is making moves.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I agree. We all expected JPM to spin this off as though they were doing the American people a service by settling with WMI. This should not come as a surprise.
I prefer cash, but a stock swap might not be that bad. If JPM sucessfully quells its remaining exposure to the recent haphazards of WaMu, Lehman and Madoff (amongst others), its PPS might be on the up and up. With that being said, I wouldn't mind selling off a few shares to hedge my investment and pocket some extra cash while the rest of it appreciates and converts into long-term capital gains for big-time tax benefits.
I would love to see JPM hold a press conference on the matter with Peg Brickley and some of the other knowledgable reporters. Dimon's subsequent deposition would be such a joke, which is exactly why we all know it would never go that far.
I'm not sure.
Very true indeed!
This weekend has felt pretty promising after drrugby posted the news. I hope we can all celebrate over something concrete very soon.
I do hope you're right, drrugby.
Do law students count?
lol.
I sure hope you're right, drrugby. WAMU and settlement for all will be in my prayers over the weekend.
Enjoy the holiday everyone!
Well then why don't you share your understanding with us all since you're obviously leagues ahead of us here.
While you're at it, please explain why we are "several months, if not years, away from a resolution with the FDIC" or why "Jamie Dimon will not be buying this company."
You can also use www.xe.com for realtime exchange rates.
I hope you are wrong.
I'm sorry, I don't. I didn't look too far beyond the surface once I discovered the settlement was only pertinent to WMB employee 401ks.
If we start seeing major movement on the preferreds in addition to the run up on the commons, things will get very interesting.
They certainly are!!
You're right, but the parties would file a Motion for Approval of the Settlement just as they did with settlement over the employee savings plan. When they do that, regardless of whether the parties have to wait for Judge Walrath's approval/disapproval at the hearing, it'll be publicly announced.
How so?
Jerle, that is the most lucid and objective thing you've said in weeks.
Thanks and same to you!
I would love to see some good news tomorrow night as per drrugby's theory on this week's activity. He seems to be pretty accurate thus far.
Today's activity is a very good sign and it only further substantiates my expecations for a very good day tomorrow. If we close at or above $0.20/share tomorrow, my weekend will be spent beside a computer in sheer anticipation and anxiety over a filing or PR release concerning buyout.
Great DD!
Thanks for the research, XOM.
Today looks promising. This is a very good sign.
The shorts aren't the privy to settlement negotiations, so I doubt that theory will hold much water.
I have a technical question. Are short sellers - who technically buy when they cover their shares - awarded the benefit of long-term capital gain?
No worries, David. Thanks for looking out!
Good morning David, I replied to Mordicai's post (#92042) yesterday before heading out to class (around 5PM).
I realize that the Judge needs to know whether the appeal is permissible, but that is what JPM/WMI have argued in their briefs supporting/opposing JPM's motion for leave to appeal, which were already filed.
The appellant's brief, appellee's brief and appellant's reply brief are supposed to argue the substantive grounds of the appeal itself -- right? If so, then why "put the cart before the horse" as you say and not issue a ruling on the motion itself before briefing the appeal? It doesn't make sense to me from a procedural perspective.
I understand the common sense explanation you gave in saying that the Judge also wants to know if JPM has a chance of prevailing on substantive grounds if he allows leave to appeal, but I just don't understand how one could hear an appeal without granting permission to hear it. Again, I'm just thinking procedurally here.
I'm off to class -- thanks for the insight!
It doesn't matter. The minute entry on the PACER docket sheet says it was "So Ordered" by Judge Sleet today. I'm sure it has been signed or consented to by the Judge.
But if its been "So Ordered" by Judge Sleet, that means he has agreed to receive submission of the briefs on the dates proposed. I'm still waiting to see an Order granting JPM's motion for leave to appeal. I find it very unusual that he would "So Order" the stipulation but not render a decision on the motion itself.
Thanks.
I know, but his question was solely based on the return for WAMUQ holders.
No problem.
Think of it this way -- you and four of your friends (pre-seizure common shareholders) each own a proportional share of a Porsche Carrera GT -- valued at, lets say $500,000. Two of your neighbors (FDIC and JPM) hit your beautiful machine with a Mack truck, causing $475,000 in damages and reducing the value of your car down to $25,000. Three of your friends freak out and decide to sell their ownership interest on the market at $15,000 even. Five of your other friends (post-seizure common shareholders) realize that your two neighbors are eventually going to have to pay for the damages they've caused, and choose to buy the other friends' interests. A year later, JPM and FDIC finally pay for the damage to your beautiful car -- but they only pay $215,000. Accordingly, the car is worth $240,000 -- and your five friends who bought the car for $3,000 just made 10x their investment because their interest is now worth $30,000.
Sorry for the long analogy. I had a few minutes to spare and my imagination wandered, lol.
Because the holding company (WMI) would be granted a significant amount of compensation (in the form of cash, debt or equity) that would increase the value of the company proportionally. After outstanding liabilities and preferred shares are covered, the balance would flow to the common shares -- of which we, as WAMUQ shareholders, own -- because as shareholders, we retain an ownership interest in WMI. Does that make sense?
Thats a loaded question because there are too many variables in the way of a single, logical answer.
If I remember correctly, the $4B is at issue within the summary judgment motion. If thats the case, we're still waiting on a reply brief from WMI (the deadline was adjourned out to allow for Ms. Logan's deposition) and a hearing on the matter before Judge Walrath decides anything.
Either way, I think this is going to be settled before Judge Walrath issues a decision on the $4B. If not, its going to depend on whether Judge Sleet chooses to hear the appeal and orders a stay on the bankruptcy proceeding. If he denies JPM's motion for leave to appeal (chooses not to hear the appeal), I imagine we'll see a decision come down soon after oral argument on the summary judgment motion referenced above.
If you need a legal reference on my previous response (too much time has elapsed for me to edit), refer to FRCP Rule 23(f) -- notably the last sentence of the rule, where it states, "An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders."
I'm sure the bankruptcy rules have adopted the FRCP, so this rule should apply to our case and point.
The parties already see the writing on the wall. They're just stalling with smoke and mirrors until a mutually favorable compromise is made between the parties.
Thats correct. Look at the issues submitted by JPM on appeal -- they do not include the $4B because that issue was never adjudicated in the bankruptcy court.
In most cases, you cannot appeal an issue unless that issue has been adjudicated or decided on in a lower court. There has been no decision to date on the $4B -- thus, the $4B cannot be subject to the appeal or the briefing schedule thereof.
Unless Judge Sleet chooses to hear the appeal and a stay is issued on the bankruptcy proceedings pending a decision on the appeal, the $4B issue is still going forward as expected.
Because, (1.) There is no stay on the bankruptcy proceedings pending resolution of the appeal; and (2.) Judge Sleet hasn't even issued a decision on whether the District Court would hear the appeal.
I completely agree. The first meeting should take place in Vegas after settlement is finalized.
My only caveat is that I won't be able to attend if we meet around my law school finals.
I'm with you drrugby. Your theory has my support.
Great point, XOM. I think people seem to be forgetting the obvious.
MM manipulation can hide the intrinsic value, but it can't hide the volume. I'm excited to see what (if anything) Thursday and Friday will deliver.
It means they're developing a restructuring plan. This is excellent news too since it indicates they plan on emerging from bankruptcy (as oppose to moving into chapter 7 and liquidating WMI thereafter).