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.
Well FNMA, I am in! Luv you long long time so you can show me the money!
I'm glad I'm in first thing this morning. Run Fannie run!
Here in the U.S. I haven't traded in a while. I should have known about Scottrade's restrictions.
Thanks for the replies.
How do you buy LEHNQ? I am with Scottrade and it won't let me put in a buy order online.
Live streaming is working.
http://www.justin.tv/astockinvestor
So, it's back in the hands of Judge Walrath to decide.
Thanks!
I just got on. Is that Jberg speaking?
Good afternoon fellow longs. Remember this exchange between Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Goulding on Day 2 of the confirmation hearing? IMHO, The continued delay is nothing else but to increase the value of NOLS very significantly. This delay is very good for us. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!
Q. Did Alvarez & Marsal, prior to this confirmation hearing, in presentations to, let's say, the creditors' committee, ever put a range on the value of the net operating loss?
A. I don't know that I can recall the specific presentation, but I guess that we discussed net operating loss carry-forward with the creditors' committee.
Q. Do you remember if you ever put a range on the value to the creditors in a presentation to the creditors' committee?
A. A range on the value --
Q. Of the NOL?
A. Sure, we probably provided them with a calculation that we thought at some point in time.
Q. And what would be that calculation?
A. It would be similar to the calculation that I assume Mr. Carreon discussed earlier in his testimony. I wasn't responsible for that calculation and the numbers; I don't recall exactly what the number is at this point.
Q. So if Mr. Carreon said that the opportunity to utilize the NOL outside of just shielding the WMMRC income was between ten 25 and twenty-five million dollars, it's your testimony that that would be the type of numbers that you used for your presentation to others in this case?
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I don't believe that's what Mr. Carreon said.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Well, what would be the numbers that you think you used in your presentation to others?
A. I don't really recall the specifics of the presentation. I know that we were talking about billions of dollars of net operating losses on a go-forward basis at various points in
time. There's some different calculations at various points in time depending on the additional carry-back and all the rest.
Q. Now, Mr. Zelin said yesterday that, when he did his original valuation of the NOL, there was an assumption that you would confirm before year-end, and that would substantially reduce the amount of the unfettered net operating loss, but by the delay of the confirmation hearing and the result pushing into this year, you went from almost a completely restricted NOL to a very, very large, unfettered NOL.
A. That's right.
Q. Can you tell me why if an asset was going to be substantially increased by a delay of a few days to have an unfettered NOL, why anybody who was trying to push to confirm this plan before year-end?
A. Well, I think -- I'm not really a tax expert, but I'll tell you what I think has been discussed, which is that you can't just arbitrarily delay in order to preserve that. That may run afoul of certain tax guidelines. So to the extent that but for that issue, you were prepared for confirmation, I don't think that you can arbitrarily delay the effective date to say January 1st in order to make that work.
Q. Do you think that argument holds water when your confirmation hearing started in December and you were briefing the issue in the middle of December that if you had an effective date of January 2, you really think you ran afoul of tax concerns?
A. Well, I think that if the IRS found that you were preserving the NOL by artificially adjusting the effective date, then my understanding is that that could result in blowing up the NOL.
Q. Okay, let me throw out a theory with you and ask you whether you ever heard this before, that the reason why you wanted to confirm before year-end is that people on the
creditors' committee were concerned about the Obama potential rise in taxes, and when that was taken off the table, they were happy to take it into the next year; but otherwise, they wanted their money in this year. Did you ever hear something like that before?
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. I'll allow it. Let him answer.
A. I don't recall that conversation, no.
Q. Okay.
THE COURT: All right, let's take a short break.
MR. STEINBERG: Thank you, Judge. I don't have much more.
THE COURT: Okay.
He was a CNBC reporter, then transfered to FOX.
Take a chill pill bald. Where's your sense of humor? I've been in WAMUQ as long as you. You should know this is a common joke.
I have a question for the board. Is WAMUQ a good stock?
