Jump to content

bmichaud

Member
  • Posts

    1,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bmichaud

  1. My simple mind keeps going back to, WTF did they keep the junior prefs and common trading back in 2008? I could picture a Scalia asking something obvious like that - if you wanted to shut them down, why not cancel the securities and put them into Conservatorship/Pending receivership?

     

    And - I just saw posted somewhere regarding Treasury's emergency authority...in protecting the tax payer, Treasury must consider the:

     

    "The need to maintain the corporation’s status as a private shareholder-owned company."

     

    Riddle me that.

     

  2. Not surprising to me it's taking so long given the Conservatorship. It's not like they own a private entity like GM or AIG where there seemed to be pretty good pressure to exit. But due to all of the lawsuits and the growing recognition that there is a win for everyone, it seems to make sense a reorg will take place within a few years. But who knows.

     

    Not saying Berk can't be wrong. But just seems like he had to have had a worst case scenario in place. Who knows.

  3. So in the case of AIG, the govt provided a massive loan and took an 80% fully diluted stake in the common. Existing common participated alongside govt, but just on a fully diluted basis. I don't remember what the preferred structure was, but to my knowledge, no securities were outright cancelled. No?

     

    With GM, I don't remember specifically. Didn't the govt loan get converted into common? Or was most of the common stake obtained via warrant?

     

    What is the upside to canceling the warrant and simply returning to the private sector?

     

    Is it not in the govt's best interest to maximize the value of the warrant? Ya they can sit here and collect the profits, but given the 80% ownership, govt could capitalize 80% of those profits at 15 or 20 times, bringing forward years worth of net worth sweep proceeds. No?

     

     

  4. Page 6:

     

    "But the Court finds that there is no disabling conflict here that would permit plaintiff to assume the Conservator’s function. Furthermore, the clear statement in HERA that “no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions” of the Conservator, 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), suggests that the Court may not be empowered to authorize plaintiff to pursue litigation that the Conservator has declined to pursue."

     

     

    The Conservator did not pursue the litigation because FHFA is the Conservator and would not sue that which it is working with...i.e. Treasury.

     

    No?

  5. EXACTLY!! The Hempton's of the world who focus on the tiniest outrageous detail are not sailing around the world in Yachts. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if someone weighs over 300 pounds...

×
×
  • Create New...