Post on 25-Nov-2015
description
John Connell | Angela Morisette | Parker Kim
U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E A S
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Company Overview
FNMA buys mortgages on the secondary market
1 FNMA pools
mortgages into packaged securities
2 FNMA sells mortgaged-
backed securities to investors
3
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Company Overview
FNMA buys mortgages on the secondary market
1 FNMA pools
mortgages into packaged securities
2 FNMA sells mortgaged-
backed securities to investors
3 FNMA is a critical component to the United States ability to lead the
world in homeownership rates providing stability, credibility, and liquidity to the mortgage market
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Investment Thesis
Shareholders are suing the US Treasury over unlawful seizure of private assets
This seizure of shareholder assets is a violation of the
Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
Should the court rule in favor of shareholders, we believe substantial value to be unlocked
FNMA presents an astounding 10-15x in upside potential
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
FNMA Timeline
Government spends $188bn to bail out FNMA in exchange for senior preferred stock offering a 10% dividend
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) puts FNMA under conservatorship
2008:
Financial Crisis
2012: Government
amends agreement
Current: Ongoing litigation
Future: shareholders
win/lose
FNMA unexpectedly returns to profitability
US Government forgoes previous dividend policy and lays claim to all FNMA profits effectively shutting off equity holders from future earnings
Shareholders file lawsuits against the US Government alleging the Treasury acted illegally when it amended the terms of FNMAs deal with the government
There are two possible outcomes for FNMAs shareholders as value is derived from future legislation, not FNMAs core business
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Possible Outcomes for Stakeholders
Shareholders lose
Shareholders win
Share price drops to zero
Share price growth opportunities
upwards of 10-15x market value
Share Price Reaction
Outcome of Litigation
itigation
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Key Issue
Under 2008 SPS Agreement
FNMA Profits
CF to Government (Fixed Amount- 10%)
CF to Private Investors (Residual)
Senior Preferred
Stock
Preferred and Common Stock
Under 2012 Amended Agreement
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Key Issue
Under 2008 SPS Agreement
FNMA Profits
CF to Government (Fixed Amount- 10%)
CF to Private Investors (Residual)
Senior Preferred
Stock
Preferred and Common Stock
Senior Preferred
Stock
CF to Government All Profits
Under 2012 Amended Agreement
Key Issue:
Does the US Treasury and FHFAs seizure of private profits violate
by amending the terms of its stock to eliminate all private shareholders?
the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Litigation Overview
Perry Capital Treasury & FHFA v.
Arg
um
ent
Sup
po
rt
The Treasurys 2012 amendment to the SPS agreement is illegal under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment and is an abuse of power as a conservator
As FNMA is a GSE and the FHFA is its appointed conservator, FHFA has unrestricted control over the company to impose any changes to the SPS agreement
Conservative interpretation of HERA governing FHFA
Precedent court case
Expert opinion
Very liberal interpretation of HERA and FDIA
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
HERA and FDIA Language
The Conservators duty is to operate, rehabilitate, reorganize, and restore the health of the troubled institution. When that is achieved, the conservatorship is terminated,
and the institution is returned to the private sector. 1145, HERA (2008)
FHFA & Treasury Argument:
Like 11 of the FDIA, 1145 of HERA
says the conservator has a higher power than any and all stakeholders in
the business
This sounds like property rights of
stakeholders are wiped out under
conservatorship; however
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
HERA and FDIA Language
The Conservators duty is to operate, rehabilitate, reorganize, and restore the health of the troubled institution. When that is achieved, the conservatorship is terminated,
and the institution is returned to the private sector. 1145, HERA (2008)
FHFA & Treasury Argument:
Like 11 of the FDIA, 1145 of HERA
says the conservator has a higher power than any and all stakeholders in
the business
This sounds like property rights of
stakeholders are wiped out under
conservatorship; however
stakeholders retain their right to payment or settlement of their claims
on the business
It shall, to the extent of proceeds realized from performance of contracts or sale of
assets of the institution, pay all valid obligations of the regulated entity at the time
that are due and payable at the time.
Rebuttal:
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
HERA and FDIA Language
The Conservators duty is to operate, rehabilitate, reorganize, and restore the health of the troubled institution. When that is achieved, the conservatorship is terminated,
and the institution is returned to the private sector. 1145, HERA (2008)
FHFA & Treasury Argument:
Like 11 of the FDIA, 1145 of HERA
says the conservator has a higher power than any and all stakeholders in
the business
This sounds like property rights of
stakeholders are wiped out under
conservatorship; however
stakeholders retain their right to payment or settlement of their claims
on the business
It shall, to the extent of proceeds realized from performance of contracts or sale of
assets of the institution, pay all valid obligations of the regulated entity at the time
that are due and payable at the time.
