Inversor71
14/06/14 11:53
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
Todo
Foros
Blogs
Entidades
Productos
Expertos
Usuarios
Formación
Vídeos
Acceder
- Inicio
- Perfil de Inversor71
- Contenidos recomendados por Inversor71
Contenidos recomendados por Inversor71
Inversor71
19/12/13 15:01
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
Según esta explicación del split no afecta a la rentabilidad de los accionistas
Un split (o desdoblamiento de acciones) es un ajuste matemático que se realiza al valor de las acciones de una compañía, sin cambiar la composición del accionariado. Consiste en disminuir el valor de cada acción y aumentar su número, respetando la proporción monetaria de los inversores.
Un ejemplo sencillo para entender cómo funciona un split sería el siguiente: Las acciones de una empresa valen 100 euros. Con un split, éstas pasarían a valer, por ejemplo, 10 euros. Tras el ajuste, cada accionista que tuviese una acción de 100 euros, tendría ahora 10 acciones de 10 euros.
Normalmente, a medida que una empresa crece, el valor de sus acciones aumenta. El problema está en que si el precio de una acción es demasiado alto, se puede frenar su liquidez. En este sentido, aunque el split no tiene por qué afectar a la cotización de la empresa, al mejorar la liquidez del valor, el mercado lo percibe como positivo.
Esta estrategia la desarrollan numerosas empresas, incluso las que cotizan en el Ibex 35. El objetivo de esta decisión es ganar sobre todo liquidez y pequeños accionistas.
Un contra split (o agrupación de acciones) es un ajuste a la inversa. Consiste en multiplicar el valor nominal de la acción. Para ello, se unen paquetes de acciones de forma que si, por ejemplo, una acción valía antes 1 euro, ahora valdrá 10 euros tras unir paquetes de 10 acciones de 1 euro.
Este movimiento bursátil del contra split no es una operación muy usual en el parqué, pero algunas empresas de baja capitalización, cuya cotización no llega al euro, recurren a esta estrategia.
Inversor71
18/02/12 21:10
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
BESUGO
Lo mismo podriamos decir de los " supuestos cientos de afectados de los que tanto has mencionado a lo largo de estos últimos meses ; y por lo menos en este foro se han reducido a tí y 2 o tres más .
Sinceramente no se que es lo que quieres demostrar. La única realidad hoy por hoy es: los accionistas hemos salido a flote de esta experiencia y en la nueva empresa cualquier cosa es posible .
Inversor71
01/02/12 19:10
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Muchas gracias Adruna por tu ayuda
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71
17/10/11 04:44
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
Rosie IS suffocating! Choices very few to avoid total annihilation!
Hey Rosie, this turnabout that you and all of us have been witnessing must be Karma. I have no doubts we are getting very close to a major breakthrough of one form or another. Either way, it will be very good for Equity, as we only get much stronger and forceful daily. Let’s look at some recent facts.
o On 1/7/2011 POS POR is denied but Global Settlement intact and is appealed by the EC.
o Walrath gives Thoma “hearsay” some legs with insider trading.
o Rosie announces POS POR 6++ and will have his wrap ready for Walrath by Feb/Mar 2011.
o Susman runs with and wins limited discovery on the Horsies.
o Horsies are subpoenaed and then the Horsies & Rosie forced into depositions with no relief from JPM.
o With the Horsies forced depositions, JPM/FDIC effectively throws Rosie & Horsies under the bus.
o Rosie announces he has a settlement with the EC and others-Rumor is TPS derailed this a little later.
o So much for Rosie’s wrap by Feb/Mar-Hearings take place for POS POR 6++ during July.
o During the July Confirmation Hearings – Insider Trading takes center stage among many other inequities.
o On 9/13/2011 POS POR 6++ denied with Insider Trading given “colored” outlook by court.
o Court authorizes more discovery due to Insider Trading but stayed pending mediation results
o Court grants Judge Lyons official Mediator with an update to court on 11/4/2011 with court date on 11/7.
o Horsies file for an appeal wanting out of Walrath’s court & Rosie files against his own client-Equity.
o Rosie is having real problems breathing and appears to be suffocating with violent nightmares.
This is where we are and we can discuss the next chapter. It looks to me like Rosie only has a couple of options left assuming JPM/FDIC is going to continue to play hardball and stand aside. The one option would be for the Horsies to go down alone and I really do not think that is in the cards period so the real first option is for the Horsies to join Equity. Again, this is assuming mediation goes nowhere and I do not think they want to be bound by mediation.
If the Horsies join the EC, this means they will align against Rosie and the pressure will force Rosie to either join Equity also or pull the Global Settlement and failure to do either will destroy Weasel/Gotcha/Mangle. Another option is for there to be some kind of deal that will include Equity in POR 7 during mediation and if Equity agrees, that means the securities will survive cancellation. We will probably never see even remotely what we should but at least not zero and the long timers here will be worth more than they ever dreamed possible in most cases
Inversor71
28/09/11 23:03
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
No. $54B Claim is not the Case of the Law.
No way. No how. Even Rosen cannot say in good conscience that the $54B claim asserted by JPM and FDIC has validity and merits (maybe on certain items or some aspects, certainly not as a whole), and believe it the law of the case. What the “F&R” opinion (note the omission of “fair” in the second Opinions) really mean, in my view, is that the Judge approves the “compromising approach”, and subsequently deems the compromised results (GSA) by interested parties as acceptable. On individual claims, the Judge did say the debtors have a strong likelihood of success or a fair likelihood of success in certain key claims (like deposit dispute and tax refund dispute). But she never elaborated on the merits of the combined claims of $54B by JPM and FDIC one way or the other. In the September Opinions, the Judge clearly stated “the order was not a decision on merits.” She only cited “complexity” and “difficulty in collection” in regard to $54B claim as part of the reasons in approving the GSA. Given the Court’s preference of “compromising/settlement via negotiation” to costly and lengthy litigations, and the low threshold of reasonableness, as long as the debtors are willing to compromise with the adversaries, baring from willful misconducts, the Court is willing to accept the compromise as reasonable.
