Elliott performance. Read more »
A promise to seat two of its board candidates after Elliott Management voted for its own five was insulting. A promise to seat three under the same circumstances? That’s a compromise Paul Singer can embrace. Read more »
Appreciative as he is of Hess’ generous offer to seat two of his five board nominees after he votes for Hess’ own five, Paul Singer rather contemptuously declines. But, even though he’s quite sure he’s the one holding the cards at Thursday’s shareholder confab, he wouldn’t want you to think him unreasonable, so he’s got a counter offer:
Give me everything I want, and I won’t insist on embarrassing you at the proxy polls this week.
Your move, Hess. Read more »
The panel– moderated by Morgan Stanley’s chief US economist, Vincent Reinhart, and featuring Jeff Vinik of Vinik Asset Management, Ken Ebberts of Goldman Sachs Investment Partners, Michael Novogratz of Fortress Investment Group, and Rob Citrone of Discovery Capital Management– was asked to grade Ben Bernanke. Everyone on the panel gave the Federal Reserve Chairman an “A” or a “B; Paul Singer gave a “D.” [Absolute Return]
I feel like this exchange did not go well for Jamie Dimon:
[Elliott Capital's Paul] Singer said the unfathomable nature of banks’ public accounts made it impossible to know which were “actually risky or sound”. … Mr Singer noted that derivatives positions, in particular, were difficult for outside investors to parse and worried that banks did not always collateralise their positions. Mr Dimon said the bank did for all “major” clients. Mr Singer retorted: “Well, we’re a minor client then.”
Whoops! Guess someone else doesn’t know what positions banks collateralize. I suspect someone at Elliott is already on the phone with JPMorgan to renegotiate their CSA. Also so many other people; I count about $50 billion of uncollateralized (fair value) derivative exposure at JPMorgan, suggesting that it fully collateralizes a little under two-thirds of its trades.1 Perhaps those are the two-thirds with the major clients, but if so that seems a little irrelevant. That’s a lot of minor-client money.
Why does Singer care? Well I guess he wants better collateral terms from JPMorgan? More seriously … there is whatever incentive to say things that always exists at Davos sessions, which I guess is a thing, ugh.2 Then there is the broad question of whether banks are too opaque to invest in. Singer is not alone in thinking that the answer is no; we talked a while back about how a lot of smart people get kind of freaked out by bank financial statements; derivatives, as well as other buzzwords like prop trading and opacity, play a role in their conclusions as well. Also here is a funny article about how 60% of Bloomberg subscribers are basically commie anarchists: Read more »
According to a report by Reuters, Romney supporters in the financial community are a starkly divided group tonight. In one corner you have those who will be partying (Julian Robertson, Paul Singer, Anthony Scaramucci and other top Romney donors have been invited to attend a soirée at the Westin Boston; John Paulson is throwing a small get-together at his Upper East Side townhouse; and “less prominent Wall Street fundraisers will be gathering at Brinkley’s Station, a bar and restaurant” on East 60th Street that serves “a $23.75 lobster club sandwich and $12 Bloody Marys”). In the other you have those who will be spending the evening punishing themselves and telling anyone who calls, “I don’t deserve to have fun.” Read more »