Rebuttal:
HERA and FDIA language supports Perry Capitals claim that
the Senior Preferred Stock Agreement amendment was not within FHFAs
power as an appointed conservator.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Precedent Case
OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC (1994)
American Diversified Savings Bank (ADSB) shareholders in conflict with conservator
The FDIC believes its fiduciary duty is to taxpayers, not to ADSB shareholders
Supreme Court rules 9-0 in favor of shareholders
The OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC case serves as an effective precedent that tells us courts will issue a ruling in favor of FNMA shareholders
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Expert Opinions
Takings law asserts- as its currently construedif the qualitative value of FNMA being wound down is being used as a
reason for winding it downyou still need to provide just compensation for existing stakeholders.
Richard Epstein-- Professor in Constitutional Law, NYU
[language] in the FDIA and the FDIC has shown precedent in
following procedures to maximize value for shareholders.
Randall Guynn-- Partner and Head of Financial Institutions Group, Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Expert Opinions
If there is disclosure regarding future Fannie and Freddie earnings and the administration has a commitment that
existing Fannie and Freddie common equity holders will never receive any future positive earningsthis commitment would
be material to investors and should be disclosed.
Lewis Lowenfels-- Managing Partner, Tolins & Lowenfels
Takings law asserts- as its currently construedif the qualitative value of FNMA being wound down is being used as a
reason for winding it downyou still need to provide just compensation for existing stakeholders.
Richard Epstein-- Professor in Constitutional Law, NYU
[language] in the FDIA and the FDIC has shown precedent in
following procedures to maximize value for shareholders.
Randall Guynn-- Partner and Head of Financial Institutions Group, Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Expert sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of FNMA shareholders:
Additionally, experts agree that FNMA has a case on both a constitutional
and contractual basis.
aluation
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Decision Tree
Favorable
Unfavorable
PT: $40
$0
9.3%
90.9%
Litigation Outcome Payoff Market-Defined Probability
Due to its investor sentiment surrounding FNMAs past and the risk appetite of investors leaving FNMA, current prices do not accurately reflect the expected value for the litigation payouts.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Peer Analysis
P/E P/B
Apartment and Investment Management Trust AIV 21.7x 4.9x
Equity Residential EQR 10.0x 2.0x
UDR Inc UDR 16.3x 2.3x
American Capital Agency Corp AGNC 6.8x 0.9x
Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation ANH 10.6x 0.9x
Annaly Capital Management NLY 3.0x 0.9x
Capstead Mortgage Corporation CMO 13.8x 1.0x
MFA Financial, Inc. MFA 10.0x 0.9x
Median 10.3x 1.0x
FNMA .65x NA
Relative Valuation
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Relative Valuation
Valuation
2013A EPS (Billions) 84.0
-DTA Valuation Reclamation 50.6
2013A Adj. EPS 33.4
Industry P/E 10.3x
Peer Group Position Adjustment -33%
FNMA P/E Target 6.9x
Expected Market Cap 231.2
FDSO (Treasury Warrants Exercised) 5.8
Expected Share Price $40.12
2.9x $16.81 348%
3.9x $22.61 503%
4.9x $28.41 657%
5.9x $34.20 812%
6.9x $40.00 967%
7.9x $45.80 1121%
8.9x $51.59 1276%
9.9x $57.39 1430%
10.9x $63.19 1585%
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Historical Financial Information
12.0x
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Historical Financial Information
12.0x
Significant downward pressure on valuations
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Historical Financial Information
12.0x
Significant downward pressure on valuations
Valuations remain depressed despite a
major upturn in profitability
onsiderations
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Investment Execution
Portfolio Return: +15%
FNMA
Rest of Portfolio
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Investment Execution
Due to its rare risk-return profile, FNMAs payoffs can result in immaterial losses, but its upside potential contributes significantly to overall portfolio return if sized correctly.
