Personal holdings are GREEN - finally!
Some news, or PR in the works? Or is this just a morning surge, to be followed by profit-taking?
(fingers crossed for the former!)
Dion

Though I agree with many, after having changed my mind on my support
for THJMW to that of her being a weak judge who had somewhat of a role in her letting Rosen and Weil run amok in her courtroom, still, logic dictates that Radium is correct is his assertion that she took the role of arbiter between contesting parties - and so long as those parties were "working together" toward settlement (despite the DIP's ability to control the shape of that settlement), she was absolutely within the law in her capacity as arbiter to allow the parties to negotiate between themselves without stepping in or asserting air traffic control between incoming and outgoing flights across all runways.

There may be judges who may not have taken this passive arbiter tone in their oversight of their BK courtrooms; and whether this would have been within the law or not is a question I cannot answer.

But this is not the tack she took; and again, I would assert the correctness of Radium's analysis -- that the blame lay squarely on the shoulders of the debtors and the office of the US Trustee -- understanding how highly passions run here, and how unfair it all somehow seems.

Dion

If the case had gone to litigation and trial, perhaps team Sussman would have been the right choice, using their strength in trial litigations?

We'll never know.

Dion

LG, I think yr impassioned crix de coeur is entirely justified; and while I am usually of the more logical, analytical and even-keeled bent - a la Catz and Radium - even I, who have defended the Judge from having to bear the brunt of being called out as the lone scapegoat, now admit that my perspective on her has changed. I still believe that you cannot hang the blame squarely upon her judiciary indescretions - after all, where were the EC and the Office of the US Trustee when ILS was killing himself with his one-man quest for equitable fees and exposure of blatant bill-padding? - but she certainly did not show herself to be "clean" as she went along with expediting the hundred nuances of a corrupt practice of fiduciary irresponsibility exhibited in the tactics of the dozens of pigs wallowing and sunbathing in the mud and muck of their esteemed professions.

Shame on all of them - not on any single one in particular, but on all of them, overarchingly.

Dion

56Chevy, you are spot on in yr understanding of equity's position on the part of the DIP!
Dion

All you can really do, I guess, is average down, Sam. However, since you are a pre-bk holder, I'm sure you feel ambivalent about adding to your position, even at these prices - feels a little like risking throwing good money after bad. But the only way to have a chance to just break even is averaging down and crossing fingers. That's why these plays are not for the faint hearted or those with low tolerance for ambiguity.

I have had situations identical to yours where I've averaged down and won, and likewise situations where I just cut bait with whatever I had left and put the small stake into another play that seemed much more sensible -- and lost. So there really IS no good answer as to what the best move is. It's a personal risk and style thing; and even the "best" at it probably take a beating more often than a victory lap.

I wish you luck, Sam, however you decide to play this. Stay with your best instinctual feelings, informed by whatever DD you cull as being relevant and honest, and turn a deaf ear to those who vibrate with excitement, or who pule and whine like Eeyore off his meds

Dion

Good sentiment, Frank - honestly stated, and with modesty in the face of an unknown. BK plays are always risky because so much goes on behind the scenes with lawyers, judges, and the principle players - the DIP, creditors, bond and debt-holders, and unions. Here are some things that might help to level the playing field for you:

1. One cannot, IMO, treat this stock as it is now as an "investment". So long as it is in BK, the more realistic perspective is to see it as a "trading" stock.

2. If you were holding Pre-BK as a much higher pps, you can either a) hold and gamble that equity will emerge intact and value of yr shares will recover; b) sell and recover whatever you can and move on to another play; or c) average down so that while the stock is in BK, you can bring your pps holdings down enough to realize some gain trading it during its spikes and dips through BK.

3. The stock will move on news; silence brings the pps down.

4. The BKs that I have been involved in were very lengthy processes. I've not been in one which saw settlement/resolution in under a year. So if you aim to try to average down in order to trade, it would be my opinion that you have a window of at least 6 months to try to trade.

5. BK proceedings - legal wranglings, court proceedings, PORs - are all unpredictable in terms of time and outcome. Anyone who says with any force of conviction that either equity WILL survive beyond BK, or that she's gonna run to 1-2 dollars while in BK, is at best whistling in the dark.