It’s frustrating to us laypersons’ normal minds and common sense, which believe if you have not made the decision on the merits of something, how can you call the whole deal “fair and reasonable”? However, as I’ve learned over the course of WMI ordeal, especially through the Court’s first and second Opinions, compromise is the rule of thumb in BK practices. The Court has no obligations to litigate every single claim unless the debtors (or maybe someone else) want to. In this case, the debtors gave up for whatever reasons. The Court accepted it (the compromise). But the court did not address the merits of $54B claim, let alone to validate the claim as “the case of the law” by a sweeping “F&R” statement.
I also don’t think the $54B claim is an insurmountable hurdle. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been even the current GSA at all. No one believes JPM and FDIC would have “compromised” their own interests ($54B claims) in exchange for $3B in a 30-70% formula (the debtors receiving 70% while JPM/FDIC 30% in total of $10B settled assets) if they have a strong case. Furthermore, why would they so adamantly insist to include the release clauses in GSA/POR if they have an overwhelming claim against the debtors’ estate?
It’s prudent to temper our expectations and look at the case from all angles. But, some fears are unnecessary and can be a distraction.
Inversor71
14/09/11 21:38
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
MANZANA
Yo pienso que la mayoría de los accionistas que se mantienen largos , estamos conscientes que una decisión de ´rechazo del POR por si sola no puede hacer subir las acciones en forma considerable; ya que todavía no se llegado ha una solución definitiva del caso.
Sin embargo, personalmente , considero que los accionistas estamos en una mejor posición, que a finales del año pasado y comienzos de este año; cuando se rechazo el POR ANTERIOR.
Inversor71
05/09/11 17:23
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
Very revealing Starke discussion-Does this reveal the Judges mindset on her opinion?
Interesting enough, was Starke’s court room drama with the Judge about TPS “equitable mootness” and whether this Judge has authority to make a decision without “ring fencing” the funds in the event Walrath is overturned on appeal. Without a doubt, this Judge in her mindset wants to equitably moot TPS in the event she approves this POS POR 6+. This in of itself is troubling, because Starke drew her into very clear discussion on what she thought and it would seem to me she talked way too much. What was the point in her arguing with Starke if (1) she already had her mind made up, (2) if she was NOT going to approve POS POR 6+? Yes, it would seem if this Judge was NOT going to move this mess forward, why would she have entered into such discussion with Starke? The more I think about this discussion which I now feel VERY strongly about, it is/was case altering. The Judge argued with Starke to the point as if she already decided to approve the POS POR 6+. This would “equitably moot” out TPS and also been troubling for the court all along and somehow give Equity its own shot with the litigation trust fund after approval.
This Judge was very concerned with Starke as he said his appeal “freezes” this entire case or at least the Judge would have to “ring fence” the funds if she wanted to move this forward. To this point, remember what Rosie changed at the last minute with the POS POR 6+, if there is anything left in the plan it could flow to Equity and when some people on the board saw the plan was not cancelling Equity they got excited. I have not said much about this but I keep going back to the VERY argumentative discussion with this Judge who I think gave away information as to which way she is going with this mess. Take this thought process with the question she asked one of our opposing lawyers about “do you think the insider trading would prevent approval of this Global Settlement/POS POR 6+) and his response was absolutely not. The more I think and read about Walrath’s mindset, the more it appears she wants to approve this POR to equitably moot out TPS, let Equity go after insider trading via the litigation trust fund (very troubling if true) and ignore the Supreme Court (Stern) and ANICO decisions. Do you think that Walrath can approve this POS POR 6+ and give Equity their ONLY shot via the litigation trust fund?
Inversor71
25/08/11 17:39
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
My fear for whatever is worth
After what JPM said about only punishing some but not all, and her immediate response to ask if the wording on the GSA allowed that, is my first piece of the puzzle.
Then later, her huge interest in almost pushing the EC to go after more that two hedges instead of four, hints me that she is probably looking for a way to get this all mess out of her court by PARTIALLY approving this crooked plan, but give the EC a lollypop to go home with an approval to litigate by itself against the SNH.
I think Nate brought to her the life boat she was waiting for, and she is going to hold on to that boat fiercely in order not to go against her bosses. (JPM/FDIC)
Inversor71
25/07/11 19:00
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
Maxi
Yo eschucho las versiones tuyas ( esepticas del caso) y la de muchos foristas americanos ( nadie en especial ) ( algunas conservadoras, algunas negativas y otras positivas ).
Y luego de eschuchar todas las versiones posibles , a lo largo de muchos meses . yo tengo mi propia interpretación y apreciación del mismo .
Además los posts que copio del foro americano son los que coinciden con mi línea de apreciación del caso. Mi objetivo no es inducir a nadie que piense igual a mí o demostrar que tal o cuál persona esta equivocada o tiene la razón.
Solo el tiempo dirá si tome una buena o malo decisión y punto.
Personalmente pienso que tú y Simpson tienen puntos de vista y reflexiones distintas del caso. Pero eso a mi modo de ver no significa que uno de ustedes tiene la " verdad absoluta y el otro está totalmente equivocado. Este caso a mi modo de ver ha tenido muchas vueltas y personalmente todavía sigo pensando
que va ver un resultado positivo para los accionistas.