Myth465 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The value investor smart money has been slowly leaving for a while due to the financial concentration. We had a few thread on it here with long term investors trimming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueDan38 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I've been following Bruce since 1995, when loading up on Leucadia (still holding). Shortly after he opened Fairholme, I jumped in. It's the only Mutual Fund that I ever bought, except for one dog when I was 18 and didn't have a clue. I hope that being named MF 'Manager of the Decade' (danger of hubris) and parting with his two top analysts doesn't hurt his performance going forward. What a gutsy move loading up on those financials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Question on National's Claim-Paying Resources: Currently, National has $463 billion of insurance exposure and $5.7 billion of claims-paying resources. (about 1.23%) However... Year -- Exposure -- CPR -- % 1997 -- $233 billion -- $5.3 billion -- 2.27% 1998 -- $277 billion -- $6.2 billion -- 2.24% 1999 -- $359 billion -- $7.8 billion -- 2.17% And in 1997, they were only writing about $30 billion in structured finance -- so I'm using this as a proxy for pure play municipal bonds. So were they incredibly over-reserved back then? Were there reserve releases following this period that could show this? 2.27% vs. 1.23% now -- when municipals were possibly safer in the late 90s? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFValue Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Decent Insider purchase by Brown (CEO) 100K @ 7.60 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814585/000081458511000026/xslF345X03/primary_doc.xml does this imply no material news are imminent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Price below $10 today. Could someone explain the short thesis on this stock (counterargument)? I note that Tilson is still apparently short. His latest letter says that Tilson has covered his MBIA short position. Also, Jay Brown (CEO) just bought another 100,000 shares at 7.60 (I'm guessing this is why the price held it's ground on Friday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I wonder if the crisis in Europe is helping MBIA commute it's exposures. As I understand it, the banks drop out of the lawsuit when they no longer have insurance provided by MBIA. So if a French bank needs to raise cash pronto, they may be open to doing a commutation where they get cash upfront from MBIA rather than down the road. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/mbia-creditagricole-idUSS1E78B12U20110912?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Alison Frankel posted the October 5th hearing transcript a few days ago: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2011/10_-_October/Bond_insurers_v__banks__MBS_loss_causation_teed_up_for_ruling/ I think it would be very tricky to understand everything that's going on with this case. That being said, I'm long myself (and have been using this as an excuse to learn as much as I can about the US legal system!) It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Looks like MBIA and Third Avenue have dropped their suit. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-24/mbia-insurance-third-avenue-trust-discontinue-new-york-suit.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk4value Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Was this the lawsuit arising from MBIA moving assets from its insurance subsidiary to the publically traded holding company or to a new entity formed to insure municipal bonds??? I believe Third Ave owned bonds tied to the insurance sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Was this the lawsuit arising from MBIA moving assets from its insurance subsidiary to the publically traded holding company or to a new entity formed to insure municipal bonds??? I believe Third Ave owned bonds tied to the insurance sub. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=al8OOPZn_wAE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 More news on MBIA vs. BAC: Courts denies BofA move to consolidate monoline insurer lawsuits http://www.housingwire.com/2011/10/31/courts-denies-bofa-move-to-consolidate-monoline-insurer-lawsuits In the transcript of the hearing posted above, Judge Eileen Bransten didn't sound excited on the idea of the cases being consolidated, for a few reasons. So far, so good :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Another one bites the dust... http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/wells-fargo-withdraws-from-mbia-restructuring-lawsuits.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It seems things might be moving quickly now: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577054282979317086.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 as discussed earlier, it makes sense for everyone just to see down and settle. Nobody wants to carry the lawsuit liabilities around at this kind of environment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Looks like a bullish initiation + the recent talk of a possible settlement is driving MBIA today. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74295270/Mbia-Initiation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShahKhezri Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 valuecfa, I hope I run into you, I owe you a couple of drinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Finally, signs of life before the Causation ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 HSBC is out. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/uk-mbia-hsbc-idUKTRE7BB1J120111212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooger72 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 MS is out too. $1.1 bn payment by MBIA to MS to drop all litigation between the two firms. MS is taking a $1.8bn pretax hit, and National is loaning the money to the structured finance arm to make the payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpauls Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 2 cents 1) If you didn't buy MBIA before these recent settlements you should be kicking yourself 2) If you are hesitating to buy MBIA because the price has run up 50%+ you're missing the point, and you should arrange to have someone kick you The price has indeed increased, but the uncertainty has significantly decreased and I'll argue that the price increase does not yet reflect the amount of uncertainty that has been eliminated. The events that will take place over the next few months are quite clear. The outcome is quite clear. The result is quite clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Looks like we won in the Bransten case! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/mbia-wins-judgment-ruling-against-countrywide.html Thanks for this great idea, valuecfa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Looks like we won in the Bransten case! