devils advocate

Did JPMorgan Almost Fail?

holy conspiracy theorist batman. I especially like how you selectively take quotes from the bankruptcy filings. Let me put this into perspective. Let's say that you owe me $500 (in addition to the $thousands you owe other people). I also know that you run a strong chance of going bankrupt. I have $50 of your assets in collateral (which incidentally is only worth about $20 because much of this has gone down in value significantly). Should I give you this $20 back to you? In your article, you suggest that my not giving you your $20 back is the cause of your bankruptcy? Now, I am not saying that JPM is above this mess by any stretch, but to pin Lehman's failings on anyone but Lehman is absurd. They got themselves into this mess, overleveraged and got caught. I do not like any more than the next guy how they went down, but to blame JPM for seeing the writing on the wall and getting at least some collateral against the money they were owed and not giving it back.....I'm guessing you saw Jamie Dimon on the grassy knoll as well!

Did JPMorgan Almost Fail?

holy conspiracy theorist batman. I especially like how you selectively take quotes from the bankruptcy filings. Let me put this into perspective. Let's say that you owe me $500 (in addition to the $thousands you owe other people). I also know that you run a strong chance of going bankrupt. I have $50 of your assets in collateral (which incidentally is only worth about $20 because much of this has gone down in value significantly). Should I give you this $20 back to you? In your article, you suggest that my not giving you your $20 back is the cause of your bankruptcy? Now, I am not saying that JPM is above this mess by any stretch, but to pin Lehman's failings on anyone but Lehman is absurd. They got themselves into this mess, overleveraged and got caught. I do not like any more than the next guy how they went down, but to blame JPM for seeing the writing on the wall and getting at least some collateral against the money they were owed and not giving it back.....I'm guessing you saw Jamie Dimon on the grassy knoll as well!

Microsoft's Proxy Bid for Yahoo is a Bluff

sorry, meant Q4 2008. At the earliest

Microsoft's Proxy Bid for Yahoo is a Bluff

because institutional investors have different agendas. If they hold onto a stock with potentially no upside over a longer term period, they get hurt. The proxy battle and will not be completed until June-July, meaning with antitrust approval this deal does not get consumated until Q4 2007. Now, couple this with the fact that many of these same institutional investors are in MSFT, it comes clear that their investment in Yahoo is a longer term one with two possible outcomes under your scenario.

1) the proxy goes through at current prices and these shareholders have tied up their money for 8-10 months with no upside.

2) miscrosoft increases their bid during this process, and the incremental gains they make in yahoo is offset by losses in microsoft. Again, with a 8-10 month capital tie-up

Will Microsoft's Proxy Threat Force Yahoo!'s Hand?

The proxy is a bluff. It would never succeed and here is why! The proposed deal is equal to a stock price that is extremely close to the current value of yahoo (due to msft price drop). So, if you were an institutional investor, would you a) hold on to your shares for an indefinite period of time and an ugly proxy battle in order to vote to approve the deal (with more or less of an upside cap on the stock between now and then due to the deal) or b) sell your shares now for just about the same price. If microsoft chooses to try to get yahoo via proxy, there will be full capitulation of institutional ownership. Now, if you were a new stockholder, buying in in the 29-30 range, would you vote to accept a deal in the....er...29-30 range? Or would you vote NO to get more? There is no way that the shareholders who will vote yes will still be shareholders at that point in time because they can already get the deal price right now without having to go through the messy battle and downside risk (due to MSFT shareprice volatility). Those who will, think that the stock is worth more and therefore will vote no. IMO

Yahoo's Top Investors Don't Want Microsoft to Raise Bid

The proxy is a bluff. It would never succeed and here is why! The proposed deal is equal to a stock price that is extremely close to the current value of yahoo (due to msft price drop). So, if you were an institutional investor, would you a) hold on to your shares for an indefinite period of time and an ugly proxy battle in order to vote to approve the deal (with more or less of an upside cap on the stock between now and then due to the deal) or b) sell your shares now for just about the same price. If microsoft chooses to try to get yahoo via proxy, there will be full capitulation of institutional ownership. Now, if you were a new stockholder, buying in in the 29-30 range, would you vote to accept a deal in the....er...29-30 range? Or would you vote NO to get more? There is no way that the shareholders who will vote yes will still be shareholders at that point in time because they can already get the deal price right now without having to go through the messy battle and downside risk (due to MSFT shareprice volatility). Those who will, think that the stock is worth more and therefore will vote no. IMO