Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 7:28 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

TORM A/S Message Board

j0n_48195 83 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 20, 2014 12:14 PM Member since: Apr 2, 2001
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    GET READY TO RUMBLE THIS WEEK

    by fabricone1 Oct 19, 2014 6:26 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 20, 2014 12:14 PM Flag

    AIG is lagging the other insurers today. Odd, but the light volume suggests most institutions are analyzing the Deutche upgrade before they commit. The rest of to week (and year) look strong though. Knock on wood.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    AIG trial

    by whbog Oct 17, 2014 11:07 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 17, 2014 11:32 AM Flag

    Yes, but.... that's neglecting the fact that many of the banks' problems were loaded back onto AIG before the bailout, which contributed mightily to its liquidity crisis. I agree that AIG wasn't dealt with in a particularly harsh way. But the crony capitalism that gave the banks a pass at AIG shareholders' expense is also on trial. If you were a friend of Geitner or Paulson, somehow your company did just fine. Greenberg is at least bringing some attention to that glaring conflict of interest. We'll get even more of the same unless people like him challenge it.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    AIG Warrants

    by chxfhx Oct 11, 2014 11:21 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 16, 2014 3:39 PM Flag

    Don't know 'bout the window. I hope to be alive and sane enough to trade out during the last 6 months before expiration. I'll leave it to the institutions to collect a small premium to exercise them. As long as the value of the warrants is close to the common minus $45, it's just easier to sell to the arb's.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 15, 2014 7:52 PM Flag

    Odds are you are right. But I disagree that the risk is zero. In the perverse logic of law, the compensation agreement with the feds may be invalidated/modified without the indemnification along with it. It's a slim chance that current shareholders will be paying for a judgement in favor of former shareholders, but that risk is real nevertheless. I think the market is reacting more to the negative publicity surrounding the perceived audacity of the suit, rather than any significant chance that the worst could happen. So I guess our differences are more quantitative than qualitative. The weeks leading into earnings tend to be strong either way. Knock on wood we're in for another strong quarter.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    AIG Warrants

    by chxfhx Oct 11, 2014 11:21 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 15, 2014 12:05 PM Flag

    There's no reason for the warrants to sell for $50 as they expire, if the common is at $100. They should sell for slightly less than $55-, but possibly more- probably $54 and change, to account for the extra transaction costs and minor "thin trading" discrepancies. No way those prices diverge by $5 so close to exercise date.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    At his age, he should be;

    by gainmoney17 Oct 8, 2014 10:25 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 10, 2014 11:23 AM Flag

    The problem is that he is right. The feds did punish AIG while giving a pass to their buddy bankers. Greenberg is not in this for the money. He's out to save his reputation, or ego, take your pick. But if Greenberg wins and AIG's indemnification of the fed stands, the cure would be worse than the disease. I'll be relieved when this is all behind us.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Cheap, Cheap, Cheap

    by strappedtoo Oct 10, 2014 9:31 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 10, 2014 11:15 AM Flag

    It chaps me to see the warrants down like that. They make a good case for hanging onto some cash to take advantage, but I'm already all in. Oh well.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Greenburg taking this stock to $45

    by vladwallachia Oct 7, 2014 11:20 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 9, 2014 11:57 AM Flag

    With all due respect, between the WSJ and an anonymous poster, I'll side with the WSJ. If you have any special legal expertise, then come on out and say so. I'll reconsider based on your credentials. Until I hear otherwise, I'm assuming indemnification means what it says. I do however think it would be morally wrong to compensate former shareholders, from the era of the so-called wrongdoing, by punishing current shareholders of this now squeaky clean company. But moral code and legal code are different issues. To say this poses zero risk to current shareholders seems a bit cavalier- again, with all due respect. Feel free to enlighten me, if I'm mistaken. I know even less than I care for legal matters such as this.

  • Reply to

    Greenburg taking this stock to $45

    by vladwallachia Oct 7, 2014 11:20 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 8, 2014 11:44 AM Flag

    I wish that were true, but it's not. AIG indemnified the fed when they were forced to sign that deal. Unless that clause is overturned when the other terms are modified, AIG's current shareholders could be on the hook to compensate former shareholders- with 30% going to their lawyers. It is my hope that that deal (as unfair as it was at the time) now stands intact, or the indemnification burden on current shareholders is invalidated with the other terms. There are no guarantees either way, but I'm sticking with my long warrant bet.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 7, 2014 8:46 AM Flag

