Watching the whambulance come for you will be fun. Expecting to be guaranteed 10x, 20x, 30x your $ is a fool's errand.
Good luck with your 400 dollar stock.
1. Priority Rules
2. Preferreds are above warrants.
Dat all.. dat it...its dat simple...hehehaha....Monies is all dat matters here....go figure....devil
The other board is only open to those who agree with the folks punting people, people too scared to speak their mind and people who agree with you alone.
You cant have it both ways.
This board is "open to all". Trust me, Jeffy. Cause you post here. You will continue to be allowed to post here. Unless you get AT abusive.
That other board is "common only or we might kick you out", right? Or am I wrong? Is it open to all? On that board, are people who think common are 3x-5x welcome? I say they are not. I wasn't.
It is funny cause pref are 3x-5x, right? The other board is dead. You killed it, not me. You killed it by stifling healthy debate.
Previously, it was mentioned that the institutional pref holders would be sued.
I would love to see you use your own money to sue someone for hiring a 3rd party financial advisor to come up with a viable, workable plan. That would be funny. Suing someone who is advocating not chucking us into bankruptcy. Too funny. Good luck with 100-400 per share. I will literally eat crow if this hits 400 by 2025. You can serve it. Must be cooked.
Not. A recco
The only thing pathetic is the carcass left at the other board. It is gone. Almost everyone is here, posting. Common and pref alike.
I bet on an outcome with a "win/place" ticket to get 6-10 bucks for a 2 dollar ticket.
The others bet a trifecta with my horse winning plus a bet on the same horse to place as a side bet. If the trifecta works, they make 400 for a 2 dollar bet. If it comes in first, they get 4-8 bucks for place but have to hit the next two horses correctly to win 400. Depends on the odds whether 4 or 8 bucks for place.(the odds are way too high, this is an excellent horse)
All I need is the horse to win and I make 6-10 bucks on my win/place bet. My return is also based on the odds.
People betting win/place tickets are being told they are evil for betting that way and that they must play the trifecta. They are also being told that they are secretly wanting the trifecta to lose and are plotting against the bettor of the trifecta even though they have no clue about the other horses(nor do they care) The Trifecta bettor has went so far as to say that unless if he doesnt win the exotic, he will sue the racetrack, trainers, jockeys and stewards for allowing the race because they all rigged it.
In fact, warrants have been one of the core pieces of the 3 major proposals from shareholders(Berkowitz, Ackman, Paulson/Blackstone)
Being factual and pragmatic is essential to investing. We all miss stuff. What am I missing?
Every major plan from owners included the warrants. Not a recco.
Warrants are not core to any housing *reform* plan nor are they a building block to housing *reform.* They're not the chief cornerstone nor a pebble in the structure of housing *reform.* Indeed, the warrants might pave the way to agreement to some plan, even diametrically oppsing plans, but such an enticement isn't part of the housing reform plan itself. That's why the warrants can play a part in any plan - even opposing plans, without effecting the plan itself.
I guess you could say capital is not a building block, either. They could operate with no capital for sure.
Anything could be called negotiable. My point is, what is likely?
My only point is, everyone can rally around a utility model or Moe's plan. The warrants are an entirely different consideration. Commoners who reject the value of those sorts of plans do so because they are incapable of seeing the worth of the plan because of the pork attached to the bill if I may use such an analogy. They confuse one with the other, the plan with the enticement.
Similarly I've noticed on occasion Pfd holders unable to tease out the warrrants from the plan, as if the warrants are inexorably tied to the plan. Building blocks support things. Yet I don't find that the warrants support or deny Moe's plan. The plan is good apart from the warrants. The warrants are another matter that I find best to be kept separate.
Let's face it, the warrants having nothing to do with the plan and were only mentioned as an enticement to go along with the plan. That alone demonstrated they're not part of the plan. It's a sleazy maneuver. The warrants should be debated on their own merits and not used to sell a plan or obstruct the view to the value of a plan.
No, I'd never say that. Capital is essential, especially given a housing *reform* plan. Things to do with housing reform are expected to be in a plan to reform housing. How to pad the treasury with more money has nothing to do with such things.
Essential?:
Capital? Not buying 3rd party MBS? CSP? CRT? Low income loans? Shareholders? TBA mkt? Warrants? Return on amount invested? Interest rate hedges? Explicit guarantee? Completely private? Completely government? More competitors(aka big 6 banks), 30 yr prepayable mortgage? Housing price concerns? So.... Maybe some things are essential, maybe nothing is.
Do I think the accounting was fraud? Yes? Can I prove fraud beyond a shadow of doubt? Hell no.
Calling something "sleazy" doesnt give moral "high ground" to other things.
Show me a plan brought forth by the big players without warrants. I will support it. Is it possible one comes out and is adopted? Yes.
Probable? Hmmmm (Like Arsenio Hall used to say)
Preferred shareholders seem so willing to dangle out warrants to Gov, to get them to release the companies, so they can make a quick profit at the expense of the common equity.