What did the Judge say?
Good point.
I luv it. Cross fingers it will be granted.
100% agree. THJMW expressed she is willing to consider reversing herself as she indicated in the motion by Dan Hoffman to
reconsider unsealing the documents, provided there are new facts or law.
Here's the Feb 08 transcript:
THE COURT: But wasn't this argument already made?
11 MR. FIORELLA: Yes, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: So why should I reconsider? I think I
13 already ruled on that.
14 MR. FIORELLA: Your Honor did rule on it but Your
15 Honor also ruled on the issue of that there was another
16 privilege which attached which was the common interest
17 privilege.
18 THE COURT: But I ruled on that. I mean, if you
19 disagree with me, you can appeal it. But what basis is there
20 to reconsider? There's no new law or new facts.
MR. FIORELLA: I don't believe that the Teleglobe
22 where Judge Ambro laid out the nature and the distinction
23 between that privilege and the attorney/client privilege was
24 before the Court specifically. And that based on that
25 decision --
1 THE COURT: Well, but that ruling had come out before
2 my ruling.
3 MR. FIORELLA: That's correct, Your Honor. But it was
4 not an issue that had been raised, I believe, by either party
5 in the motion and the response but was rather raised by Your
6 Honor in her decision. And that the basis that Your Honor's
7 consideration of that privilege was contrary to what Judge
8 Ambro explained the privilege to be and that once the parties
9 disagreed and made the submission to the Court that the
10 privilege was waived.
11 THE COURT: As between the two of them --
12 MR. FIORELLA: No. I be --
13 THE COURT: -- but not as to third parties.
14 MR. FIORELLA: I believe as to third parties, Your
15 Honor. Once it's before the Court, it's before the Court and
16 then it becomes open.
17 THE COURT: I don't -
18 MR. FIORELLA: I don't believe that the privilege
19 continues to exist between the two parties. And, in fact, that
20 privilege never applied to these three parties.
21 THE COURT: I don't know that the Teleglobe said that.
22 MR. FIORELLA: Your Honor, I think what the Teleglobe
23 case did say was that there has to be other common interest or
24 joint representation. And in this case, there is neither joint
25 representation or common interest. In fact,these parties are
1 if anything, adversarial. So it's hard to understand how a
2 document given from one party to another in this context could
3 be deemed to be either a joint defense or a common interest
4 privilege.
5 THE COURT: Well, again, I don't think any new facts
6 or new law has come down since my ruling. So I don't think
7 this is proper for a motion for reconsideration. You could
8 have made these arguments at the hearing.
9 MR. FIORELLA: Your Honor, I believe -- there is no
10 new decision and there are no new facts. The new facts which
11 we believed existed, we have to concede, do not, in fact,
12 exist.
13 THE COURT: All right. Does the debtor want to add
14 anything?
15 MR. FINESTONE: We're happy to rest on our papers,
16 Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Yeah. I'm going to deny the motion for
18 reconsideration. I don't think there's any basis --
19 MR. FIORELLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
CATZ said: "I find it interesting the way TPS did construct this. As in "new facts" -- gives THJMW an 'honorable' way out of changing her opinion. Eg, she can maintain the "I was correct in how I ruled, however new facts -- ANICO and the Supreme Court decision, change the lay of the land -- and owing to both of them, I am compelled to rule xxx instead..."
This is important as has been noted by Bopfan and El Juez -- THJMW is human, and a lawyer, and is reticent to ever say "I was wrong" -- TPS wrote it in a nice enough way to give her that out."
I bet PJS valuation is in that objection as well.
Great synopsis on all points uzual. I believe everyone agrees with you. LOL!
LOL! Funniest post of the day. At this rate, they'll be in Vegas before the WAMUQ shareholders.
Quote: "$307 Billion in assets, of which 188 Billion was in deposits,"
Wrong! It's $307 billion in assets and 188 billion in deposits.
Hello Hayn, I am fairly new in investing too and trying to learn as fast as I can. Would you let me know what you find out about this stock? What is a stock anyway?
