Replies to post #39021 on Washington Mutual Preferred fka WAMPQ

[STRIKEEAGLE]

Agreed on all counts. 70 seems way too low. No offense to commons (me included). I get that APR will NOT be "strictly" followed, but, 70 / 30... no way.

Hoping the Judge wants a logical explanation for such a wide disparity from APR... IMO... and that she pushes the 70 north... your 90 would be nice.


AIMHO

[gophilipgo]

We need commons to preserve the "old and cold" NOLs, which are valued at $17 billion. Without them, we'll end up with about $6 billion in NOLs instead (from the WMB stock abandonment).

So what is the justification for the EC to make such a substantial deviation from APR?

If a certain percentage of common is necessary, then that's the percent we'll see, in my opinion. I've read that WAMPQs, because of their convertible-to-commons nature in their prospectus, can qualify as commons to account for that "old and cold", which is why we didn't see 51% of commons owning the company (that is, the WAMPQs satisfied much of that 51%). Whatever the lowest amount that commons can own while preserving the "old and cold" NOLs is what they should get, in my opinion. The rest should go to preferreds.

As it currently stands, between WAMUQs and WAMPQs, "old and cold" will own about 57% of the company.