Categories
Articles

Greenspan, Paulson & Co, and PIMCO

My disdain for our former Fed Chair grows daily..

Wall St. Newsletters

Found this interesting post this morning.

By Mark Mitchell, Published: February 21st, 2009 9:44 PM EST

Charles Gasparino, the CNBC reporter, published an op-ed in The New York Post yesterday.

Here’s a part of what he had to say:

Earlier this year, high-flying hedge fund Paulson & Co. retained [former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan] for its “advisory board.” The firm is a noted “short seller” of banks and financial stocks – meaning it makes money when these companies’ shares fall.

The thing is, Greenspan is making public comments that inevitably influence public policy and the markets – and some of those comments may well have led to his clients making a nice profit.

In a recent speech to the Economic Club of New York, Greenspan said the recession would likely “be the longest and deepest” since the Great Depression and that Congress might have to allocate more money to save the beleaguered banking system on top of the billions already gone for the Troubled Asset Recovery Program.

Then he told the Financial Times: “It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring” of their troubled balance sheets.

Such a move would wipe out stockholders, sending shares of banks even lower – thus likely benefiting Paulson. It would also protect bondholders, helping another Greenspan client, the large bond-firm Pimco.

The question is: Why didn’t Gasparino, or anybody else, say this on CNBC?

Hedge fund manager Paul Kedrosky appeared on the network to criticize Greenspan’s relationship with Pimco, but there was no mention of the former Fed chairman spewing negativity for Paulson’s short selling operation.

More importantly, no proper journalist at CNBC has reported that short sellers use many other tactics (such as planting false stories on CNBC and manufacturing phantom stock) to demolish public companies and crush the markets.

At our nation’s leading business network, only Jim Cramer reports on this scandal. Only Jim Cramer tells America about one of the most important causes of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

He does so with funny sound effects while prancing around the Romper Room set of a program that is called “Mad Money.”

These days are surreal, to say the least.

Now, I’m all for free speech like the next guy. I am also for full disclosure. If Greenspan is going to give a speech on the economy, he must be required to tell us the negativity he is espousing directly benefits his clients.

He already did the historical revisionist thing last year when his book came out. He attempted to put a nice face on the mess he left Ben Bernanke with. Folks did not buy it.

Now Greenspan, “the advisor” is giving speeches as the “former Chairman of the Fed” and the opinions he is giving just happen to parrot those of his clients.

Can anyone get him to be the least bit honest….anyone??

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Sunday Humor……

This site is so funny I had tears coming down my face. I think we could all use a laugh now..

Wall St. Newsletters

It is called F$%& My Life

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Saturday Reading- All About Bailout

Auto’s, Mortgages, Stim broken down, Ross

Wall St. Newsletters

– Bull, let them go

Duh

– The big “rip off”

A buyer?
Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Hotchkis & Wiley Releases Misleading Press Release About Their Holdings in Dow Chemical & Rohm & Haas

When I first read this press release, I was left wondering what I was missing. How could Hotchkis & Wiley, as a Dow shareholder as intimated in this letter want a merger now? So I did some digging and guess what I found?

Wall St. Newsletters

Here is the press release:

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management
today announced the firm has contacted Rohm and Haas Company (NYSE:ROH –
News) to express support for the closing of the acquisition of Rohm and
Haas by The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW – News) under the
contractual terms of a definitive agreement entered by Dow and Rohm and
Haas on July 10, 2008.
A large shareholder of Rohm and Haas, Hotchkis and Wiley addressed CEO
and chairman Rajiv Gupta in the following letter today:

Mr. Rajiv L Gupta
CEO and Chairman of the Board
Rohm and Haas Company
100 Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Dear Mr. Gupta,

We are writing to express Hotchkis and Wiley’s support for your efforts
to close the Dow Chemical transaction on its contractual terms. As a
recent top ten shareholder of Dow Chemical and current large shareholder
of Rohm and Haas, we are intimately familiar with the assets of both
companies. Additionally, we have undertaken a thorough analysis of the
merger agreement and Dow Chemical’s ability to finance this transaction.

Regarding the merger agreement, our conclusion is that specific
performance is warranted. We view the contract as strong and unlikely to
be improved. It is our view that Dow Chemical should honor their
commitment. However, in the event that the agreement continues to be
breached, we want to affirm your resolve to seek specific performance
along the original terms laid out in the contract. Any change to the
original contract would merely expose shareholders of Rohm and Haas to
unnecessary risks.