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/mbia-wins-judgment-ruling-against-countrywide.html Thanks for this great idea, valuecfa! Not to rain on the parade, on the contrary congratulations! I am just trying to understand the implications for BAC. What do you guys make of this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577139043766630090.html Still, Bank of America also won part of the ruling, as Judge Bransten denied the attempt by the insurer to get a ruling that would have allowed it to pursue claims against even performing mortgage bonds. And MBIA still must prove that any allegedly fraudulent statements Countrywide made actually induced it to sign the insurance agreement, likely still a difficult task. The ruling could also still be appealed. A Bank of America spokesman said the bank is still reviewing the "complex" decision, but said the judge denied key parts of MBIA's motions. "The insurer's losses are due to the mortgage-market collapse, a risk they agreed to insure," the spokesman said. "MBIA still must prove that it was damaged by Countrywide's allegedly material misrepresentation, which as the court stated 'will not be an easy task.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The actual order language is a much better source than the news reports... "... [MBIA] must establish for its claim of fraud that misrepresentations by the defendant(s) induced MBIA to issue insurance policies on terms to which it otherwise would not have agreed and that MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal link between defendant(s) misrepresentations and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue ..." In other words, MBIA's fraud claim (1) requires that MBIA show that they were induced by defendants to issue policies when they otherwise might not have issued those policies and (2) does not require that MBIA show a direct causation between the misrepresentation and the damages. Incidentally, this looks like a hybrid between promissory estoppel (induced reliance) and strict liability (no need to show culpability or causation). Plain language: If MBIA can show they were induced to issue policies they wouldn't have otherwise issued, it looks like they'll get paid. "... [MBIA] must establish for its claim for breach of the Insurance Agreement against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("CHL") that CHL's breach of warranties in the issued insurance policies' transaction documents increased the risk profile of the issued insurance policies and MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal connection between proven warranty breaches by CHL and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue ..." On the breach of insurance agreement front, MBIA (1) must show that Countrywide's breach of warranties made the risk that MBIA was taking on greater and (2) need not show that there was a direct causation between the warranty breach and the damages. Plain language: If MBIA can show that they took on increased risk as a result of the false representations made by Countrywide when they sought the insurance policies, then it looks like they'll get paid. ~~~ Additionally, MBIA also wanted to put back performing mortgage bonds to Bank of America, because they have the sense that some mortgage bonds might go bad in the future. They don't want to be on the hook for insurance for a bunch of mortgage bonds that may eventually turn out to be fraudulent. This was probably an overreach by MBIA because there's no damages yet -- so how can there be a lawsuit? So the court was right to knock this down. ~~~ The confusion seems to exist because of seemingly contradictory language on page 14 of the order... "The court therefore finds that no basis in law exists to mandate that MBIA establish a causal link between the misrepresentations allegedly made by Countrywide and claims made under the policy." ... and page 15 of the order ... "MBIA must then prove that it was damaged as a direct result of the material misrepresentations. As has been aptly pointed out by Countrywide, this will not be an easy task." In other words, MBIA needs to show that the alleged misrepresentations damaged them, but they need not show that the alleged misrepresentations caused them to pay out claims. I've been watching quite a bit of MythBusters recently, so here's my fact pattern. Let's say that you decided to build a gizmo and part of that gizmo involves a faulty pressurized gas canister. For one reason or another, the thing explodes. Essentially, you can't say for sure that the pressurized gas canister is what caused the gizmo to explode -- could have been faulting wiring, something sharp dislodging and poking the gas chamber, or whatnot -- but so long as you can show that you were damaged as a direct result of the pressurized gas canister being faulty, then you'll get paid. That's my interpretation anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I've been watching quite a bit of MythBusters recently, so here's my fact pattern. Let's say that you decided to build a gizmo and part of that gizmo involves a faulty pressurized gas canister. For one reason or another, the thing explodes. Essentially, you can't say for sure that the pressurized gas canister is what caused the gizmo to explode -- could have been faulting wiring, something sharp dislodging and poking the gas chamber, or whatnot -- but so long as you can show that you were damaged as a direct result of the pressurized gas canister being faulty, then you'll get paid. That's my interpretation anyway... That's a sample size of 1, so yes proof is very awkward because you haven't demonstrated whether the failure is caused by the gas canister or the design of the gizmo itself that is faulty. Instead, let's say that your company built 100,000 of these gizmos on a factory line and sold them to customers. About 5% of them exploded. Later, it is determined that gas canisters (from a specific production run) from one of your part suppliers were faulty in such a way that can trigger explosions. You kept good enough records to determine that 90% of the exploded gizmos contained faulty serial number gas canisters from that very same production run. Is that not proof enough? It basically becomes an argument of statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Additionally, MBIA also wanted to put back performing mortgage bonds to Bank of America, because they have the sense that some mortgage bonds might go bad in the future. They don't want to be on the hook for insurance for a bunch of mortgage bonds that may eventually turn out to be fraudulent. This was probably an overreach by MBIA because there's no damages yet -- so how can there be a lawsuit? So the court was right to knock this down. That was the basis for this article from August where it was said that BofA may face an additional $9b in claims. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-18/bofa-mortgage-risk-may-rise-9-billion-if-new-york-judge-sides-with-mbia.html?cmpid=yhoo 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