Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Incitatus who wrote (71518)	11/21/2007 8:27:58 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

I believe but cannot prove there were agreements to not all BofA to short. I talked about it on my blog. There is wordage in the agreement for sure, what I do not know is if there are loopholes. Mish

To: Incitatus who wrote (71518)	11/21/2007 8:59:26 PM
From: Webster Groves	Respond to of 116555

The point of the BoA "investment" in CFC was a no-lose situation. The $18 conversion price is to me just a diversion from its true goal. I doubt BoA is shorting directly. In the event CFC goes Ch. 11, BoA has a provision to be first on the list of creditors. BoA wants the servicing arm of Countrywide which is very profitable. To get this for $2 billion is a bargain. In the event of government support and no crash, BoA has a hedge with the $18 conversion which gets it out with less of a profit but likely no piece of Countrywide. OTOH, we have financial reporters who either can't see the forest for the trees, or who print what they are told: bloomberg.com wg