Friday, February 13, 2009

Charter's Organizational Structure Labyrinth

Having received numerous emails asking for some more info about the highly convoluted relationships between Charter's various entities and inquiries as to why any rational company would have 10+ tiers of debt (ahem, Charter - rational?), Zero Hedge presents a rather simplified version of Charter's Org Chart. Hopefully this will make analyst lives a little less painful at several large funds (you know who you are).

PS. As it was pointed out to us, ZH forgot to cite that this chart is the hard work of one or more still employed BofA analysts who likely had to spend their post midnight dinner allowance as they first created then filled the boxes just the right shade of red. Zero Hedge salutes you anonymous real men of Charter flow charts. We hope fundamental analysis survives long after the market has turned to dust.

charter - Free Legal Forms Sphere: Related Content
Print this post


Anonymous said...

"Hopefully this will make analyst lives a little less painful at several large funds (you know who you are)."

What balls.

Implying this is your own work, have you no shame?

Those large funds should thank the BOA-Merrill research team who actually authored this rather "simplified corporate" structure. In fact, many of "your" articles are simply cut and pasted, sometimes with no modifications, from sell side research.

Tyler Durden said...

um, nowhere was it implied this chart is "my work". chart was put up after requests were received.just linking information providers and seekers.

Anonymous said...

Um, really..... Would you prefer I call it plagiarism, which it is? Um.... Do you no what implied means? Something that is implied can't be explicit. Therefore," nowhere was it implied this chart is "my work"", is a nonsensical thing to say. You needed to say in noway was it implied.

What do you call taking the work of someone else and not citing it? If the work is not cited it is assumed and therefore implied or if you prefer the implication is that it is original work. That is why work which is not original is cited, get it? I have to believe even you understand this a little, or why else would you have cited sources before on rare occasions. If you are not trying to pass this off as your own, why not cite the source on this piece? Maybe because it makes you look like you actually have some ability to understand an indentures and a highly convoluted capital structure?

Since we are on the subject, in fact, your whole site is nothing but a compilation of others work that you fail to cite. For example your ARM and debt buyback articles and tables are also the work of the BOA-Merrill credit strategy research group. Interesting you fail to mention that. Throughout this site You take charts, numeric examples(sometimes changing a few numbers), and text verbatim from others and fail to cite.

In truth, I doubt you actually understand much of what you post, the math for example. As opposed to creating your own numeric examples, you change the numbers of others, Like you did on the BOA-Merrill debt buyback article and spew back their conclusions safe in the knowledge the equation is sound.

Interestingly, on what appears to be your own analysis you are so off and it is so vapid as to be comical. Take your hard hitting "Rising Loan Prices Causing Debt Buybacks to Cease" article in which you conclude "with more announcements of this kind, the bubble is likely to pop soon". By the way, how exactly is this news "An indication of the current frothy optimism in credit prices".

It clear you have know idea what you are talking about a.) You use one data point, an outlier, as the basis for your conclusion and point out that with more announcements of canceled buybacks the bubble likely will pop soon. So your saying when more people announce they will not buyback their debt, the debt buybacks will end, great analysis. By the way, there is no debt repurchase bubble. Do you even know what a bubble is and means in a financial context? You can't or you wouldn't use the term so incorrectly. b.) If you actually followed the debt capital markets you would know almost every leverage credit with a loan is currently looking to amend their credit agreements to provide for buybacks. In addition, daily several credits announce their intentions to buyback their discounted loans and notes. Get a clue, the rise in announced and executed buybacks has almost seen exponential growth in a four month period. But you know this, you talk about it and rightly pointed out how the the tax incentives which will fuel this growth c.)Not ten days you post BOA-Merrill's piece "Debt buybacks set to Skyrocket", tax incentives, remember? Sell side told you about it. Now they cease???? Bit of a contradiction, huh. So which is it Tyler, let us have your hard hitting analysis, is buyback activity going to skyrocket or has activity ceased. "You" have said both of those things, can't do both.

Do you know what the buyback activity has been? the number of consent solicitations in the pipeline? or what has been announced since you called an end to the non existent bubble? Didn't think so, isn't in a research report. Call up one of the DCM or trading desks at one of the bank's where you get the research you use for your posts and find out. Who knows, we might even speak.

Clearly, you are not or never have been any sort of real Analyst. But do you even have a view???? Based on the pieces which appear to be yours alone, your analysis is just plain wrong and lacks any semblance of analytical insight. Guess, your making those first year IB analyst like mistakes you scoff about in "your" GM restructuring article.

Your good at presenting other peoples analysis, stick with that. Keep posting away using your Tyler Durden/Fight Club theme, which, by the way, is so cool.

Bottom line, own up to your error in judgment and cite work accordingly. It will be forgotten. Plagiarism has consequences, if you do not the right thing, this will become a compliance issue. I would hope you understand the ramifications of that.

Tyler Durden said...

i love your comments and appreciate your point of view. you should post on the other articles that you disagree with as well: maybe more people can join in. welcome your feedback. also if you have any views on capital markets you would like to present would be more than happy to post them