6. Whatever coin retail might be able to make, either by trading, or by surviving the exit, is a pittance compared to the millions the lawyers will be making over the course of negotiating and litigating.

7. If you are the impatient sort, or have a low tolerance for ambiguity, this might not be the play for you.

That being said, I was not a pre-BK shareholder. I am here because I believe that within the 6-9 month window of time, I can trade this stock for some profit. I could very well be mistaken, and so #8: I'm not in this with more than I can afford to lose.

Best of luck to you! AIMHO.

Dion

That's pretty good company!
I really like Blackrock's and Vanguard's positions, both institutional and mutual refund ...
Dion

Not to sound naive, but what might such a move - voiding the NOLs to allow a buyout which brings along with it 18b in Ordinary Losses - mean for a buyout share price of WMIH?

Dion

Extremely well-written!!
(I've always wanted to use the word "carbunkle" in a sentence!)
Dion

Ernie, et. al, / in case Maray didn't have a chance to '"splain," a POR is a Plan Of Reorganization. It is the DIP's "Plan" for how creditors, debt-holders, bond-holders, and equity (if there is anything left) will get paid, in order of priority (equity coming in dead last) when assets are distributed upon confirmation of the DS - disclosure statement - and all stakeholders vote. An EC needs to be in place before the DIP comes out with its DS and POR; otherwise, by that time, it's too late for equity to have had a voice at the table in how the terms of the POR get laid out.

Dion

Maray is absolutely right. This is what I have been posting about - that a>L is going to be spun and manipulated by the DIP and the burn rate of lawyers. I would say again - this is not an investor's stock any more; it is a trader's stock. Maray and I have been in WMI (uq, pq, and k shares which converted to WMIH shares after BK), and we saw, over 3 1/2 years, how all this goes down.

It wasn't unt the office of the us trustee got involved, I think, with a motion in support of appointment to the judge, that an EC committee was formed. Perhaps that is an avenue for pursuit for getting an EC Committee started.

Dion

For the sake of longs and anyone else who bought in pre-BK, I certainly hope so!
For me, however, the play is to trade it while in BK.
I do not think that right now, this can be played or viewed as an investment.
Perhaps after exiting BK, with newly reorganized shares; but not now.
Just my opinion.
Dion

Just remember, keeping things in perspective, that an EC and its counsel play second fiddle to the debtors and its counsel. You are correct, Ernie, in yr reminder that the DIP, debt and bondholders, and the company - with their various counsel - will try hard to spin assets/liabilities such that the case for wiping out equity as debt will be part of the DIP's plan of reorganization. An EC is necessary in order for there to be a voice at "the table", to counter the claim that will be made that there is/will be no money available for equity so that it survives reorganization. The first hint of what the DIP plans to do in its POR concerning how the payment waterfall will be constructed will be, if an EC committee is formed, how vociferously counsel for the DIP argues that the EC should be disbanded. If this should occur, you can bet that there is no intention on the part of the DIP to have equity included in the POR's waterfall.

Fighting this is the role of the EC. But it is not easy. Counsel for the DIP has the lead in the courtroom, and an EC are basically on the defensive, able to counter claims, but very often handcuffed in their ability to initiate their own claims/discovery. They are a thorn in the paw of a DIP, which otherwise would just run roughshod over equity.

Dion

Marayatano: thank you for the distinction. Logical; makes sense.
And nice to see you here, in another venue away from WMIH!
Dion

Well then for god's sake, stop posting.
Dion

lol -- even though I do not believe this is going sub-penny, but will reverse, I'll admit yr comment was pretty funny!
Dion

And with your extensive posting history I should attend to this post because ...???
Dion

Lost: Very nice explanation of a relationship I didn't fully understand until just now. Many thanks!
Dion

Okay - thank you, Swift.
I actually like having some scary crazy in my portfolio.
It's nice to have comfortable stock in a portfolio, divident earners, mutual funds that beat the benchmarks, blue chips, and there's a place for everything.
But the volatility of certain individual, lone lottos is adrenal-addictive, and the unpredictable swings exciting; and on pinks, and especially with BK situations, these kinds of plays are where I've made (and, I should add, lost) the most money!
Dion

Sorry - must be an "inside" comment. What does yr reference allude to, if I might ask?
Dion