The Common Equity decides if div's are paid. Preferred shareholders are smoking crack to think warrants get them anything. Just more stealing, taxpayer liability, which both classes lose. Warrants mean no means to raise capital. Will not happen. Warrants are not capital. It is stealing the remaining capital thus forced taxpayer to be the capital. It would destroy all most value resulting in very little tax revenue. Not going to happen!
Again I'm afraid you're missing the point. Maybe I'm not being clear. It's not about what you or I think is essential to housing reform. What I'm talking about is what is essential to any reform plan *under consideration.* Walk with me...
Moe's housing reform plan, call it X, had elements that were essential to it. By essential elements I'm not talking about what we might like or not like in a plan but what makes Moe's reform plan *their* reform plan as opposed to some other entity's reform plan.
Ok, so If you remove an *essential* element of a Moe's housing reform plan, then obviously it's no longer *their* reform plan. It's no longer X. It becomes something other than X if something essential to X is removed. No problem there I trust.
Now let's apply that to the warrants. Remove the warrants from Moe's paper that disclosed their *reform* plan and guess what, we're left with the very same reform plan. It's still X. That's because the warrants had nothing to do with Moe's *housing reform* plan. Rather, the warrants are part of another plan. Warrants are an element of his plan to sell X. But the plan to sell X is not part of X. The plan to sell X we can call Y. Y is an enticement for people to go along with X. You might like Y. I even might like Y. Y could help us make money by getting Tsy to approve X. But whether we like Y or not, it's still not X.
Remove the enticement of Y and we still have Moe's X to consider - all the essential properties of Moe's plan are still intact. Moe's X should be evaluated on its merit, not on enticement Y.
All I'm saying is the *merit* of utility models or any other plans for reform GSEs have nothing to do with warrants, unless of course the plan under review incorporates the warrants in some relevant way to reform GSEs, such as to recapitalize the entities. But that's not what we have here.
Cheers from Paris.
Stuff like can make it harder for others to get their point across.
"Lemonade is a popular drink and it still is."
Kick me off a board, then once the board dies come here and attack with lies.
It's cute.
Any of us(including me) saying we know what will happen for sure is utter bullshit.
But. Saying the odds of one outcome or another is a wholly different thing.
Saying pref will never get divvies and common will recap organically over 20 yrs? not likely. Warrant cxl? not likely. Zero dilution? not likely. Bankruptcy? not likely.
The warrants are fucking illegal! Period!
Specifically, what part do warrants play in Moe's plan to reform GSEs and housing? I already know how warrants fit into the overall deal to get Tsy to go along with Moe's plan, but I'm more interested in understanding how "it [the warrants] is one fundamental and crucial part of the Moe lis plan...."
I'll make it real simple. How would the "fundamental" and "crucial" parts of the Moe plan to reform GSEs and housing be fundamentally and crucially altered if they didn't include advice on the warrants? In other words, other than being sweetener for the deal, what affect do warrants have on Moe's GSE and housing reform? Again, please be specific. Answer the question.
There is two choices for you.
1. Accept it and row with it and make monies. Like da devil said before junior's will likely see RV. Commons will be ok. But not at da numbers most see it to be.
2. Deny it's coming and complain on a message board for Pete's sake. And roll with what you got and if you are commons you are commons.
Like joseph said, pitch your common complaints to people who matter not to goobers like da devil, joseph etc.
We roll wit our DD. Dat all...dis is just some goober to goober reality check...not knocking commons at all...go figure...devil
Maybe so, Sim. But as you'd likely admit, the warrants have absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of any plan to reform housing or the GSEs.
Sim,
Thank you.
The preferred holders are not against the commons here. Its the common goobers who perceive that in some type of grudge. You no no see Preferred holders starting these decisive topics. Its mostly common holders. Its all good goobers...you bought you you bought....for each their own....go figure...devil
LD,
I'll take that as agreeing with what I've been saying.
Warrant exercise will make folks expecting 10x or 100x their $ angry.
Not up to me.
The following whitepapers from industries follow the Obama whitepapers' lead and expand on the utility model which they included conversion, new equity structure outlines and warrants. The industry whitepapers expands to give more detail in which the administration will take into consideration.
From where I sit, Moe lis or so e type of Moelis is the most likely outcome.
Warrants will be a part of any restructure because they are part of the original c ship. Unless you can beat the warrants in court (unlikely) it is here to stay....go figure...devil
I had friends tell me it was the end of the world. I thought that was silly.
In one of these panics, I truly believe the gold standard will return. These things are cycles....
Edit: grammar
Maybe I wouldn't be so blunt and forceful on the board if I had met y'all. On second thought, I would be more forceful....
Brandi- Appreciate the comments. I agree that Pollock is saying that saving all the banks was cool. That they should have let the sub debt fail here to signal that the companies were done for.
Problem is, they did the opposite in both their public actions and public words. They said shareholders still had economic interests(in so many words) and would participate in the recovery. In private, they said they were destroying them.
Lemonade is a popular drink and it still is.