration of your aptitude to reason." Charlie Munger is miles more rational than either you or me, and even he has mentioned that he has various cognitive biases that are hard to root out. (Daniel Kahneman has mentioned the same thing, and he was one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on cognitive biases.) It would be the height of arrogance for either of us to believe that we are wholly without cognitive bias and/or the only Spock-level rational being on the planet.

 

One can have all the facts, have done all the work, be reasonably intelligent, and yet, surprisingly, still fall into the realm of succumbing to a cognitive bias. (See any number of CoBF threads in which reasonably hard-working and intelligent people have misinterpreted every poor turn of events as the harbinger of sunshine and rainbows right around the corner.) The reason being that such cognitive biases are hard wired into our biology. This is not casting aspersions on any given individual but rather casting, appropriately, aspersions on a species whose development was necessarily crafted to have cognitive biases as various cognitive biases function rather well as heuristics in a particular time period and/or context outside of the one we currently inhabit.

 

I believe that I have done a pretty significant amount of work on Fannie Mae. I believe that I have marshaled a fairly decent understanding of the facts at work here. I believe myself to be reasonably intelligent. I have a pretty good amount of conviction in my investment thesis on Fannie Mae. Having said all of that, I am still cognizant of the fact that I might be missing something because of some cognitive bias that makes it difficult for me to see things from a purely objective basis.

 

To put it another way, I think you see worries of bias as a reflection of ability -- I see worries of bias as a reflection of humility.

 

We can, of course, agree to disagree on this.

[Guest cherzeca]

@merkhet

 

i have read tversky and kahneman, and appreciate notions such as how mental framing can lead one to prefer one action over another even when the end result for each is the same.  as well the usage of bias when describing mental predispositions to reach psychological preferences, such as confirmation bias.

 

bias can be a useful psychological term to explain human behavior, and especially to understand why the rational man of classical economics often does not predict what the actual man does.

 

but that is not the way bias is used on this board.  i will leave it at that and we will agree to disagree.

[Luke 532]

Interesting filing (courtesy of Peter Chapman):

 

Ms. Robinson advised the JPMDL yesterday that Judge Thapur in Kentucky has indicated he's:

 

(A) ready to rule on the government's motions to dismiss pending in his court if Ms. Robinson's case is not transferred; and

 

(B) happy to oversee the consolidated litigation if the MDL Panel so chooses.

 

A copy of Ms. Robinson's filing is attached.

FNMAS_Robinson_4-27-16.pdf

[doughishere]

Bias means you find it hard/impossible to see the other side. Conviction does not mean that. You can have conviction and still see the other side.

 

i thought bias meant that you had assessed the other side and discounted it, but others haven't done the work that you have done and cant understand why you have discounted it, and they therefore conclude that you simply dont see it...

 

Sure, bias can also mean overly discounting it (i.e. finding it hard to see the other side) but we're largely talking semantics now.

 

I found it incredibly odd that Corker would take his time to talk about Fannie and Freddie...

 

 

This is starting to get a little crazy.....I sense that there's a piece missing....call it a hunch

[Guest cherzeca]

@merkhet

 

i have read tversky and kahneman, and appreciate notions such as how mental framing can lead one to prefer one action over another even when the end result for each is the same.  as well the usage of bias when describing mental predispositions to reach psychological preferences, such as confirmation bias.

 

bias can be a useful psychological term to explain human behavior, and especially to understand why the rational man of classical economics often does not predict what the actual man does.

 

but that is not the way bias is used on this board.  i will leave it at that and we will agree to disagree.

 

actually, i think this is an important point and i have mucked it up, so with the indulgence of the board i will have one more go at it.

 

the issue it seems to me comes down to whether i have examined the counterfactual to my thesis.  if i haven't, then i may have a bias, refusing to critique my position, or maybe i am just a stupid and bad investor in refusing to try to ascertain and weigh all of the facts and arguments.

 

the problem with most investment opportunities is finding out the counterfactual, not in properly assessing it.

 

take tesla.  you could boil down the long or short story to whether the model 3 will sell in the numbers that support the long thesis, and this is (simplified) a question of is the demand there, and can tesla supply it to meet demand.  we have found out that demand is there, given huge pre-order figures.  we have no clue whether supply (including most importantly batteries) will be delivered in numbers and on time.  so the problem with a long or short on tesla is not really being able to know a crucial determinant of the stock's value (ability to significantly increase supply).  if you are long or short tesla, in my view it is fair to say you have a bias as opposed to conviction, because you have taken a leap of faith on a factual issue that, while not knowable since future delivery is not knowable in a perfect sense, is also not reasonably determinable.

 

now here is the thing with fnma, and litigation in general.  if you are long fnma the counterfactual is presented to you.  it is in the government's briefs.  there is no search for the unknowable argument (more about that later re 4263, ha!) as there is a search for the unknowable battery delivery schedule.  about the most you can say with respect to the unknowable counterfactual is that a judge can not only have a predisposition against your thesis, but that he can essentially go rogue in his analysis (which is what i think lamberth did). 

 

now, do i know what is contained in the 11,000 docs withheld under privilege? no. but i do believe that given what i know about the facts surrounding this case, i will rather have P counsel see these docs than not see them.  so i have a conviction that any further development of the facts in this case will be good rather than bad for Ps.  you may think that is a bias of mine, and perhaps we really are talking semantics.

 

now, i really did freak out when ginsburg raised the 4263 issue that the govt didnt even raise, because this is precisely the kind of thing that i thought i was avoiding in developing my fnma thesis.  so if i had a bias, i thought it was generally the view that the judges will assess the arguments as the parties have presented them, and not go somewhere outside their briefs for their decisions.

 

now, at the end of the day with fnma, i am either right or wrong in predicting how judges will assess the NWS, and that will depend upon the quality of my analysis of what the parties have briefed, as opposed to not knowing a crucial fact that is unknowable or actively not disclosed by management (or not knowing what i dont know about lithium battery manufacture on a massive scale).

 

[doughishere]

Everyone needs to chill out........these last 2 weeks have been crazy