Correction - in at .049. Forgot to look at average.
And fingers still crossed.
Dion

In at .052, and sitting back to wait out the dip. Fingers crossed for a climb today.
GLTA !
Dion

Ernie - Agree wholeheartedly, with both assertions: timing the entry on a Q play, and company outlook.
Dion

Thank you, Ernie. And I agree; .05 or .06 is a great entry point for the Q tomorrow.
I like these BK plays, coming in right at the crease.
I'm in pcxcq as well, for the same reason, and have seen you on that board.
Best of luck tomorrow,
Dion

Neither eTrade nor iHub's charts indicate the pps movement here today. Can someone pls tell me what the close was, and perhaps speculate on what this might open at once the Q is laid down?

Do you expect it to trade at the opening?

Thank you - Dion

Shareholder value WILL be protected; unfortunately for longs, it will be the new shareholders in the post-emergence reorganized company who will benefit from the protection.
Dion

Ernie: apparently you and I have been there before! Glad you understood what I was saying!
Bedtime for me. May tomorrow be sunny and bright. GLTA.
Dion

Iheart: creditors and bond holders usually have to be paid in full before equity can see a dime.
Dion

Agree with Lost and Ernie. I am confident that an Equity Committee will be requested and appointed.
What I am saying, though, is that even with an EC, it is counsel for the DIP that will have the lead.
EC counsel has a secondary role. It can, however, argue for a voice at the table as a Plan of Reorganization is being developed; it can request additional discovery if it feels that pursuit of relevent facts by the DIP is purposefully shoddy, or if it can prove a colorable claim or fraud, or IT, or some other "smoking gun"; and thus it can protract a litigation if a Global Settlement Agreement is foisted upon the proceedings which it feels is not in the interests of equity and thus add leverage if things come down to a choice between settlement and trial.

The real winners of a BK where there are millions or billions at stake are, of course, the lawyers, whose hourly billing can seriously eat into value of assets of an estate or BK company.

But my point was that a judge can only react to, and rule on, that which is presented to him/her, which also has to meet a certain level of rule of law for being appropriate for entry as evidence or a motion to rule. Expect counsel for the DIP to spin facts and evidence every which way in order to block an EC from persuing claims -- including lowball devaluation of assets (watch Blackstone), and attempts to disband the EC or its counsel.

Don't expect legal representation for the institutional investors to be equity-friendly, either. They will throw equity under the bus if they can get common shares cancelled as debt and position themselves above equity in a POR's waterfall.

Dion

Stanner: Man, may your wishes come true! Hitting 2.50 on the pps anytime in the near/forseeable future would be a long-awaited 10-bagger for me! And with 2 girls in the house -17, and 7 months - that'd be tuition and Fall clothing for my teen, plenty of diapers and formula for the baby, with enough left over for me to pick up some Depends!

You are right not to trust Blackstone. They are hired guns, and if Citi is footing the bill for their services (btw: do they perform FORENSIC accountancy?), there's no doubt but that the assessment will be slanted/biased in the DIP's favor.

I think, also, that to hang yr hat and hopes on the luck of the draw in getting a "good" or "fair" judge to have this BK on his/her docket, is to over-endow the judge presiding over this with Judge Judy powers, e.g., taking aggressive actions and ripping the TBTF boys a new a-hole, initiating areas for discovery, and rendering decisions based on an empathic sense of protectionism for "the little guy"/retail shareholders. Having seen how judges can be held hostage by the manipulative skill-sets of BK counsel, it is important to be aware of the fact that it is really the DIP's presentation - or lack of presentation - of their argument that the judge can react to. S/he cannot introduce anything that isn't put forward, and cannot rule on anything that is not introduced as being evidentiary-based. The judge is REactive, not proactive. And as I mentioned in an earlier post somewhere, the "fairness" level that needs to be met under BK law for a POR to be approved - whether that POR is inclusive of having equity survive or not - is very meager, and meant to protect the debt and bond holders, shareholders be damned. If there is enough left after the waterfall of debt ands bond holders being paid in full, then that would trickle down to equity. But usually the DIP tries to get equity cancelled, even if it means manipulating the assets and liabilities accountancy and then crafting the POR's waterfall so that it stops just short of equity.

It's a nasty bit of litigation. I've witnessed it, nefarious and naked, played out in other BKs.