Portfolio Return: +15% Portfolio Return:
-1%
Catalyst
FNMA
Rest of Portfolio
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Catalysts
OMelveny & Myers v. FDIC (1994)
1
3
2
4
October 1993- Case Filed
March 1994- Went to Court
July 1994- First Decision
October 1995- Supreme Court Decision
onclusion
Conclusion Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Investment Thesis
Shareholders are suing the US Treasury over unlawful seizure of private assets
This seizure of shareholder assets is a violation of the
Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
Should the court rule in favor of shareholders, we believe substantial value to be unlocked
FNMA presents an astounding 10-15x in upside potential
Q uestions
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Appendix Slides Government Plans for FNMA- 23 Intrinsic Valuation- 24 Legislation Current Progress- 25 Capital Structure- 26 Risks- 27 Price Chart- One Year- 28 Management- 29 Circumstances Surrounding Entering Conservatorship- 30 Capital Structure Breakdown over time- 31 Shareholder Base- 32 Senior Preferred Stock Agreement- 33 Historical Interest Income- 34 FDSO Calculation- 35 DCF Flaws- 36 Calculating Discount to P/E- 37 Addressing the GSE- Ultimate Power- 38 Theodore Olson Strong Attorney- 39 OMelveny and Myers v. FDIC 1994- 40 Existing FNMA Structure- 41 Government Suggested Structure- 42 Price Chart- Since 2007- 43 Why is it Mispriced?- 44 Recent News Decision Trees-45 Housing Industry in Regards to FNMA- 46 Credit Quality- 47 Twitter Sentiment Analysis- 48
Litigation- 6 Valuation- 12 Conclusion- 19
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Government Plans for FNMA
1
Only if the government wipes out shareholders through legislation means will it be able to shut down FNMA
2 A new system would feature several smaller versions of FNMA in which the government would financially back mortgagesnot firms.
The governments plans for FNMA do not impact FNMAs value unless the government is able to wipe out
private investors.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Intrinsic Valuation
Analyst Case
2008A 2009A 2010A 2011A 2012A 2013A 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E 2018E
Interest and Dividend Income 42877 40813 154616 143449 129677 118740 116615 114877 110305 106996 104856
Interest Expense, Total 34341 28204 141035 133636 110193 92355 93292 91902 88244 85597 83885
Net Interest Income 8536 12609 13581 9813 19484 26385 23323 22975 22061 21399 20971
Net Interest Margin 19.9% 30.9% 8.8% 6.8% 15.0% 22.2% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Salaries and Other Empl. Benefits 1032 1133 1277 1236 1195 1218 1633 1551 1434 1391 1258
Cost of Services Provided 947 1074 1320 1134 1172 1327 1866 1723 1544 1391 1258
Other Operating Exp. 0 0 0 0 238 1001 1633 1493 1324 1177 1153
Operating Income 6557 10402 10984 7443 16879 22839 18192 18208 17759 17440 17301
Operating Margin 15.3% 25.5% 7.1% 5.2% 13.0% 19.2% 15.6% 15.9% 16.1% 16.3% 16.5%
Tax Expense 2597 4119 4350 2947 6684 9044 7204 7210 7033 6906 6851
EFCF 3960 6283 6634 4496 10195 13795 10988 10998 10726 10534 10450
Discount Factor 0.87 0.68 0.54 0.42 0.33
PVEFCF 9519 7501 5759 4453 3478
Terminal Value 18,963
Exit Multiple (P/E) 6.0x
Equity Value 49,672
FDSO 5,762
Share Value $8.62
ProjectedHistorical
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Legislation Current Progress
Post-Court Court, 1.5 years
D issues rebuttal in November
2013
P files lawsuit against D in July
2013
A federal judge grants P a motion to conduct discovery in February
2014
Lower Court Supreme Court P WINS
D WINS Appeal
State Court
Appeal
Right now, Perry Capital LLC v. Department of Treasury is in pre-court
phase
Pre-Court, 8 months
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Capital Structure
Held by US Treasury, initially issued to provide a bailout during 2008. Initially Issued with a 10% dividend paid quarterly on the liquidation preference, with unpaid dividends accruing to the LP. Amended in 2012 to pay out all of net worth.
A
117.1bn
24.1bn
19.1bn
Senior Preferred Stock-
E-Shares Preferred Equity-
2.25% dividend payment on liquidation preference. Non-cumulative dividend, perpetual maturity. Entitled to full dividend satisfaction before funds can be passed on to common equity holders.
Common Equity-
US Treasury currently holds warrants to purchase up to 79.9% of outstanding common stock that have not yet been exercised. Under the existing senior preferred stock agreement, no new common equity may be issued.