    I think Boies hit a dead end and had to walk away. Hank did acknowledge everything he was accused of. What else was left to discuss? But Paulson deflected it by saying he knew AIG was being treated more harshly than its banking counterparts. That was intentional. AIG was the worst of the offenders, so he had to make an example of them to get public support and congress to approve TARP. "Fair compensation" was never the standard for their conduct. "Saving the financial system" was. AIG would have gone bankrupt anyway, so shareholders had no right to expect the same deal as the banks. I'm not sure I agree, but if that argument holds, Greenberg is finished.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Numbers..........

    by sileonie Oct 2, 2014 3:56 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 3, 2014 10:24 AM Flag

    Margin of safety. Sileonie doesn't get that. The market doesn't matter until you sell. in the meantime, AIG is a cash cow. They won't even pay taxes on their income for several years to come.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Why the slide in warrants?

    by chxfhx Oct 1, 2014 3:34 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 2, 2014 3:39 PM Flag

    Thinner market, more volatility. It's "common" for the warrants to jump or drop $.20 on the last trade of the day. It cut its losses by $.40 just last week on one such trade. That bumpier ride comes with the territory. The company is also not supporting the market by buying back warrants like stock. Figure $40M/day has to be giving the stock some support. Either way, you got to be able to tough out times like these to own the warrants.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Greenberg win or loss

    by hareeshd Oct 1, 2014 6:54 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 2, 2014 8:47 AM Flag

    Solid post. My frustration is that the terms of the bailout are being challenged, but nobody is talking about the indemnification clause being one of them. To overturn the former, while leaving the latter in place, would be illogical and unfair to current shareholders.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 1, 2014 11:52 AM Flag

    The recent ruling on Fannie and Freddie suggests the feds will get away with their equity grab. While that's unfair in principle, it would be even worse if current AIG shareholders footed the bill for the fed's wrongdoing If AIG was illegally forced to give away 80% of their equity, it stands to reason that they were also illegally forced to accept the indemnification. To "undo" one without the other would be a travesty. But legal logic often baffles common sense. Nothing is certain. I could pay a heavy price for being so poorly diversified.

  • j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Oct 1, 2014 9:52 AM Flag

    If the government loses and that indemnity clause stands, we longs are in deep do-do. I don't see the logic of penalizing current shareholders for the sake of older ones (and their lawyers). Seems to me that the indemnification would have to be overturned as well. In the meantime, the press doesn't look good.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Sep 29, 2014 8:55 AM Flag

    I'll attempt to answer my own question. AIG indemnified the government against any wrongdoing. Unless that clause is overturned/modified with the rest of the agreement, current shareholders could be on the hook to compensate those of the Greenberg era. That could involve a cash settlement, or jeopardize our deferred tax assets (if older shareholders are compensated, maybe those grandfathered losses might be decreased proportionately?) Current shareholders might benefit, of course. But my sense is that we have more to lose than gain. I'd be happy if the current AIG and shareholders are bypassed altogether. In the meantime, the uncertainty is bound to depress AIG's market value. Maybe we can pick up a few more shares on the cheap with those ongoing buybacks. Knock on wood.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Aig should start to lure executive staff from

    by gainmoney17 Sep 23, 2014 2:13 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Sep 25, 2014 8:43 AM Flag

    It will take several years for Berkshire to compete in any meaningful way with AIG. WB is unlikely to be around that long. He just loves insurance. It gives him opportunities to invest the float, so he considers it a two-birds-one-stone investment. I used to be a fan of his, but in recent years he's gone from putting his money where his mouth is, to putting his morals where his money is. Inversions, a $1M fine for one of his company's misconduct, his hypocritical vote and comments on Coke's executive compensation, and his ongoing legal but ungentlemanly poaching of AIG executives- take your pick.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Aig

    by oissashar Sep 25, 2014 6:39 AM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Sep 25, 2014 8:34 AM Flag

    If a stock is a lousy long term holding, it's a lousy short term trade. You either believe in this company or you don't. Don't try to endear yourself with your pseudo-balanced view of AIG.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Stock pickers market

    by fabricone1 Sep 21, 2014 9:55 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Sep 23, 2014 11:33 AM Flag

    My bad. I thought you wrote $80. That crazy happy guy running down the street naked would have been me. I agree, $60 is doable this year. I'm counting on $75 by year end 2015 too. Let's hope the buy-backs are in full swing. Given how much the warrants are lagging the common, it's reasonable to assume there is significant buying support for the common.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Stock pickers market

    by fabricone1 Sep 21, 2014 9:55 PM
    j0n_48195 j0n_48195 Sep 22, 2014 11:18 AM Flag

    I don't believe you, but I love what you're saying. Keep lying to me.

    Sentiment: Buy

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.