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've asked ETO castle who first posted it several times and I haven't gotten a good answer.
All I need is confirmation that it's legit and I will be an idiot and sell my car to by more P's and K's. We need to buy up shares to tighten up the float so this can go parabolic. AIMO
Who is the presenter? Sorry I'm in class right now and not able to listen.
So basically the chart is just one person's idea of equity recovery and means nothing? Or will it at least get submitted to the court like the POS/POR?
Thanks man
Steve
Is that what Susman is arguing that should go to equity?
ETO-Castle, Is this "handout" home made by an observer at the hearing? What did Lebosco say about the chart?
I'm not in on the call cuz I'm in my BK law class ironically...What's the deal with the 7.5BB for pref's and 390MM for commons that was on the agenda? GLTA
Is that going to get ruled on today or is the court hearing over?
Can you explain the market geometry pictographs below the charts?
Dannon
What is the 3.1a? Thanks
Steve
My theory is that asking for sanctions against Rosen for BK fraud without explicitly being made available to the public just increases Susman's leverage against Rosen while giving Rosen the option to to save face or not.
Anyone considered that the sealed document was Susman alerting the court to Rosen's plan of gifting the NOL's to JPM and to the FDIC knowing that JPM isn't allowed to receive NOL's per TARP and demanding that Rosen be sanctioned?
It would be easy to ask for sanctions against Rosen because he knowingly and wilfully entered into an illegal agreement to the equities detriment. AIMO
In negotiations you need a starting point and if they were to base an offer on a restitution claim it would be where the price was at before the seizure plus interest. Others just have assumed that the starting point would be the offer of 8/share 6 months prior to the seizure. We all know how fast the financials can tank in 6 months based on deteriorating loan values and leverage of the firm. (IE a billion in bad loans on a firm levered 20 x can be a quick 20BB loss)
Now if the offer is solely on asset value of the holdings, then it would be stupid to look at the last days pps before the seizure. It would be based on comparative book values of other financial firms like BAC, C, WFC, and GS of somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 (and 2 for Diamond's sake) with interest.
It just depends how long the attorneys want to drag this out for and what Susman and the EC find to be reasonable (and if necessary the judge if it comes down to the examiner's findings)
AIMO
Wang, unjust enrichment????????????? You do realize that the FDIC put WaMu into receivership right before JPM bought WaMu right??? So was JPM supposed to not place a bid after the FDIC was shopping WaMu around??? Even if JPM placed a bid before WaMu was seized, JPM was asked for an offer by the FDIC.
Basically if the President of the US orders an Army General to drop a bomb on a city during war, you're saying that the General and his men should go to kill for murdering people. ?????????????
Honestly you should look up unjust enrichment in the Black's Law Dictionary then research Federal Agency Law and the role of the FDIC in banking before you start making false assertions and misstate legal remedies. AIMO
WildRide,
Thanks for your answers yesterday on the P board. Did the FDIC place Bear Stearns into receivership? If not, why do you (or others) think JPM would place a bid on something that the FDIC gifted to them?
Really what I'm asking is, why do you think JPM would pay for the seizure and not the FDIC? Or do you think both would? Thanks
Steve
WildRide,
Thanks for your answers yesterday on the P board. Did the FDIC place Bear Stearns into receivership? If not, why do you (or others) think JPM would place a bid on something that the FDIC gifted to them?
Really what I'm asking is, why do you think JPM would pay for the seizure and not the FDIC? Or do you think both would? Thanks
Steve
Yes b/c commons are subordinate to all other claims. I'm pretty sure JPM assumed all of Bear Stearns pref's but you might want to double check that. I don't know how much "a little money" is to you, but it would make more sense to establish a decent position in the pref's then buy commons as a hedge in case there really is a $20 offer--Which I highly doubt imo.
A lot on the P board think commons will see somewhere between $2-$4 making pref's worth more. But on the U board most posters are talking $15 minimum. I'm pretty sure if JPM had to pay out $50BB they would just declare bankruptcy and this whole saga would be like "The Rainmaker" where no one gets paid. AIMO
If you own commons you would be really rolling the dice if you didn't buy some P's and/or K's. There is a possibility that back dividends are paid which would make P's worth more than the K's. I feel you should own a minimum ratio of 80% pref's while others say 50/50. IMO
Basically at the current pps of P's and U's, U's would need to see a payout above 5.50/share to make them more valuable than P's. But P's are paid first so they could see the full 1000/share and the U's get nothing. IMO
Commons were offered $8/share by JPM several months before the heist but since then have been diluted, making that offer worth significantly less.
