sirfman

Total Rating:
0 / 0

3 Comments

    • Tue Mar 25th 07:30 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      JPM Guilty of Grand Theft Investment Bank
      The shareholders should immediately organize themselves and fight the bending of NYSE rules. Usually for such an massive issuance of new shares it needs SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL.

      If I take the existing outstanding shares (145.4M), then the newly issued 95million shares mean an addition of 65.34 %. It is the question from whch angle you are looking at the issuance.

      There should be a shareholder meeting with the following points to be voted on:
      1. Can the amount of outstanding shares increased by 65.34% or 95M new shares from former 145.4M shares to new 240.4M shares? (YES/NO)
      2. If... and only IF - 50% of the shareholders vote "YES", can this 95M shares be sold to JPM for $10/share?

      The BSC BoD used the exemption or bending of NYSE rule 312.03 with the excuse, that "waiting for shareholder approval might hurt Bear’s financial viability" . If this would be really the case:
      1. Why are earnings not published?
      2. Why is there no determination of a corrected and more realistic book value?

      BSC's troublesome position is very well described by SEC chairman Christopher Cox in his letter to Dr. Nout Wellink, Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on 20th march 2008

      "As you will see, the conclusion to which these data point is that the fate of Bear Stearns was the result of a lack of confidence, NOT A LACK OF CAPITAL. When the tumult began last week, and at all times until its agreement to be acquired by JP Morgan Chase during the weekend, the firm had a capital cushion well above what is required to meet supervisory standards (!!!) calculated using the Basel II standard."

      My impression is: The BoD is acting under duress and coercion and not evaluating the best options for the existing shareholders. They act more in favour of a coming shareholder, who has only a small vote until now.

      From JPM's point of view the new deal looks like going into a shop, printing your own money on the shop's photocopy machine and afterwards buying the shop with that money. And the shopkeeper himself is just happy, that he holds some "money" in his hand.

      I would not be very surprised, if investors like Joe Lewis, James Barrow, Bruce Sherman and Bill Miller, who all put real money in BSC, will collaborate to fight the bending of NYSE rule 312.03.

      With today's share price at $11.25 only Joe Lewis is still sitting on a heftly loss of $1,124,375,754.
      He should invest now a few millions in the best lawyers to fight this "amended" agreement, which cut his voting power from former 8.35% to 5.05%.
      On the financial side he and other investors should buy, what is still cheap now, and push the price up. Simply try to imagine, if BSC is on 8th April 2008 at $20/share. How could by then JPM and the BSC BoD justify the $10 offer?
      Maybe then we will see another amended agreement, that will focus more on a realistic book value of BSC and find the support/approval of more BSC shareholders.
      View article »
    • Tue Mar 25th 07:00 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Fed Capitulates To Bear Stearns: Sorry State of Affairs
      The shareholders should immediately organize themselves and fight the bending of NYSE rules. Usually for such an massive issuance of new shares it needs SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL.

      If I take the existing outstanding shares (145.4M), then the newly issued 95million shares mean an addition of 65.34 %. It is the question from whch angle you are looking at the issuance.

      There should be a shareholder meeting with the following points to be voted on:
      1. Can the amount of outstanding shares increased by 65.34% or 95M new shares from former 145.4M shares to new 240.4M shares? (YES/NO)
      2. If... and only IF - 50% of the shareholders vote "YES", can this 95M shares be sold to JPM for $10/share?

      The BSC BoD used the exemption or bending of NYSE rule 312.03 with the excuse, that "waiting for shareholder approval might hurt Bear’s financial viability" . If this would be really the case:
      1. Why are earnings not published?
      2. Why is there no determination of a corrected and more realistic book value?

      BSC's troublesome position is very well described by SEC chairman Christopher Cox in his letter to Dr. Nout Wellink, Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on 20th march 2008

      "As you will see, the conclusion to which these data point is that the fate of Bear Stearns was the result of a lack of confidence, NOT A LACK OF CAPITAL. When the tumult began last week, and at all times until its agreement to be acquired by JP Morgan Chase during the weekend, the firm had a capital cushion well above what is required to meet supervisory standards (!!!) calculated using the Basel II standard."

      My impression is: The BoD is acting under duress and coercion and not evaluating the best options for the existing shareholders. They act more in favour of a coming shareholder, who has only a small vote until now.

      From JPM's point of view the new deal looks like going into a shop, printing your own money on the shop's photocopy machine and afterwards buying the shop with that money. And the shopkeeper himself is just happy, that he holds some "money" in his hand.

      I would not be very surprised, if investors like Joe Lewis, James Barrow, Bruce Sherman and Bill Miller, who all put real money in BSC, will collaborate to fight the bending of NYSE rule 312.03.

      With today's share price at $11.25 only Joe Lewis is still sitting on a heftly loss of $1,124,375,754.
      He should invest now a few millions in the best lawyers to fight this "amended" agreement, which cut his voting power from former 8.35% to 5.05%.
      On the financial side he and other investors should buy, what is still cheap now, and push the price up. Simply try to imagine, if BSC is on 8th April 2008 at $20/share. How could by then JPM and the BSC BoD justify the $10 offer?
      Maybe then we will see another amended agreement, that will focus more on a realistic book value of BSC and find the support/approval of more BSC shareholders.
      View article »
    • Tue Feb 26th 04:53 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      High Tide for SiRF Technology
      still there is a mistake -
      "With projected earnings growth of 40%, a Price to Sales Ratio of 1.5-2.0 could be supported easily--translating into a price of $5.00-$7.00."

      it should translate into a price of $10-$12
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»