Uccmal Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 So, How would the stock move based on the BNY decision? if the Judge considers it in adequate then successor liability comes into play. Costs could escalate. Perhaps 30 billion or $3.00 per share. If it goes in BACs favour will the stock jump $2-3 per share right away or is it priced in already? At any rate we should find out shortly if Judge Kapnik finishes the case before she takes her promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xazp Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The stock would probably move down if she doesn't approve the settlement. But, read any of the filings from the Gibbs / Brun group (these are the institutional investors) and you will see there are virtually no paths to recovery beyond the settlement - this is why they settled. The statute of limitations is long past, and, lawsuits filed 3 years ago were already being tossed out. The 25% threshold for individual bonds to assert R&W ... they couldn't do it at any point between 2008 and 2011, in 2014 it's going to be even harder. I've always believed, and still believe, if the settlement is thrown out, the "plaintiffs" will receive less than $8.5Bn. BAC may pay in that ballpark due to legal fees, but the plaintiffs are going to receive less - IMO. There's just no path for them to recover money anymore. Things would be different if they sued in 2008 or 2009. So, How would the stock move based on the BNY decision? if the Judge considers it in adequate then successor liability comes into play. Costs could escalate. Perhaps 30 billion or $3.00 per share. If it goes in BACs favour will the stock jump $2-3 per share right away or is it priced in already? At any rate we should find out shortly if Judge Kapnik finishes the case before she takes her promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYDemaray Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I've always believed, and still believe, if the settlement is thrown out, the "plaintiffs" will receive less than $8.5Bn. BAC may pay in that ballpark due to legal fees, but the plaintiffs are going to receive less - IMO. There's just no path for them to recover money anymore. ...and factor in the time value of money. BAC likely better off if rejected...but agree with you that the market will not interpret it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So, How would the stock move based on the BNY decision? if the Judge considers it in adequate then successor liability comes into play. Costs could escalate. Perhaps 30 billion or $3.00 per share. Even a $30billion increase (for total of $38.5 billion) would only cost $1.84 per share (30% tax rate and 11.4billion shares). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So, How would the stock move based on the BNY decision? if the Judge considers it in adequate then successor liability comes into play. Costs could escalate. Perhaps 30 billion or $3.00 per share. Even a $30billion increase (for total of $38.5 billion) would only cost $1.84 per share (30% tax rate and 11.4billion shares). Sure, that is the cost of a 30B increase... but how much will the stock move? I think it could move more than $-1.84. A negative result could be a great buying opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slkiel Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 In light of the coming settlement decision, is anyone buying (or do they own) the B warrants? I've held them as a very small allocation for years, but would think that once BAC gets above $20, they may start moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikhil25 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 New Bank of America commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0IFnV8GAfY “We know we’re not the center of your life. But we’ll do our best to help you connect to what is.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary17 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Not sure if this is still news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-bank-americas-trading-practices-141352193.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OracleofCarolina Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 keep cutting those branches as more people go the online banking route http://obsbankwatch.blogspot.com/2014/01/bank-of-america-shed-more-branches-than.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 BofA Should Pay $2.1 Billion in Fraud Case, U.S. Says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/bofa-should-pay-2-1-billion-in-fraud-case-u-s-says.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA0T1I820140130?irpc=932 Cross-selling at bac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Judge Approves $8.5 Billion Pact Between Bank of America, Investors Ruling Is a Major Victory for Bank of America, Concluding a More Than Two-Year Process to Gain Approval Updated Jan. 31, 2014 12:13 p.m. ET A New York State judge approved an $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.59% and investors over soured mortgage-backed securities. The deal, struck in June 2011, was closely watched as a landmark agreement in which a bank agreed to pay billions to settle claims over mortgage securities turned toxic during the financial crisis. American International Group Inc. AIG -0.94% opposed the settlement. Lawyers for the insurance giant argued in court that the deal was unfair and that the trustee for investors, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., BK -0.82% didn't fulfill its fiduciary duty. New York State Supreme Court Judge Barbara Kapnick found that the trustee acted in good faith and gave a full and fair opportunity to all investors to make their views known on the deal. The ruling is a major victory for the Charlotte, N.C., bank. It concludes a 2½-year process to gain approval for the deal, which caps about half of the claims against Bank of America for the sale of mortgage-backed securities to private investors before the U.S. housing collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Judge Approves $8.5 Billion Pact Between Bank of America, Investors Ruling Is a Major Victory for Bank of America, Concluding a More Than Two-Year Process to Gain Approval Updated Jan. 31, 2014 12:13 p.m. ET A New York State judge approved an $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.59% and investors over soured mortgage-backed securities. The deal, struck in June 2011, was closely watched as a landmark agreement in which a bank agreed to pay billions to settle claims over mortgage securities turned toxic during the financial crisis. American International Group Inc. AIG -0.94% opposed the settlement. Lawyers for the insurance giant argued in court that the deal was unfair and that the trustee for investors, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., BK -0.82% didn't fulfill its fiduciary duty. New York State Supreme Court Judge Barbara Kapnick found that the trustee acted in good faith and gave a full and fair opportunity to all investors to make their views known on the deal. The ruling is a major victory for the Charlotte, N.C., bank. It concludes a 2½-year process to gain approval for the deal, which caps about half of the claims against Bank of America for the sale of mortgage-backed securities to private investors before the U.S. housing collapse. Finally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRK7 