jimmyx...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm not a trader, so I'm not going to say anything about buy, sell,
> dead cat bounce...whatever.
> But I wanted to point out a few facts that people seem to be missing.

> First, the "$2 billion that accredited has" as indicated by Cramer.
> Cramer is a smart guy, and I'm not going to dispute his analysis or
> whatever, but I'm not sure where he is getting this # or why he is
> putting it out there.

> The $2 billion figure is wrong. Accredited HAD $2.7 billion WORTH of
> loans that it sold to Farillon, but AT A STEEP DISCOUNT. They didn't
> make $2 billion from the sale.
> Quoting from March Accredited statement...

> "The $2.7 billion of loans held for sale will be sold at a substantial
> discount in order to alleviate recent pressures from margin calls."

> Secondly, according to Accredited's own documentation, as of April
> 2007, after all of the sales from the $2.7 billion WORTH of loans and
> additional shares of stock sold, etc....Accredited had ONLY $350
> Million left over. They used all of the money from the wrongfully
> quoted $2 billion to pay off existing warehouse lines.

> Quoting from Accredited's announcement on April 2, 2007
> " As a result of the previously announced sale of $2.7 billion of
> loans and the closing of the Farallon term loan, Accredited repaid the
> majority of its warehouse facilities. The Company terminated four
> warehouse lines after repayment of these facilities in full."

> The remaining assets are used for day to day operations etc.  So I'm
> not sure why or where people are getting this $2 billion that
> Accredited supposedly has laying around, and why someone as sharp as
> Cramer would be referring to money that was publicly announced as
> already having been spent...I didn't read the SEC filings, so maybe
> the figure he is quoting is in there...

> Also, I have read the agreement with LoneStar. I don't remember if it
> was something that I was privy to as an employee, or if it was on
> Accredited's investor site, or what....In my opinion, the deal isn't
> 'ironclad' per se.   Although Lone Star can't back out of the deal
> because of market conditions, there ARE many very specific
> representations made by Accredited to be true or that certain
> conditions do not exist. If those representations are incorrect or
> misrepresentations, then Lone Star would be, or could be, 'off the
> hook' if they wanted to be.