Dion

Stan: So what do you think, my friend? Pretty good performance since yesterday.
Dion

Stanner: 7 good trades would be awfully lucky! I'd be happy with 2 good trades, with the aim of taking my initial investment off the table and riding free shares.

If it continues to fall and hits below .15, I'll see you there as I accumulate. If it goes the other way on some news and climbs, fight the urge to chase the pps. There'll be another entrance point after folks take profits and it finds a bottom again.

Like you, I'll likely spend the rest of the week reading and watching, rather than posting -- unless things get exciting. AIMHO.

Dion

Stanner: Yr very welcome. I'm not a seasoned old pro at this either, but I have been through several BK plays - each one unique unto itself, and complicated.

I like how you phrased your stance:

"I am putting a game plan together that is only in the beginning stages. So ..part 1-it has to be doable.Something I can do.So as of right now ,I can wait, or I can sell and wait, or I can buy and sell, or sell and move on.I have chosen to wait and not commit new funds today."

Assessing "doable-ness". That's what brought me in - could I do it, which for me was based on my available funds, the window of time I'm willing to have that money tied up, and a best guess as to the prospect of realizing any profit before either a) the situation informs me I should just bail, or b) the company's proximity to exiting, newly restructured, becomes imminent.

For me, at my entrance point, with the money I felt I could afford to have tied up, I felt it was "doable".

You have to find your spot, I suppose. Where you're comfortable. And maybe that's not to commit at all! The market is not short on companies filing for BK; and if not this one, there's always another one.

I wish you much luck, however you approach this. Or the next. Or not at all ...

Dion

I am not a long here, and truly do empathize with those who got caught in what dubiously appears to be misdirection on the part of the company while those standing to make (or lose) the most money either quietly filed out the back door, or cut the line to sell while high and buy back in on the cheap after the bottom fell out.

I was attracted to the stock because of the BK play it presents. This is no longer an investor's stock; it is a trader's stock. There is still plenty of opportunity to make money trading this while in BK. It just can't be seen as a long investment. This is why I feel badly for those who got burned by the investment; I've been there too many times.

If a long, one can either cut bait and recoup whatever can be salvaged, or else average down to play it as a trading stock, with a realistic exit point in mind.

Having played BK stocks before, I see this as a promising trading opportunity - a low entry point, and time enough for things to happen and PR/news to be released which can set the pps off into several cycles of spikes and pull-backs, before the company exits BK.

It is far more likely than not, in my opinion, that since the DIP are large banking institutions (and hedge funds will come too), that a strategy For reorganization and emergence will be to get equity cancelled as debt in the end. Though I have read many posts discussing A>L, BK-specializing lawyers retained by banks and hedge funds are devious crooks when it comes to manipulating balance sheets and "gathering" claims against the company in order to demonstrate the least, diminishing value for assets. So I hold out little hope of equity surviving, given the brief DD I've done over the last 2 days and thinking of this company's dynamics just before, and now at the beginning of the BK process, relative to other companies which have filed Ch 11.

All of this to say: if one approaches this stock now as something which was, but no longer is; and if one trades it, as it currently is, there is opportunity still to be had.

AIMHO.

Dion

Sam: Sorry to say, but in my limited experience with BK plays, if the banks are the ones in control of the restructuring/refinancing of the company, the chances of a judge advocating for the side of equity shareholders is slim. A judge can only rule on evidentiary documents / motions put forward by the DIP; and with the litmus for fair and reasonable under BK law as weak and manipulatable as it is, a judge can be made to look very bad in the eyes of shareholders because s/he oversees such a low threshold of proof - as put forward not by equity, or an EC, but by the DIP.
Dion

Wow. This is so hopelessly wrong on so many levels; I couldn't begin to dissect it.
Dion

Long: refer to my post #2700, and then go to WMIH message board. The conversion story and history of how the percentages of equity holdings got converted to NEWCO shares is posted there - but too long/complex To explain in a message.
Dion

Rick- thank you. I see it now on my eTrade, at .29 or thereabouts.
Btw ... Is that you, Rickzy, from the old days of core WMI players?
Dion

Q: Is Patriot Coal not trading temporarily as it undergoes the transition to OTC with its new ticker?
Dion