A $20 recovery per commons is suggesting about an estate worth $45BB more than liabilities while the current MOR (basically WaMu's balance sheet) barely has liabilities exceeding assets.
Thanks. Great answers.
I thought I read somewhere that there are only 3 BOD's left and that with the clause in the pref's prospectus automatically giving 2 seats for 6 missed divy payments we could (should) hold 2/3 of those seats? Do you know how many BOD's are left?
Steve
"Remember Gregory Cross is no longer on the suit, he just resolved a question on what the motion for his firm getting paid did (assets or liabilities)."
Would he be allowed to opine on where this case is headed and if he thinks Rosen has been committing BK fraud?
"The shareholders meeting is to replace the incompetent BOD which currently is guiding the direction this BK is heading, plus they are trying to maximize the payout for the BONDHOLDERS by screwing the equity holders."
Does the BOD know what Susman's strategy is? Are they privy to his firm's info or just the EC?
When I say we're paying for Susman I mean it's just less money for shareholders but I feel he is the only hope we have unless the UST steps up and thoroughly investigates Rosen's motives.
Steve
"Go4TheWildRide's post---he called and spoke with Cross who confirmed that they were looking at 10's of billions in assets--so less than 100 billion."
Are attorneys allowed to discuss potential claims to shareholders before the claim is submitted in a court document? If so, why can't we just have a formal sitdown with Susman and Co. about their strategy they are pursuing? If we're the ones paying him $1,100/hr why do we have to sit in the dark? Is this one of the big reasons why we would want to hold a shareholders meetings to discuss claims and strategy with our counsel?
Steve
Is there any way to see a stat as to how many of these shares haven't been traded for a specific period of time i.e. 1 month or 1 year? Thinking about your comment of purchasing all 3 million shares started to get me thinking of what the float percentage could be.
This is such an illiquid stock that if a fund wanted to jump in they would have to do it over a course of several days if not several weeks w/o doubling the pps.
After reading that article someone posted about the UST going after the Thornburg Mortgage BK Lawyers I am much more comfortable about getting an examiner.
Also, volume not bad on such a risk averse day in the markets.
Hertz
There's been a reason to load up at least once a week for the past 2 years. If anyone has been following this for a while and decided to go all in, they would realize they wouldn't have to do it all at once or even in the same week. If someone is speculating that a global settlement will be announced on Monday then they would have already had several days to make their position. Otherwise, passing FinReg or the news of the GS settlement would not have created a reason for a Monday settlement IMO.
Lets be honest, this thing is gonna take much more time so attorneys from all sides can have sufficient time to make sure every last cow on the farm has been milked dry. IMO
If Susman found the "smoking gun" giving equity an extra couple billion, he has no incentive to speed up the process b/c he is being paid hourly--not on commission. In fact, if this smoking gun is going to make us all ridiculously rich in a year from now he has my permission to keep coming back to the farm to milk my cows for a while. IMO
Susman is like our Phil Jackson. Phil didn't come back to win the division or even conference.
Right, my thought/question was if there is a reason to file documents if they are in the process of a settlement?
Before the POR was announced on March 12th, how many filings were submitted in the days before?
I'm thinking if they're hammering out the final details over a settlement (whether it's for an examiner or a global settlement) they wouldn't need to be filing additional docs. I don't want to be the 10 millionth person to predict a settlement but it would be nice to know the amount of filings before March 12th and if there's any relationship between the two.
Unjust enrichment would be a legal remedy if WaMu entered into a deal with JPM--The FDIC did and so it would be impossible to get unjust enrichment or RICO from the FDIC. Trust me I want the commons to go to $20/share just as bad as you do but legally it doesn't work. That's why if you're sold on commons you should have some pref's just in case b/c they're still a THIRTY FOLD increase from here!!! That's an insane ROI even if you live in Zimbabwe
Goldman Sachs is trading at around 1.2 times book value and Bank of America is at 1.1. I don't see where the 2 comes from in your 2 x value plus equation.
What Q's? The K's, P's, H's, or U's?
Spot on. Even if there was a leak of a settlement it wouldn't be anything new and I doubt pps would rise much--ie boy who cried wolf--until it was formally announced in court.
Any thoughts on the "resolution" referring to discovery without the need for an examiner as in 100% availability of documents by all parties?
If we do run, I would think preferreds would increase more than commons similar to Jan 2010 levels after the market had some time to digest the announcement of the amount of NOL's that should go back to the estate. Pref's were trading at 8-10% fv and commons were at about the level where they are right now.
