ILongyou's Comments Stream Stats
- 13 Comments, 1
, 0 
- Total Comment Stream rating - = 1
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Wachovia-Golden West Transaction: A Disaster Without Peer
Government As Investment Manager Is Not Reassuring
What Happened to the Fed's $1.816 Trillion Lifeline?
Wachovia for Free? Citi Still Paid Too Much
Real Estate Lending Growth, 2003-2008
Zero-Baseline Datapoint of the Day
Countrywide: Potential Short Squeeze in the Offing
Countrywide: Potential Short Squeeze in the Offing
** oh... one more thing... also note that Lewis first paid $2B for about 16% of CFC and then only five months later promised $4B (which is now closer to $3B) for the 100% :) So he is not as smart as y'all think.... here is what happened to the other "smart" CEO with almost the exact same scenario...
www.clusterstock.com/2...
www.nypost.com/seven/0...
kinda like someone paid $100 for a stock, which is now $25 and the long, always scared to fess a mistake and thinking greatest bargain of his life, throws more good money after bad... only to see it drop to $0.25 :)
Countrywide: Potential Short Squeeze in the Offing
-- If shorts see other shorts getting squeezed, ... it’s very possible.
** So now you are reverting to the old "shorts spooking one another" for your long CFC bet profits? Yes, a lot of things are very possible, if longs see other longs getting margin-called, .... :)
-- Add in the recent rumors of a Wachovia acquisition by JPM
** aah... the rumors...
-- With BAC, no analyst I am aware of is forecasting the company goes out of business
** Don't always need the "going out of business" to make profits on shorts
-- As such, your potential gains are capped at some point and your potential liability is extremely high as the stock has the ability to appreciate a great deal form its current levels.
** Well, yes, ... shorts KNOW that the profits are capped and the losses are unbounded... not any new information... but thanks.
-- It does not help that at current prices, shorts are facing a ~ 6% squeeze immediately upon the transfer of the position.
** That is certainly a VERY valid point.. and I agree that if shorts DID want to move from CFC to BAC, its more prudent to cover CFC now and sell BAC... but as the lack of the big arbs taking positions here indicates, significant risk lies in this deal not going through... or at least not as exactly promised!
** I am glad you mentioned the Wachovia rumor.... here is a short snippet from a VERY recent history...
"We feel like we are merging with a crown jewel,” Thompson said during an interview Monday. “This is a transformative deal for us.”
ring any bells???
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1.../
Here is more...
"We believe this combination of our two companies, both known for exceptional customer service and pristine credit quality, will generate superior long-term growth in earnings per share," said Ken Thompson, Wachovia chairman and chief executive officer, who noted that Golden West’s World Savings Bank is the nation’s only standalone savings and loan with a "AA" debt rating.
So how did THAT turn out?
Countrywide: Potential Short Squeeze in the Offing
I hope no one overlooks the author's inherent interest in actually making this squeeze happen through his "article", even if the squeeze is not necessary. As justintime indicated above, all CFC stock positions (long and short) will convert to the corresponding BAC ones. Smart money is betting that the CFC books are soooo bad that either BAC will still wiggle out, or try to play games with the acquisition conditions to avoid paying the full price. *IF* the acquisition does go through as proposed, then the bad books *DO* move onto the BAC books and then BAC must take the corresponding haircut now or later (6%? anyone :)) and becomes a good short!. So smart CFC shorts will be happy to move to be the BAC shorts *IF* BAC still decides to move the CFC books to its own! In summary, the smart money bet is on the horrible CFC books... and will happily follow it to BAC if Lewis is dumb enough to keep to his original plans!
Not ignoring my own name "cfcshort" :), this article is no different than the stock pumping spam I receive all the time where the "author" is already heavily on the long side and is trying to make money through his articles/spam!! Beware!
The Times’ 'Expose' of Countrywide Lacks Any Evidence
"(We’ve included writers’ name and location with permission)"
You seem to have inserted this to try and make YOUR article look a little more reliable to your readers compared to the NY Times article.