Dow has a variety of options available to honor the agreement on its
original terms. These options include drawing down the bridge loan,
divesting certain assets, obtaining long-term debt financing and issuing
equity. While the current financial crisis has made financing terms less
favorable than they have been in the past, options are nevertheless
available. Any one or combination of these options would provide the
capital needed to close the transaction.

The most obvious solution for Dow Chemical is to undertake an equity
offering. This option has been available to Dow since the signing of the
agreement and continues to be available today. We believe that the
current uncertainty regarding the transaction has obscured the value of
the combined entity. We have expressed to Dow Chemical our interest in
participating in an equity offering to accommodate the transaction.

Hotchkis and Wiley has a 28 year history of investing in US equity
markets. As of December 31, 2008, we managed $10.8 billion in client
assets. We look forward to being of any help possible. Please contact me
with any questions or follow up discussion.

Sincerely,
Stan Majcher
Principal and Portfolio Manager

One problem, Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management is no longer a shareholder in Dow chemical acording to theirrecent 13H-R SEC filing.

At no time does Hotchkiss admit they no longer are Dow shareholders. Isn’t this is violation of some SEC disclosure law? Sure they say “recent top ten holder” but at no point do they admit they are “no longer a shareholder”. One could assume they were a recent top ten holder and now own a lesser percentage or recently became a top ten holder. It is open to interpretation and I think was done so on purpose.

If we look at the SEC filing Hotchkiss is in Rohm at about $69 a share. That means they are underwater in their holdings at current prices by about $15 a share. This press release is a stunning attempt to manipulate public opinion and the market through a lack of transparency….

Anyone at the SEC working today????

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long Dow , None

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Mark Sellers Speech to Potential Investors

Wall St. Newsletters

Here is the speech:
Mark Selllers Speech to Investors

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Academic Work mark sellers investi

For those who think Sellers may not know what he is talking about, here is his track record.

Mark Sellers Q3 2008 Report

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Academic Work mark sellers investi

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Friday’s Links

Fairness, Krugman, Gold,

Wall St. Newsletters

– This is at least good news

– Calling out the fraud

– More on it


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Santelli’s Rant: A "Watershead" Moment?

So, yesterday I got an email from a friend while I was out with the kids. “Did you see Santelli on CNBC?” he asked. When I inquired what he meant he told me to watch it ASAP.

Wall St. Newsletters

After I watched it, it got posted to YouTube and wow, what a reaction. As I write this is has been less than 12 hours since the video went up and already over 105,000 people have viewed it and the less than 5 minute video has received over 1,300 comments. For those who missed it, here it is:

A less than scientific look through the comments says that they are trending 10 to 1 for the sentiment expressed by Mr. Santelli. If we put aside the discussion of whether he is right or wrong, one cannot deny that he clearly touched a nerve with a ton of angry people.

If we watch the nightly news on any network we see story after story of people about to lose their homes essentially through no fault of their own. The clear implication is that were is not for extraneous factors, everything would be ok. I am sure that there is a certain segment of the population for whom that is true, of that there is no doubt. BUT,  it is impossible to have a collapse in any market like we have had in housing unless there was extreme excess from all parties, banks and buyers. The larger the fall, the more froth and irresponsibility  involved in the bubble phase. There are very few “innocent victims” here. While I am sure we can all dig to find one, I am just as sure with very little effort we can find 50 who aren’t.

Back in October of 2007 I wrote about the following story:

Wilbur Ross, a self made billionaire and his son were playing golf a few weeks ago. As they finished up, their caddy approached them and wondered if he could ask them a personal finance question.

“Sure” Ross replied

“I bought 5 condo’s in Scottsdale, Arizona,” said the caddy “I was able to flip the first 3 but I am stuck with the last two. Should I keep making the payments on them or just walk away”?

Ross thought about it for a minute and asked “Well, were are they? Is the area nice? What else is around the complex that may be of eventual value”?

“I do not know” the caddy replied, “I’ve never been to Arizona”

That, is a nice neat summation of what a “bubble” in a market looks like. When your caddy thinks he is Donald Trump, it is time to take a close look at what is going on.