C
B
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Risks
There is no precedent that dictates FHFA cannot abuse its conservator powers to eliminate equity holders
OMelveney & Myers v. FDIC Gave a related decision that the
FDICs role as a conservator was to maximize firm value
FNMAs stock price currently reflects concerns over distributable cash flows, not the fundamentals
of the core business
The core business will struggle if the overall housing market
deteriorates- eroding FNMAs significant upside potential
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Price Chart- One Year
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Management
Timothy J. Mayopoulos, President and CEO CEO since June 2012, joined FNMA in 2009 serving as General Counsel and EVP
25 Years of legal Experience in BAML, CSFB, DB, and DLJ, DPW
$600K Base and Total Salary
David C. Benson, 54, Executive VP and CFO since April 2013 Served in FNMA/FMCC for 12 years in various executive roles
Previously an MD for Merrill Lynch
$574k Base Salary, $1.4M Deferred Salary
Terrence W. Edwards, 58, Executive VP and COO since Sept. 2013 Joined FNMA in Sept. 2009 in Credit Portfolio Management
Previously CEO of PHH Corporation, a mortgage and fleet management services company and CEO of Cendant Mortgage Company
$500K Base Salary, $1.2M Deferred Salary
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Circumstances Surrounding Entering
Boards of Fannie and Freddie consented to being put into conservatorship because that would insulate the boards from liability
At the time, the board consented to entering conservatorship on a number of agreements- one of which was that it would remain publicly held so it could emerge from conservatorship as a private company with normal corporate governance structure.
Had the board not consented to entering conservatorship, FHFA did NOT have the statutory authority to force the company in. So turning back on this is highly illegal
FHFA now says they have a responsibility to taxpayers to destroy it but! HERA and FDIA and Precedent court cases tell us as a conservator, you owe shareholders more than taxpayers
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Cap Structure Breakdown over Time
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Shareholder Base
Existing ShareholdersShares Ownership
Pershing Square Capital Mgmt. 115.6m 9.98%
Fairholme Capital Mgmt. 25.9m 2.24%
Capital Research & Mgmt. Co. 12.5m 1.08%
Seamans Capital Mgmt. 2.2m 0.19%
13D Mgmt. .6m 0.05%
Buying Shareholders
New Shares Ownership
Pershing Square Capital Mgmt. +115.6m 9.98%
Fairholme Capital Mgmt. +25.9m 2.24%
Seamans Capital Mgmt. +2.2m 0.19%
13D Mgmt. +.6m 0.05%
Jet Capital Investors +.4m 0.03%
Selling Shareholders
New Shares Ownership
MetLife Advisers, LLC -.2m 0.01%
Lord, Abbett & Co. -.1m 0.06%
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Senior Preferred Stock Agreement
Issued as an initial commitment fee in consideration of the commitment from the treasury to provide funds.
On a quarterly basis, they can draw funds up to the amount, if any, by which their liabilities exceed total assets.
The stock started at 1.0bn liquidation value, but has had mispayments of dividends accrue to a total liquidation value of 117.1bn
Used to be 10% dividend but this has changed to an amount based on net worth (total assets total liabilities) capital reserve (2.4bn 600m each year until zero on Jan 1 2018)
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Historical Interest Income
Income Statement
For the Fiscal Period Ending
Restated
12 months
Dec-31-2003
12 months
Dec-31-2004
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2005
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2006
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2007
Currency USD USD USD USD USD
Interest and Div. Income, Total 47,833.0 47,456.0 44,756.0 42,936.0 44,713.0
Interest Expense, Total 29,587.0 29,737.0 33,339.0 36,875.0 40,185.0
Net Interest Income 18,246.0 17,719.0 11,417.0 6,061.0 4,528.0
%Margin 38.1% 37.3% 25.5% 14.1% 10.1%
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2008
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2009
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2010
12 months
Dec-31-2011
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2012
12 months
Dec-31-2013
USD USD USD USD USD USD
42,877.0 40,813.0 154,616.0 143,449.0 129,677.0 118,740.0
34,341.0 28,204.0 141,035.0 133,636.0 110,193.0 92,355.0
8,536.0 12,609.0 13,581.0 9,813.0 19,484.0 26,385.0
19.9% 30.9% 8.8% 6.8% 15.0% 22.2%
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
FDSO Calculation
FDSO
Current Shares Outstanding(1) 1,158.1
Treasury Warrant Ownership 79.90%
FDSO 5761.592
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
DCF Flaws
We do not believe there is a material variant perspective when pricing the fundamentals of a $300bn secondary mortgage financing giant
Consequently, we believe analyst estimates serve as our best insight into the value of FNMA under normal capital payout structures