Who do you think would be willing to put their name and location on record, someone who is pumping up her employer or someone who is dumping off on the employer? No surprise there that NY Times sources wanted to remain anonymous whereas yours were probably jumping up and down to be fully identified on record for their employer to see (did they also provide their employee id numbers to you?)... especially the employer who is trying to decide which 20,000 to let go :)
BTW, did you also get any responses that were negative on the CW and unsupportive of the defense you have forwarded? I would be surprised if you didn't. Have you also decided to be selective about your facts like that other reporter you are talking about?
And about that lack of evidence, I leave it as a homework to find recent research reports that show CW to be one of the main accused in causing minorities and financially naive borrowers to get rates much higher than their credit history and financial situation would deserve. You see, not everyone is a financial reporter like you, Mr. Brown. Not everyone knows how to... how did you put it?
"it’s incredibly easy for prospective borrowers to rate shop."
No it is not. Have you looked at the forms and tiny disclosure print size? Financially naive portion of the population does not have any idea on what points and ARM mean... they don't know how two mortgage products compare... they just look at the initial monthly payment to make their decision... just like buying a car! Ask around your own family (uncles, aunts, grandpa, ...) and you would know.
Countrywide Employees Speak Out
Interesting other side of the coin article but doesn't necessarily make it the correct side either!
"(We’ve included writers’ name and location with permission)"
You seem to have inserted this to try and make YOUR article look a little more reliable to your readers compared to the NY Times article.
Who do you think would be willing to put their name and location on record, someone who is pumping up her employer or someone who is dumping off on the employer? No surprise there that NY Times sources wanted to remain anonymous whereas yours were probably jumping up and down to be fully identified on record for their employer to see (did they also provide their employee id numbers to you?)... especially the employer who is trying to decide which 20,000 to let go :)
BTW, did you also get any responses that were negative on the CW and unsupportive of the defense you have forwarded? I would be surprised if you didn't. Have you also decided to be selective about your facts like that other reporter you are talking about?
And about that lack of evidence, I leave it as a homework to find recent research reports that show CW to be one of the main accused in causing minorities and financially naive borrowers to get rates much higher than their credit history and financial situation would deserve. You see, not everyone is a financial reporter like you, Mr. Brown. Not everyone knows how to... how did you put it?
"it’s incredibly easy for prospective borrowers to rate shop."
No it is not. Have you looked at the forms and tiny disclosure print size? Financially naive portion of the population does not have any idea on what points and ARM mean... they don't know how two mortgage products compare... they just look at the initial monthly payment to make their decision... just like buying a car! Ask around your own family (uncles, aunts, grandpa, ...) and you would know.
Countrywide Employees Speak Out
Interesting other side of the coin article but doesn't necessarily make it the correct side either!
"(We’ve included writers’ name and location with permission)"
You seem to have inserted this to try and make YOUR article look a little more reliable to your readers compared to the NY Times article.
Who do you think would be willing to put their name and location on record, someone who is pumping up her employer or someone who is dumping off on the employer? No surprise there that NY Times sources wanted to remain anonymous whereas yours were probably jumping up and down to be fully identified on record for their employer to see (did they also provide their employee id numbers to you?)... especially the employer who is trying to decide which 20,000 to let go :)
BTW, did you also get any responses that were negative on the CW and unsupportive of the defense you have forwarded? I would be surprised if you didn't. Have you also decided to be selective about your facts like that other reporter you are talking about?
And about that lack of evidence, I leave it as a homework to find recent research reports that show CW to be one of the main accused in causing minorities and financially naive borrowers to get rates much higher than their credit history and financial situation would deserve. You see, not everyone is a financial reporter like you, Mr. Brown. Not everyone knows how to... how did you put it?
"it’s incredibly easy for prospective borrowers to rate shop."
No it is not. Have you looked at the forms and tiny disclosure print size? Financially naive portion of the population does not have any idea on what points and ARM mean... they don't know how two mortgage products compare... they just look at the initial monthly payment to make their decision... just like buying a car! Ask around your own family (uncles, aunts, grandpa, ...) and you would know.