Where are the heart-breaking interviews on the nightly news with folks like Wilbur’s caddy? Where are the “lesson learned” pieces about gamblers who rolled the dice on housing? See, we know they are out there. We also know they are the majority, not the minority in this scenario. This is why the frustration on people’s part when it comes to the hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown at the “problem”.

The common argument for doing it is “we have to stem the tide and save people”. Well, the FDIC did that already with its first mortgage modification plan and after six months over 50% of those loans were again delinquent.

Of course the criticism of Santelli is coming. The Columbia Journalism Review was the first that I saw. It is the typical stuff. It focuses on the tone and anger of Santelli rant, and yes, that it what it was, rips a few sentences and extrapolates much more from it that what was there.

The author of the piece denigrates his knowledge of Santelli and the network with this one sentence. “Of course, he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks.” Now, anyone who has seen Santelli or watch even just a few days of CNBC over the past two years has seen an almost daily diatribe from Rick opposing EVERY bailout that has come down the road.

To make it simple, go to Youtube and watch any video of Rick at ramdom, the thought proces is the same, government needs to stop the bailouts, all of them.

He then says that “this bailout isn’t even designed to bailout homeowners but the banks”. Umm… somebody might want to tell President Obama that because he has told us “this is designed to save 9 million people from losing their homes”. Ooops..

Since the author of the Columbia piece clearly does not even begin to know his subject (Santelli or the bailout plan), further discussion of the “every homeowner was screwed by the banks” piece bear little more mention.

I am sure there will be others, but that is all I have now near midnight.

What is far more important that an erroneous crtisizm is the emotion Santelli has unleashed. Read the 1,300 plus comments on Youtube, read the page after page of Twitter commentary on it (here is the RSS feed for the topic and see how the blogshere lit up with the “Chicago Tea Party” Santelli suggested.

Now, personally I do not watch much CNBC (too much yelling at each other all day, gives me a headache). But what we do enables events like this to spread like wild fire. What gets me about this one is the total one-sideness of the response from people. Those who would object to Santelli are outnumbered by a gargantuan number by those who are practically throwing their arms in the air yelling “finally” as if Rick expressed everything they have been feeling but not seeing in the MSM.

Politicians may want to look at this before they do something else, people are not happy out there and it isn’t just because we are in a recession. It is because we feel the most aid and help is going to those people and institutions who got us in this very mess. that is infuriating for people who have behaved responsibly.

It should be noted that isn’t because of what they aren’t doing in Washington, but what they are and that is a huge difference.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Fairholme Funds Conference Call

This is a great call. Bruce Berkowitz, who runs the Fairholme Funds (FAIRX) is frank and very honest..

Wall St. Newsletters

Fairholme Nov. 2008 Conference Call

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Business & Legal bruce berkowitz fair

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Santelli "Part Deux"

The first video is getting about 100 comments an hour over on YouTube. I think it is pretty clear Santelli struck a real nerve with people…

Wall St. Newsletters

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wilbur Ross Calls Out JP Morgan and Citigroup CEO’s $$

Another great guest. Wilbur is now my favorite investor……I love honesty. Wilbur takes JP Morgan’s (JPM) Dimon and Citigroup’s (C) Pandit to task for their blatant intellectual dishonesty..

Wall St. Newsletters

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Rick Santelli’s Rant "An Anthem for Responsible People" $$

Finally someone in the MSM says what everyone else is thinking….if there is a God, this will resonate in Washington …please pass this along..

Wall St. Newsletters

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Air Travel Nosedives in December and January

More bad news for those who think we may have a rebound coming soon. Key point, this takes into account world travel also so the results in Asia are noted.

Wall St. Newsletters

Premium Monitor Dec08

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Legal us air travel

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday’s Links

NY Gov., Solar shingles, Pakistan, “Cowards”

Wall St. Newsletters

– Any wonder people distrust politicians?

– They are coming

– Nuclear powers cannot become unstable

– Will anyone in the MSM have the balls to call him out on this? Don’t think so either

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Will Rohm & Haas Win in Court vs Dow? Not so Fast

I have been trying to make this point for a while. He is another take on it re: the Rohm & Hass (ROH) / Dow Chemical (DOW) litigation is not the slam dunk some seem to think it is. This is from Peter Friedman, a law professor and former Wall Street attorney.