Thanks fssh.
Thanks Sly.
WMI took more than $15 Billion from WMB?
In August 24, 2009 hearing: Bank bondholders' counsel said this...
Philip Anker:
Let me tell you some facts. There allegedly was $9
5 billion that went downstream from WMI to WMB. What you’re not
6 being told is 15 billion went upstream, north of 15 billion,
7 from January 2006, through September, 2008. Every dollar this
8 bank raised was taken by WMI. And that was the -- that was
9 clearly inconsistent with their obligations and their
10 representations.
I don't recall that anybody talked about this before or I may have missed it. Where is this money? How much is it really?
Anker must have some proof if he stated this as facts. There were talks the sealed filings that Dan Hoffman attempted to unseal was about the WMB bondholders. Could it be the proof to back up his statement above?
Yup! So I'll say this to Rosen. SHOW ME DA MONEY! LOL!
Funny you said that. I just posted it.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64144735
It's another way of saying, we are not ready to reveal the true value at this time your honor.
Here is a snippet of Rosen's statement during the hearing:
If the Court will recall, there was testimony
11 about the existing value or what Blackstone thought the value
12 of that would be, and for purposes of this conversation today,
13 we'll say it's about $160 million net present value,
We all know Rosen's ways. Guess why he didn't take this opportunity to discredit PJS valuation?
For those interested, He's got a pic if you click on the link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377880810167382.html
WSJ Article on Nate Thoma
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377880810167382.html
Hipster Battles Funds
Nate Thoma stood up in a Delaware bankruptcy court last December in a sharkskin suit and delivered a 24-minute argument that changed the course of one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history.
The 33-year-old Washington Mutual investor, with no legal experience, delivered what people in the courtroom called an unusually eloquent speech, helping persuade the judge to investigate trading by some of the nation's biggest hedge funds and to reject a plan for the bank's exit from bankruptcy.
The net result was a settlement between small investors and the hedge funds, which included Appaloosa Management and Centerbridge Partners. That deal has paved the way for the bank to exit from bankruptcy and gives the little guys a chance of recovering some of their losses.
Mr. Thoma's court appearance added new drama to an already contentious case, which began when the U.S. government seized the bank in September 2008. The court-ordered probe riled hedge-fund managers, who said they did nothing wrong, and made Mr. Thoma a folk hero among Washington Mutual's legions of small investors.
Mr. Thoma, who had traveled from Queens, N.Y., to lodge his objections in person, came across as "intense and smart," though "somewhat lacking in experience in the legal arena," says Edgar Sargent, a lawyer representing Washington Mutual's shareholder committee.
Sitting in a Greek tavern in Astoria, N.Y., on a recent afternoon, sporting a hipster-perfect scruffy beard and dressed in a plaid shirt and jeans, Mr. Thoma recalls thinking Judge Mary Walrath would cut him off after a few minutes.
"But halfway through, I noticed she was paying attention," he says. "I realized she was going to let me go on, and I went for broke."
Mr. Thoma, who gave up computer programming to become a trader in 2005, estimates he probably made 10 times his money in Washington Mutual, in part because he bought up cheap securities that will get a payout.
Mr. Thoma spent as many as 10 hours a day analyzing various pieces of the Washington Mutual case before appearing in court, and presented 33 pages of documents. In her written opinion, Judge Walrath cited Mr. Thoma's arguments six times, though she pointed out that much of his evidence was inadmissible.
"Some things were wide of the mark," concedes Mr. Thoma. "But it's my first bankruptcy."
No wrongdoing by the hedge funds was proved by the investigation ordered by Judge Walrath. Appaloosa and Centerbridge, as well as Aurelius Capital Management and Owl Creek Management, were ordered to divulge trading records and answer questions from lawyers for common shareholders.
The funds declined to comment, as did Washington Mutual's attorney.
