Except for the first repurchase (Old National Bancorp.), prices paid have been close to the “fair value” that we calculated based on years worth of warrant transaction data.

A copy of our study is available here:
http://www.plurisvaluation.com/site/liquistat.html#2.

You can also download the Pluris white paper on valuing warrants here: http://www.plurisvaluation.com/site/pressroom/whitepapers.html.

Espen Robak, President”

Although your criticism contains some truth, your claim that the warrant repurchase process reflects Treasury’s attitude that “we can be nontransparent” is not consistent with the emphasis that Treasury’s repurchase policy has placed on transparency and independent valuation.

I hope all of us have learned a valuable lesson.

Vote each and every one of our incumbent House and Senate members out of office this next election to send Washington D.C. a ‘Yes We Can’ message. Let’s get the lobbyists out of Washington, D.C. with newly elected officials. Perhaps with the changes the ‘Yes We Can’ message will finally sink in and they will do what is right for the country and its people.

In the meantime, they should be selling some of their assets, downsizing, laying off employees, taking salary cuts, etc. to gain capitol in order to offset their losses.

The assets they hold in offshore tax havens, which is in the billions, should also be used to offset those losses. And guess who’s turned up in a new government report about tax havens? Eleven giant recipients of your bailout tax dollars:

* American Express
* AIG
* Bank of America
* Citigroup
* General Motors
* GMAC
* Goldman Sachs
* JP Morgan Chase
* Merrill Lynch
* Morgan Stanley
* Wells Fargo

Together they’ve collected more than $227 billion. See the source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/23/eveningnews/main4822689.shtml

Although proponents say most businesses in tax havens are perfectly legal and legitimate, it’s estimated that tax havens cost U.S. taxpayers $100 billion a year in lost revenue.

One favorite among the bailout companies is the Cayman Islands. There’s no income tax, no corporate tax and no capital gains tax.

Goldman Sachs has 15 subsidiaries there. Bank of America: 59. Citigroup: 90.

But Morgan Stanley beats them all with at least 158 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands – seven times the number of hotels.

So until all of the above is done and more no more subsidizing these banksters.

Why isn’t there a yellow crime scene tape around Washington D.C. and Wall Street? This is the largest transfer of public wealth to the wealthiest individuals in U.S. history.

When will the bank CEO’s and Board of Directors be fired and investigated? When is the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (Pecora Commission) going to get started?

I want criminal investigations into all those that have brought down the global economy, starting with AIG’s Joseph Cassano and the rating agencies. Why is it taking the FBI so long to announce some important arrests? This is the largest Ponzi scheme – this beat Madoff and now he’s in prison with a 150 year sentence.

Friday’s announcement:
http://www.ustreas.gov/news/index2.html

Treasury’s CPP (including warrant) FAQ:
http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/CPP/CPP-FAQs.pdf

The subject standard Securities Purchase Agreement. Section 4.9 governs redemption of warrants by a bank that has redeemed its preferred shares:
http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/CPP/spa.pdf

Treasury’s authority re warrants (EESA § 113, 12 USC 5223):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ343/html/PLAW-110publ343.htm

Notwithstanding § 113(d), while both administrations have taken pains to assert that to help the banks was to help main street, the immediate intent of the TARP aspect of EESA was to help banks, like it or not. It should not surprise us then that when it comes to, say, removing troubled assets from bank balance sheets, the gov’t is willing to extend credit and subsidies to investors who are willing to take a bare minimum of risk, so as to get the banks the best possible price. Similarly, when it comes to the redemption of the warrants, the gov’t wants to do so on terms favorable to the banks. I agree that an open market process is more transparent and less conflict-prone than the negotiated repurchase contemplated by the SPA, but perhaps this was not foreseen in the moment of “crisis.” Possibly it was discounted in the urge to consummate a sweetheart deal. Finally, had I been forced to take TARP funds against my will, I would not care to see warrants for my stock be auctioned to the highest bidder.

There is obviously unappealing midterm election risk in this pricing scheme and making a correction now – before major banks have participated – would be relatively straightforward.”

This really is appalling. Has SJ not read the terms of the Standard Form Securities Purchase Agreement promulgated by the Paulson Treasury and which all the warrant issuers and Treasury agreed to in October 08-January 09 (pre-Obama) time frame? There were no new rules announced Friday, just additional information on how Treasury will come up with its bid. The procedure itself is contractually detailed, and could not be changed by the White House, Congress, or for that matter the banks.