Wall St. Newsletters

Here is the post…

Courts are supposed to do justice even if doing so costs individuals a lot of money.

Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times that to even suggest “that maybe, just maybe, deals that stop making sense ought to be called off, or at least rejiggered, especially in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis – invites withering scorn, especially if you say it to someone on Wall Street or in the legal profession.”

I’ve worked in the legal profession on Wall Street, and I like to think that when what the law seems to compel makes no sense the law has the capacity to adjust, to do justice instead of nonsense. My thinking isn’t purely the product of naivete and idealism. There really is a legal (or, rather, for the lawyers among my readers, an equitable) argument to stop the particular deal Nocera is writing about. Moreover, that argument is precisely that the deal makes no sense to an interest — the public — much more important than the individuals who would profit mightily from the deal.

Here’s the deal: “Last summer, the Dow Chemical Company won a heated auction for a well-run, highly valued specialty chemical company called Rohm & Haas. . . . The price it agreed to pay was high: $78 a share in cash, a 74 percent premium, for a total of about $15.3 billion.” The problem is that in light of the global financial crisis and a collapse of the chemical business, if the deal goes through the resulting Dow/Rohm & Haas entity “could be badly damaged, saddled with high-priced debt in a horrible business environment, and a junk bond credit rating.”

What does that mean? It means that if the deal goes through Dow would need to strip itself to the bare bones to survive or would collapse altogether. This while “Dow Chemical employs around 45,000 people; Rohm & Haas employs more than 15,000.” This while “the American chemical industry – which was suffering even before the financial crisis because of the rise of commodity chemical companies in China and elsewhere – is going to be in a bad place for the foreseeable future.” This “[a]t a time when every job matters, and when the economy is holding on for dear life . . .”

In return, the shareholders of Rohm & Haas will get $15.3 billion. According to Answers.com, ‘the Haas family, descendants of one of the company’s two founders, continue to control a substantial ownership interest of nearly 30 percent” of those shares. So the the Haas family and the other Rohm & Haas shareholders are suing for “specific performance” of the contract with Dow; that is, they are asking a Delaware court to order Dow to go through with the deal to buy Rohm & Haas for $15.3 billion.

I’m not sure why there’s “withering scorn” for the suggestion that a court might refuse to enforce a deal that threatens 60,000 jobs and, as Nocera writes, would probably destroy “billions of dollars of value.” It’s no stretch to suggest that at a time of global economic collapse and at a time when President Obama is fighting to inject billions of dollars into the economy, the deal is not in the public interest.

Why am I willing to defy the withering scorn of the Wall Street experts? Because specific performance, the remedy Rohm & Haas is asking the court to grant, is an what is known as an “equitable” remedy. In order to show it is entitled to equitable relief, Rohm & Haas must show that the outcome makes sense even after the court balances “all the equities” involved. In other words, the court must determine whether, considering all of the interests at stake in the lawsuit, ordering the deal to go through would be more fair than unfair. The public interest plainly is one of those interests the court must consider. Because the deal poses such a great threat to the public interest, the equities do not favor the deal; the equities, in fact, weigh heavily against enforcing the contract between Dow and Rohm & Haas.

In legalese, Corporate and Commercial Practice in Delaware confirms that this is the law in Delaware:

[I]f specific performance of a contract would cause significant public harm, then the Court has discretion to deny such relief, even where a breach of contract and substantial harm to plaintiff have been established . . .

1-12 Corp & Commercial Practice in DE Court of Chancery § 12.03 (Matthew Bender 2008), citing Alro Assoc., L.P. v. Hayward, CA 19544 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2003), mem. op. at 22-26 (holding that where plaintiff had established breach of contract by Delaware Department of Transportation and where Court had assumed irreparable harm to plaintiff, specific performance was not appropriate due to a balance of equities weighing strongly in favor of public interest).

Courts really are supposed to do justice notwithstanding the fact Wall Street expresses withering scorn at the thought.

Link to original post

Now, Dow is trading as if they will be forced to complete the transaction on after the trial in March. Should that not be the case, shares should surge…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long DOW

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

January FOMC Minutes

I am shocked on average they only see 8% unemployment in 2010. One has to be concerned they fully do not grasp the situation.

Wall St. Newsletters

Jan. 2009 FOMC Minutes

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Periodicals & Report fed recession bankin

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books