Additionally, applying a single WACC for FNMA is inappropriate, as the risk of FNMA is tied to its capital structure-related cash flow considerations, not the core fundamentals of the business.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Calculating Discount to P/E
For the Fiscal Period Ending
Restated
12 months
Dec-31-2003
12 months
Dec-31-2004
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2005
Reclassified
12 months
Dec-31-2006
Currency USD USD USD USD
Interest and Div. Income, Total 47,833.0 47,456.0 44,756.0 42,936.0
Interest Expense, Total 29,587.0 29,737.0 33,339.0 36,875.0
Net Interest Income 18,246.0 17,719.0 11,417.0 6,061.0
%Margin 38.1% 37.3% 25.5% 14.1%
Average = 28.8% Average (ex-2006) = 33.7% Median = 31.4%
2013 Margin = 22.2% Avg Margin = 33.7% 22.7/33.7 = 33% Discount
Normalized Profitability Potential
Assuming capped profitability
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Addressing the GSE-Ultimate Power
Why we think being a GSE doesnt necessarily give it ultimate power
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Theodore Olson Strong Attorney Appointed to U.S. Solicitor in 2001, served until 2004 when he retired and went back to private practice Olson successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended the recount of the contested 2000 Presidential election. 2006 landmark case, defended journalists in Supreme Court case to defend their rights to keep sources confidential, even as request of court 2011 - awarded the ABA Medal, the highest award of the American Bar Association Won federal lawsuit for plaintiff in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenged Proposition 8, a California state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
Named one of Times Top 100 Thinkers for his work on this case
The governments scheme to wipe out these investors is bad policy and a plain violation of the law that respects private, investment-backed expectations and our constitutional protection of property rights.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
OMelveny and Myers v. FDIC 1994
FDIC tried to show it had power beyond what the FDIA allowed for it in conservatorship, but the supreme court said under the statute, when you become a conservator, you step into the shoes as a stakeholder and have a duty to maximize value for the stakeholders.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Existing Structure
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Government Suggested Structure
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Price Chart- Since 2007
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Why is it mispriced?
Overly Negative Investor Sentiment Few people want to be involved with a company that was at the headlines of 2008s housing meltdown
2008 overshadows the litigation thesis
Unique Risk Appetite Required Few investors are willing to invest in something where a 100% loss is possible, ignoring the significant upside.
Litigation Analysis Our precedent case is not a direct reference to the FHFA-HERA case, as it relates to FDIC-FDIA but given how FHFA-HERA are modeled after FDIC-FDIA we believe it is a perfect precedent case nonetheless.
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Recent News Decision Tree
Today
Litigation Outcome
FNMA is able to pay out profits
Post-Litigation Outcome
FNMA continues on with the SPS
dividend = NI
FNMA is wound down according to
Johnston-Crapo
Probability/Payout
80% / $40
10% / $0
10% / $0
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Housing Industry in Regards to FNMA
As rates rise, lenders will loosen rates and more mortgages will be available on the market
Since 1999, mortgage purchase applications and all measures of sales activity have actually been higher when mortgage rates were higher. -Forbes
In 2013, 2.5 million underwater homeowners regained positive equity status thanks to an increase in housing value which strengthens FNMAs existing portfolio
Why? As default risk in FNMAs portfolio decreases, FNMAs investments are more likely to reach maturity
Forecasted market trends do not negatively affect FNMAs business model
Frankly, we see that our retail execution, selling individual homes to individual buyers, as still our best execution strategy. So, we will still continue to do the vast bulk of our executions in that way. FNMA CEO Timothy Mayopoulus (Q4 2013)
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Credit Quality
Investment Overview
Valuation Considerations Conclusion Litigation
Twitter Sentiment Analysis
-100% 0% 100% Negative Neutral Positive
Average sentiment per tweet mentioning litigation
-21%
Simple random sample of top 1400 most influential tweets from March 10th March 18th
Classified each tweet in two categories: Litigation mentioned, yes or no? Sentiment score: 1 positive, 0 neutral, -1 negative
Calculated the net effect of positive and negative tweets as an average sentiment per tweet