I like to hear from the Shorts the reasons, not the financial tabloid gossips, for Shorting PMI that has Net Tangible Asset(s) of about $12 per share....
All data is pointing to the housing market "nearing" a bottom and PMI has sufficient resources and revenues to weather the "tail-end" of the storm....
The shorts would make more money going Long on PMI, than trying the failed ambitions of the likes of Bill Ackman to bring down the Mortgage and Bond Insurance Industry.
Recissions paid Recissions (sp). What has the CA market done as well, they have rallied for 5 to 6 months in a row. You sound like a scared school child, you are in your late 20's and are an immature little person although I like your analytical skills. Be very careful paid, I wouldn't go out on a limb on this one. Don't forget, private MI insurance is seen as a good and necessary thing to help people get into homes...
i will agree with you on one thing, the 25:1 is discarded by most states, though not all, like Texas, so it is still a wildcard, as for your ridiculous claim that reserve per delinquency should be lower because the geographic mix has changed, i suggest you do some homework pal, see the link below, the financial supplement from q3 09 call, page 12, gee, what does that say, let's do some math, these top 10 states consist of over half of pmi's rif, the relative % of rif haven't changed much since q3 08, but yet, CA's deliquency rate has increased far more than any other states other than FL, by doing some quick calculations we can easily see that CA's % of delinquent rif has barely changed from q3 08 to q4 09, so much for your stupid theory on the change of reserve per delinquent loan, what moron would put their hard-earned money into a stock like this without doing the most basic of research, nevermind, it is fools like you who give people like me the opportunities to make money.
Paid, go back and read the transcripts from their conference calls, thay is where i got the info. Also, interesting you don't counter the rescission claim. The other PE gent makes some great points too. By the way paid, the regulators have basically scrapped the 25:1 plan, you better get with it pal or you'll lose your job on your short recco for PMI. the time to short was $60 down to $3.
why should pmi reserve as much as 08, losses have been going down. Last quarter under 100 mil.in losses, their euro business made 25 mil. This quarter they may breakeven, stock goes to 10 in a month or sooner. :) What a -ick.
are you really that naive, first of all, what evidence do you have that the 08 delinquency inventory had more CA loans than 09 delinquency inventory, can you point to any slide/report/etc on that, because i have never seen that evidence, everything i have seen suggests the geographic profile of delinquencies is pretty much unchanged y-o-y, secondly, they have all kinds of reasons to cook the books, namely if they don't, they will breach the 25:1 risk-capital statutory restrictiions, and would be unable to write new business, let me say that again, if pmi was reserving in a manner consistent with last year, they would be unable to write new business today, and you say that is not an upside, wow, that is a pretty unbelievable statement.
paid, the reason for higher reserves in 08 was because they were reserving for most of the CA portfolio which has a much higher loss per delinqunecy. Other parts of the country are closer to the 19k as well as a much more probable and likely rescinding scenario. There is little upside for PMI managemtn to cook the books when the stock is already at $2.00.
how about their "book value" is dependent entirely on understating their reserves, do some simple math, if PMI had the same reserves per delinquent loan in Q3 2009 as Q3 2008, they would have negative book value, do you really believe delinquent loans are more likely to cure today versus 12 months ago.