While Mr. Thoma's impact on the case could inspire other small investors, they probably won't get as loud a voice. Judge Walrath was particularly attentive to smaller shareholders during the Washington Mutual case, in part because of the number of individuals hurt when the bank was seized, according to people involved in the case.
Soft-spoken and with about $500,000 in investments, Mr. Thoma is an unlikely agent for change in the halls of American finance and an even more unwelcome adversary for the hedge funds involved. His actions infuriated the likes of David Tepper, head of Appaloosa. They also served as a call to arms for small investors in the case, many of whom lavished him with accolades on Yahoo message boards.
When Appaloosa responded to Mr. Thoma's claims with demands for research, correspondence and trading records, shareholders, many of them from Europe, rallied to Mr. Thoma's defense, flooding the Delaware court with more than 150 objections. "Apparently, I'm big in Switzerland," he says.
Mr. Thoma, who didn't finish college, says he taught himself to trade, much like he taught himself computer programming. He is also following in the footsteps of his grandfather, who actively traded and retired early on his stock-market investments.
"When I was little, he would show me stock charts, but it didn't register," Mr. Thoma says. "Years later, it occurred to me, 'I can do this.'"
His transformation from small-time investor to activist shareholder began following the seizure of Washington Mutual. Mr. Thoma's shareholding in the bank was wiped out. He spent weeks in front of his Scottrade account, trying to figure out how to recoup money he had lost.
"I started looking at the capital structure, and I saw an opportunity to make back my investment," Mr. Thoma said. He bought trust preferred securities, a hybrid of debt and equity, which rank above common and preferred shares. That enabled him to essentially jump ahead in line for any money distributed from the bank's estate.
It also put him in the same pool as Aurelius and Owl Creek, who were snapping up the same securities.
Those securities were quoted at around one cent in November 2008, when Mr. Thoma first started buying—they are now at 16 cents—but they rarely traded and were hard to buy through his online brokerage account.
In the following months, Mr. Thoma bought in lots of 500 or 1,000 units. But he noticed other investors were occasionally able to buy them in much larger amounts, at one point as many as six million units in a day.
"I was envious," he said. "They were like whales passing in the night."
Mr. Thoma suspected the buying was being made by hedge funds, which already owned the bank's bonds. Owning large chunks of both classes of securities would help them control the bankruptcy's course, he figured. While this practice is standard in most bankruptcies, in the case of Washington Mutual, the hedge funds' strategies affected thousands of retail investors, who still owned the bank's securities.
In his December objection, Mr. Thoma said he thought it was unfair that hedge funds were able to eventually negotiate on behalf of trust preferred holders, seeing as they were also bondholders and involved in settlement talks. He questioned whether they were acting in all of the preferred holders' best interests.
Judge Walrath listened, and ordered the probe into the buying.
Mr. Thoma says he is still obsessed with the case, and his wife has banned Washington Mutual from household conversations.
But this battle is likely to be his last. He says that despite his success, his experience has left him disillusioned.
"The thrill is gone," he says. "It's such a big game, [individuals] just can't compete. I'm picking up freelance Web work again."
Great post. We may just have the best 4rth of July celebration ever. GLTU.
What's suspiciously interesting is how we haven't heard from JPM and FDIC these last 2 hearings on where they stand on the current developments.
Double post, sorry
Who was the lawyer you were speaking to when you said this? Here's a great tidbit...atty says to me "how ironic, the ones who had 'no value' will be setting the value for this whole thing"
Agree, though my prior post was in reference to Art's position that the Dallas Mavericks is the better basketball team in the finals. I thought that was funny when he interjected that. LOL!
If true, then that's just the sad reality of how lawyers work. Don't think for one moment TPS counsel wouldn't do the same if they were in SGs position.
Thanks Ilene, and a great job today. I also agree 100% with Art when he asked to be put on the record during the initial part of his argument.
As my youngest son like to say, You are the bestest!
Oh crap! call is down?
He is probably listening in with the rest of the EC counsels with drinks in their hands. LOL!