1.
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53553690Zitat:
Posted by: WithCatz Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:07:45 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 231514
Ok, a with my humble corrections.
1) I'll use U's instead of Q's {although both are correct}
2) Of course, I typo'd -- I know full well that Willingham holds commons, and I blew it, and have no problems saying so.
Rhetorical: It does amaze me that instead of the content, folks want to focus on the typos. If that's all we did here, well, I digress... Anyway, the content is the same otherwise, and the link is quite valid -- straight from the EC's mouth.
---- A repost with corrections ----
I still believe that there are misconceptions that I read. The EC will negotiate, and certainly (we assume) make an agreement, but the final voting on a DS/POR will include some form of voting, along with a recommendation by the EC.
The EC is a singluar voice, representing all of Equity (P/K's and U's). (And for the record, H's are represented by their trustee, Wells Fargo)
And based on what we were told on 1/28, that a majority of EC members held both commons and preferreds. And later, we learned that Willingham holds just commons. Leaving many of the EC'ers holding both commons & preferreds (if not all remaining ones.)
That said, as an example, the EC wrote a sample letter to be included in the DS/POR in case that goes forward.
{Ok, before people freak out, what is attached was a proposed letter -- based on the current DS/POR which stated that preferreds get 0-1% and commons get nothing -- please read the first page of this link, it was WMI who asked for these letters to be drafted, and the Equity Committee complied -- among others.}
I'm making a point with chaarles and others.
See:
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100708000000000005.pdf PDF Page 16.
THE Equity Committee IS WRITING ONLY TO THE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS
"Dear Preferred Shareholders" it begins. "...The EC is currently comprised of .. members [who] hold both preferred and common equity securities in Washington Mutual"
..."Under the Plan, the Preferred Equity... may.... receive a recovery of up to 1%...."
"On the other hand, under the plan, the holders of Common Equity Interest will receive no distribution ... and are deemed to reject the Plan"
... "recommends that Preferred Equity Security Holders vote to Reject the plan."
Quote:
My sentence was not clear. I did not mean "can not object", but I believe that she will accept what the EC decides. All equity is represented here by the EC, its decisions aré the equity decisions.
We are represented by them and that means we take what they decide. IF they do decide a fair payout for all classes, making a haircut to the pref. Who is going to object? They are the pref. holders representatives.
So, my point here is... while the EC holds both preferreds and commons. The voting will come down to those that are impared. If you take a haircut, you are impairing the preferreds and they will get to vote. If the commons don't receive anything, they don't get to 'vote' -- becuase, for obvious reasons, they are "deemed to object".
And my other point here by including the reference to the EC's "proposed" letter (at the time), is that the EC was writing to only the Preferred holders (back then). So it is completely possible that a future settlement may include only preferreds, even if the Equity Committee represents both.
BEFORE PEOPLE SHOOT ME. This is not what I want to happen.
What I am saying is that some of the misinformation needs to be corrected, so that everybody is intelligently dealing with this whole case.
...Catz
--------------------------------------------------
2.
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53553814Zitat:
Posted by: WithCatz Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:09:47 PM
In reply to: dgras0007 who wrote msg# 231477 Post # of 231515
dgras0007 -- ok, so apparently The Wall Street Journal is some "gossip paper"
Ok. I gotcha!
Quote:
This run was an amazing pump. I must admit it was genius...somebody who knew somebody that knows somebody who posted in some gossip paper that WAMU was not sold and so on and so forth and began all the viral rumor. Beautifully done.
Oh, don't believe me?... Click here. Here's the article... In print. In the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday (8/19)
www.mediafire.com/?rqp6ivant4x95d9 ...Catz
--------------------------------------------------
3.
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53554590Zitat:
Posted by: dragon52 Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:22:31 PM
In reply to: WithCatz who wrote msg# 231503 Post # of 231517
So... from what the article says... the FDIC could extend
the deal final date if it chooses or accepts the buy price of $1.88 Bln that JPM paid so far as the final price. Or it could ask for more from JPM, since public sentiment as well as others have voiced their opinion over how cheap the deal was.
In my opinion, the FDIC could save face and charge JPM at least $100 Bln for WAMU as well as extend the date in order to give them some time to ante up, in the mean time the FDIC would look like a hero and savior to all; they save face, JPM still gets in on the cheap, shareholders get some money back and life is good.
All this by August 30th? LOL the clock is ticking....
--------------------------------------------------
4.
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53554788Zitat:
Posted by: WithCatz Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:25:57 PM
In reply to: dragon52 who wrote msg# 231507 Post # of 231517
The All by Aug 30th has variables in it. see below
Quote:
So... from what the article says... the FDIC could extend
the deal final date if it chooses or accepts the buy price of $1.88 Bln that JPM paid so far as the final price. Or it could ask for more from JPM, since public sentiment as well as others have voiced their opinion over how cheap the deal was.
In my opinion, the FDIC could save face and charge JPM at least $100 Bln for WAMU as well as extend the date in order to give them some time to ante up, in the mean time the FDIC would look like a hero and savior to all; they save face, JPM still gets in on the cheap, shareholders get some money back and life is good.
All this by August 30th? LOL the clock is ticking....
Today, there are two things
1) The GSA expires on Aug 30th, which the FDIC Signed
2) The current P&A has a unilateral extension through Aug 30th
It's no coincidence to me that they are the same date.
It also seems obvious that #2 will get extended. It can, per the P&A up to 6 years. It makes no sense for the FDIC to give up the "power" it holds over JPM.
Regarding #1, however, in court, Califano stated for the FDIC that they did not have an interest in extending that over and over. If we remember, the FDIC was the last to come on board signing the GSA. And has things evolved, it seems clear to me that the FDIC gets more and more sqeemish about what they signed.
So, I wouldn't be surprised for an extension on #1 either, just not over-and-over.
Extending #2 -- I think that'll get done until this whole mess is resolved.
...Catz
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)
"Ein jeder gibt den Wert sich selbst"
"Der Schein regiert die Welt, und die Gerechtigkeit ist nur auf der Bühne".(Parasit)
Und es herrscht der Erde Gott, das Geld.(An die Freude)
Zurück
Weiter
