Jump to content

merkhet

Member
  • Posts

    3,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by merkhet

  1. Anyone else notice that Trump is going to start pushing infrastructure soon? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/trump-will-start-infrastructure-push-in-january-white-house-officials-say.html I continue to think that monetizing the warrants will be one of the ways that they pay for the infrastructure plan.
  2. Remember, they do not own 80% of the common. They have a provision that allows them to choose the timing of their dilution, which can come before or after a capital raise -- so it's a bit more nuanced than just owning 80% of the common. They own 80% of the common of NewCo, not 80% of the common of OldCo. There could be many steps between OldCo & NewCo. Moreover, it's possible that OldCo common does okay while OldCo preferreds are made whole at par -- i.e. it's possible for Treasury to do well on its NewCo common while OldCo Common holders merely do okay.
  3. I'm surprised at the comments about the commons considering Ackman's recent kind words for Corker/Warner. I would note though that one possible interpretation is that common won't be "made whole" to their pre-conservatorship levels (i.e. $75 per share) so they "may not fare as well."
  4. IMO, no. You can’t separate the violation of Delaware law from the exercise of HERA powers; the reason the law was violated was because they exercised powers under HERA.
  5. I think he supports some of his policies. I do too (lower corporate taxes I have nothing against, though the way to get there is a different question...). I agreed with some George W. Bush policies too. Pretty different from being a supporter of either guys.. Malone won't go on TV and say negative things about almost anyone, not his style. Go to Barry Diller for that: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/07/12/barry-diller-on-trump-hopefully-will-be-over-soon.html Would be a terrible idea for someone who does a lot of M&A in the content industry to go on TV and talk trash about Trump given the rumors about AT&T and Time Warner.
  6. I keep feeling the need to point out that shareholders won in part and lost in part, which goes against the statement that SCOTUS represents shareholders' last hope. (Also, Jacob & Hindes, etc. that cherzeca pointed out.) Whether the claim for breach of contract will end up being large or small can be debated, but it's mildly important to keep the facts straight here. Also, the case that Fairholme appealed to SCOTUS was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dealing with the Administrative Procedures Act. It is wholly separate from the case that is being tried before Judge Sweeney's court in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under a Takings Claim, so it doesn't really matter that discovery is ongoing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims while Berkowitz et. al. petition for cert based on the APA claims.
  7. Bought my first stock at age 13 in 1996. I wouldn't call what I was doing "investing" though. Began really investing in 2008/2009.
  8. Hume's part of the case was based on breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which, and it seems like people periodically forget this, prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Why would he appeal the case to the Supreme Court? He won. They're getting ready to try the case back in the U.S. District Court for D.C.
  9. Hm, I would be careful about this. IIRC, Rick Guerin did something similar, and he ended up selling his Berkshire shares to Buffett @ $40 a piece to satisfy a margin call.
  10. Nothing has changed in my thinking re the warrants' possible "cram-down" of common stock. Trump likes to get a good deal, and he likes to win. In his mind, in order for him to win, someone else needs to lose -- maybe that's the prior administration, maybe that's common stock holders. I am significantly more comfortable holding the preferred than common.
  11. 100% agree with all of this. So this has been on the RNC website the last two weeks and just got found yesterday? Or it was adopted on 8/31 and not posted until yesterday? Given how big of a shift this is the time lag is quite surprising. Recall that the last two weeks, we've been dealing with two big hurricanes (Harvey & Irma). There was no possible way that this was getting into the news cycle.
  12. I think people are reading into the footnote. Rule 7.1.1 requires that the parties meet and confer on non-dispositive motions prior to submitting them before the court. While it's possible that they discussed settlement of the broader issues at the meeting, it's far more likely that they merely discussed figuring out the specific issues concerning this motion at the meeting. And it is not necessarily indicative of an expression of interest in settling.
  13. Didn't Corker/Ackman set up a meeting with each other at some point and start a dialogue? Yes, IIRC, it was after the Valeant hearing.
  14. What I find interesting in the AEI article is the idea that Pollock envisions that the companies would pay some sort of a commitment fee to Treasury to maintain their capital "line of credit," let's call it. Except, what would be the point of doing that instead of doing a combination of a capital raise and/or capital retention as envisioned by the Blueprint? My read is that he's seeing the writing on the wall re the resolution of the NWS, so he's slowly inching his way back while still trying to hobble the entities w/ the commitment fee and a ridiculously punitive amount of capital requirements.
  15. It's good that they encourage people to donate directly as that cuts down on how much goes to a second overhead. Curious why you chose to go w/ The Gates Foundation rather than going direct.
  16. It depends on whether Corker takes the attacks on him personally or not. That's my main concern as to how doggedly various groups are chasing down Corker. There's a saying that an animal that is backed into a corner is much more dangerous than one that is not. FWIW, I do understand the need to put pressure on him. I'm mainly concerned about stepping over the unseen line and turning him feral.
  17. Splitting up single- & multi-family and having multiple smaller companies sounds like a mix of the Berkowitz & Millstein proposals. Will be interesting to see how they deal with existing shareholders.
  18. I just checked the annual & mid-annual 2016 reports, and the Series S position was unchanged amongst all three of the funds, and, as far as I know, Fairholme doesn't report the preferred shares on their 13-F filings anymore. Do you happen to have a link to the filing or remember where you saw it?
  19. Treasury's report on changes to financial regulation is out. (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/A%20Financial%20System.pdf) Unfortunately, there's not much talk about how it wants to deal w/ the FHFA provision that was in the Financial CHOICE Act, but there are some interesting differences between what the White House wants and what the Financial CHOICE Act proposes. https://www.wsj.com/graphics/Dueling-Blueprints/ The biggest departures seem to be expanding the Financial Stability Oversight Council rather than curtailing it, and amending parts of the Volcker Rule rather than repealing it. We'll see what the Senate comes up with. Hopefully, they too agree on the idea that the FHFA director should be removable at will, and the White House's lack of opinion on that was to make things politically easier. It's not immediately clear whether there will be a future report from Treasury on the GSEs.
  20. When I said every news outlet, I did actually mean every. http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/06/08/house-passes-bill-repeal-replace-post-crisis-wall-street-rules/ Even Breitbart, hardly MSM, thinks the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate. (And yes, unfortunately, the byline on this one is John Carney, which I'm sure will spawn shouts of "fake news" here.) The reason every news outlet is basically unanimous that this version of the bill will not survive the House is that the GOP does not have the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster. That's also why the Senate is moving ahead with its own version of the bill that's different than the House version. It's a free country, though, so I suppose you can continue to believe what you want to believe. To be clear, I'd love the FHFA modification to remain in the Senate version. I have no idea if it will or not. That's why I stated earlier: It's not expected to pass the Senate in its current form -- though I'll be curious to see what parts of this bill are retained in the Senate version.
×
×
  • Create New...