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Judge Approves $8.5 Billion Pact Between Bank of America, Investors Ruling Is a Major Victory for Bank of America, Concluding a More Than Two-Year Process to Gain Approval Updated Jan. 31, 2014 12:13 p.m. ET A New York State judge approved an $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.59% and investors over soured mortgage-backed securities. The deal, struck in June 2011, was closely watched as a landmark agreement in which a bank agreed to pay billions to settle claims over mortgage securities turned toxic during the financial crisis. American International Group Inc. AIG -0.94% opposed the settlement. Lawyers for the insurance giant argued in court that the deal was unfair and that the trustee for investors, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., BK -0.82% didn't fulfill its fiduciary duty. New York State Supreme Court Judge Barbara Kapnick found that the trustee acted in good faith and gave a full and fair opportunity to all investors to make their views known on the deal. The ruling is a major victory for the Charlotte, N.C., bank. It concludes a 2½-year process to gain approval for the deal, which caps about half of the claims against Bank of America for the sale of mortgage-backed securities to private investors before the U.S. housing collapse. Finally! What do you guys make of the (lack of) reaction in the stock to this news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkp007 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 This is a victory and intrinsic value has increased because the uncertainty is gone. As for today's price, it's irrelevant. Edit: I assume AIG will appeal, but I think this was a very thorough case. Not sure if another judge would want to run through it all again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Anybody adding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchman Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 How significant is the exception on loan modifications ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Judge Approves $8.5 Billion Pact Between Bank of America, Investors Ruling Is a Major Victory for Bank of America, Concluding a More Than Two-Year Process to Gain Approval Updated Jan. 31, 2014 12:13 p.m. ET A New York State judge approved an $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.59% and investors over soured mortgage-backed securities. The deal, struck in June 2011, was closely watched as a landmark agreement in which a bank agreed to pay billions to settle claims over mortgage securities turned toxic during the financial crisis. American International Group Inc. AIG -0.94% opposed the settlement. Lawyers for the insurance giant argued in court that the deal was unfair and that the trustee for investors, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., BK -0.82% didn't fulfill its fiduciary duty. New York State Supreme Court Judge Barbara Kapnick found that the trustee acted in good faith and gave a full and fair opportunity to all investors to make their views known on the deal. The ruling is a major victory for the Charlotte, N.C., bank. It concludes a 2½-year process to gain approval for the deal, which caps about half of the claims against Bank of America for the sale of mortgage-backed securities to private investors before the U.S. housing collapse. Finally! What do you guys make of the (lack of) reaction in the stock to this news? The lack of reaction in the stock means that this is the outcome that everyone was expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I agree that the market expected it based on all the information available. It will shut Mayo although! Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchman Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 from ft: "Judge Barbara Kapnick approved the settlement, saying that the trustee for the bonds (BNY Mellon) did not act in bad faith. That seems straightforward enough. But then, a wrinkle. She excluded from her approval an issue over whether BofA must repurchase loans (packaged into bonds) whose terms the bank modified. So that could still be litigated. Attorneys for collateralised debt obligations (of course) called Triaxx have argued that the trustee failed to investigate modified mortgage repurchase claims worth about $31bn. BofA said it believed outstanding issues can be addressed “without undue delay”, while AIG is likely to appeal the broader approval. BofA has reserved for the $8.5bn. And it has made strides in resolving its legal problems, although issues remain. In the fourth quarter, litigation expense was $2.3bn. Investors these days seem more focused on when an economic recovery and higher rates can produce revenue and margin growth. Shares fell just a per cent on Friday. The punch line? Investors cannot put this pesky settlement completely in the past just yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 CLSA analyst Mike Mayo has long had a sell rating on Bank of America chiefly because he believed Bank of America could face an additional $16 billion to $22 billion in legal damages if the settlement were rejected. "I've been on the wrong side with concerns about the legal risk, among other factors, " Mayo conceded in a telephone interview Friday following the ruling. He added, "it looks like my high-end tail risk estimates were wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary17 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Judge puts approval of BofA's $8.5 billion mortgage settlement on hold http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-puts-approval-bofas-8-005913843.html -- I have a general question - when I hear BAC has a very low funding cost - I take it this means that its deposits (liabilities) are mostly low or no-interest bearing.... Where do I find this - is this in the annual report? What should I look specifically in the report to check this? I want to check this against a few other US banks I am thinking about. Thanks Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Judge puts approval of BofA's $8.5 billion mortgage settlement on hold http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-puts-approval-bofas-8-005913843.html -- I have a general question - when I hear BAC has a very low funding cost - I take it this means that its deposits (liabilities) are mostly low or no-interest bearing.... Where do I find this - is this in the annual report? What should I look specifically in the report to check this? I want to check this against a few other US banks I am thinking about. Thanks Gary Yes, you can look in the latest 10-Q on page 24-27. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085813000248/bac-9302013x10q.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 AIG Seeks Delay in $8.5 Billion Bank of America Deal http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/aig-seeks-delay-in-8-5-billion-bank-of-america-deal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 AIG Seeks Delay in $8.5 Billion Bank of America Deal http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/aig-seeks-delay-in-8-5-billion-bank-of-america-deal.html I really don't understand why AIG is bothering with this lawsuit. The legal fees are just a huge expense, right? I own both these stocks, and it is just annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now