given2invest

This is basically my portfolio.

Yes, and I think this is saying after Lehman and 2009 TARP preferred/equity infusions, no bondholder in JPM, C, BAC, WFC is ever going to have to take a haircut. Equity on the other hand...

Any business with leverage and that requires trust to survive has a chance of becoming insolvent and the equity going to 0, regardless of it's book value. Coke will never have this problem unless people start dying en masse drinking a Diet Coke.

More interesting is the TRUPS are $20+ when back on that date they were $5-$8.

I think, though not 100% sure, that BAC has fully assumed the countrywide preferreds. I would look into that first. I was involved in arbing many of these in 2008 when they went out of whack but didn't trade the countrywide. I focused on the merrill's which were not assumed.

why do you think this liquidation is good for common stock holders?

MF MF Global attorney says funds accounted for in broker-dealer accounts - CNBC -Update- Read more: http://www.briefing.com/Platinum/InDepth/InPlay.htm#ixzz1cU3zU92B

Yah, this is baaaaad.

They won't get a better deal.

Is there any question the citizens vote this down? They are at wits end. Will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Easy to see what they are thinking. They are already in a horrible situation with depression like unemployment. Why would people sign off on austerity measures? If I was Greek, I'd vote to tell the rest of the zone (and bondholders) to fuck off and print money till the cows come home.

Yah, who cares if Greece is in the EURO or not. bye bye.

99.99% of the population agrees with you on this one. Shit, I was a hedge fund manager and I agree with you (as does all the managers I know). But that .01% is very powerful. Personally I cannot understand why this carried interest thing doesn't get changed first thing Monday morning when Congress opens for business. This is one of the things that make me give up hope on Washington. The entire country can agree on the foolishness of it and yet we can't even get that done. I agree. There is really no argument to be made why carried interest should not be charged a progressive tax rate. It's earned income!

Interesting I am thinking the same. Was up a whooping 60% in Feb. Now up just 10%.... I was up 60% through July, now just up 20%. Hurt. Bad.

99.99% of the population agrees with you on this one. Shit, I was a hedge fund manager and I agree with you (as does all the managers I know). But that .01% is very powerful.

Lots of hedge funds invest pension money and endowment money.

You're kidding right?

Don't worry, the world is completely fine (economically) now that Europe has a bail out package.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D http://blogs.wsj.com/overheard/2011/10/25/tilson-buys-netflix-on-tuesdays-crash/ Whitney Tilson is ready for a rematch with Netflix. Only this time, he’ll be in the other corner of the ring. Having been short when the stock went to the moon, the hedge-fund manager is now at risk of catching a falling knife. Mr. Tilson tells us in an e-mail that he bought the stock this morning after it tumbled 35%: “It’s been frustrating to see our original investment thesis validated, yet not profit from it. It certainly highlights the importance of getting the timing right and maintaining your conviction even when the market moves against you. The core of our short thesis was always Netflix’s high valuation. In light of the stock’s collapse, we now think it’s cheap and today established a small long position. We hope it gets cheaper so we can add to it.”

Your BAC and Bear arguments are silly, the market didn't think they were solvent at the time that's why it couldn't raise capital. It's not a chicken/egg thing. Bear went to $3 as a result of its perceived insolvency. Also, capital markets can shut down and that has nothing to do with naked short selling! In fall of 2008, all companies had a difficult time raising capital at ANY valuation. Financials are a different breed all together. Let's keep the argument to Overstock and companies that do not use leverage at 20-1 and are not subject to bank runs. So you are legitimately claiming that if it wasn't for naked shorting, Overstock would be a different business today? A more successful business? That their denied access to cheap/fair capital kept them from succeeding?

That's completely ridiculous. A loanshark preys off of it's victim causing them direct harm. What does a short or naked short do? In the case of a naked short, they sell stock they don't borrow to someone else, thereby creating a new owner that shouldn't exist. How does that in any way harm Overstock? The only argument that can be made is the selling drives down the share price so much that they can't raise new capital. I think this is complete bullshit as for every seller there is a buyer, no matter what the float is of a company. But, let's say you're right. Overstock has never been denied access to the capital markets. They could have and still can raise capital if that's what they need to compete. Their failure is purely the result of a shitty business and bad management. Bear Stearns, Lehman, Fairfax - these are all financials and different animals. I do not believe Bear Stearns was solvent. They didn't even make it till the fall of 2008 when shit really hit the fan! How someone can claim the shorts ruined Bear Stearns is pretty funny to me. The financial system collapsed. You like to point out the Fairfax only survived because they had friends who saved them. It's just not true. Fairfax survived because they were solvent and the stock was so cheap people stepped up to provide them capital. The same would have happened with Bear or Lehman or ANY stock at the right price. No short can drive a solvent, cheap, business out of business. Greed will always step up to invest at a good valuation.

If the stock market closed at 2 PM instead of 4 PM would BAC have closed at it's daily highs? Why should we even use 4 PM as the closing price? What about after hours? What about overseas where BAC trades? In short, whether a stock closed at its daily high or low is totally irrelevant. If it was relevant, a computer would arb the shit out of it and always take advantage of the statistical gains or losses that were likely to follow the next day or week or month.

No, I'm saying that the shorts never caused irreparable harm to Overstock and the company's fundamentals are the reason it's trading at $10 a share and been a lousy investment for years. Could the banks have done something illegal? I have no idea, but Byrne's nonstop dribble about the shorts for half a decade now hasn't helped his shareholders one bit. He'd have been better off spending time on running the business and creating shareholder value which he has not done. In short, the short's got OSTK right. Byrne would have a much better case if he built an empire and cost them billions in the process. I'm a firm believer that naked short selling cannot destroy a business. Wait, are you saying OSTK's business has been shit for years because of naked short selling? Did naked short selling deny OSTK access to the capital markets? How on earth is naked short selling even partially responsible for OSTK being a $10 stock today? I challenged you in a different thread to find me even one stock where the shorts have bankrupted a solvent company and have yet to be told one.

OSTK has been an awful stock to own and an equally awful business over the last few years. Those shorts really ruined the company! Imagine what it could have been without naked short selling.