A part of me does think that flippers will have a hay day with the U's which eventually could push the U's to retest the .70 intraday highs-- maybe just before the findings of the examiner are to be released. AIMO
Some on the message board are sincerely asking if an examiner has traditionally helped increase the value of a bk'd estate. It's much easier to have high expectations of the role of an examiner when there is historical precedent to peg them (expectations) against. Otherwise it'll be a nail biting waiting game until the examiner's findings are released---and I'm sure most of us have fingers that are still healing since March.
100% agree, but we don't need an examiner to tell us that do we? Maybe we do...so that the examiner can legally conclude that the NOL's can't go to JPM as a matter of law?
Maybe I'm just being cynical but I have this feeling that the examiner isn't/won't be our savior. I think it will come down the the NOL's. Keep in mind the news of the NOL's is what propelled the pref's back in December to the 10% fv level.
But that's why I asked about an example if historically examiner's have significantly elevated the value of an estate in a BK case. If anyone has heard about one in a different board or anywhere else I think we all would benefit.
Steve
So that's my question, how much do you feel BR is "hiding" that will be uncovered by the examiner?
Are there any bk stocks that have risen on an announcement of an examiner? Historically have examiners uncovered additional value for equity?
To be honest, I would be afraid that the examiner wouldn't uncover much more than an additional hundred to two hundred million dollars worth of value. Sounds like there's several people here that feel that the examiner would uncover several billion dollars worth of unaccounted for/ forgotten assets. I have my doubts b/c it just seems impracticable after personally talking to several corporate accountants that have told me just how meticulously large corporations track their assets.
Am I looking at the role of an examiner from the wrong angle? How much additional value do people think an examiner can/will add to the WaMu estate?
Steve
Chiron,
I feel like we've been at war for almost 2 years. Especially since last December when it was made public that WaMu would have more NOL's than previously thought. War is hell. Waiting for corrupt attorneys (Rosen and co.) to make things happen is getting old and I'm still confused as to the true reason why Susman would allow the delay.
Bankruptcy cases are cash cows for law firms and right now while many firms are struggling, I'm sure these firms have figured out how to take advantage of every last crumb from from the bread basket.
I'm not expecting to become a millionaire off this, but I do feel that equity holders should be rewarded handsomely--especially preferred's as long as justice remains focused on exposing the truth.
Yes. Ignorant sellers and MM's playing with the price. I bet there was over a hundred posts recently, if not more, where people mentioned the new POR version 5.0 would give more to equities.
Is there any way that we can audit Rosen's billing statements? I just don't think they're working as many hours as they're claiming. I think bankruptcy law is one of those professions where most people understand that the only winners are the attorneys but the corruption hasn't fully been exposed b/c attorneys don't want to turn on themselves...at least not yet.
I was hoping to pick more up this morning at $25 or lower. Is everyone taking the day off today? Volume is surprisingly decent.
GoPhins, in your scenario where's the extra 9.3BB coming from (7.5BB + 1.8BB)? From the estate's assets? JPM? The FDIC?
TIA
Steve
80-90% of fv and I'm getting the hell out of here. This has taken way too long and it's time to shift my energy somewhere else-maybe buy a couple investment properties where I can be somewhat in control of my investment.
So have we all agreed that approx. 20B to WaMu estate and we're looking at:
7BB for debtors
7.5BB to pref's and cayman's and
5.5BB to commons or about 5.5/1.8= $3.05/share to commons?
TIA
Steve
I 100% agree. Correct me if I'm wrong but right now there's about 7BB which would cover the debtors. To pay the pref's fv and give $2/share to commons we would be looking at an additional 9BB for Caymans and pref's and 3.6BB for commons. That's an additional 12.6BB on top of the 7BB that is "available" for disbursement according to the recent MOR. Susman would definately be happy increasing the amount available to shareholders from 7BB to 19.6BB.
I think everyone would find this scenario to be more than reasonable, and for people like me it would be a dream come true. AIMO. Please feel free to correct my numbers if I'm wrong. I've been trying to figure out pps for all classes if the WaMu estate is worth 20BB (b/c that's my personal scenario).
Thanks
Steve
I'm not so sure that's what he was referring to based on his need to quote the amount of o/s. Looks like all those shareholder votes since the bankruptcy have served the "owners" well.
We all know the real owners of every company are the bondholders-- just like someone put it yesterday- the bank is the real homeowner.
Chaarles,
I think we all want you to be correct. I hope commons can get $100/share b/c that means my pref's are paid fv and I'm happy with a 30x return from here. I won't have regrets if the commons see an even higher return.
The reality is, even if Willingham is an amazing investor, the Carl Icahn's (motorola and yahoo) and Warren Buffett's (moody's and conoco phillips) aren't correct 100% of the time.