Democracy starts with you, tag your it! ...Thom Hartman
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mr. Cooper price offering on $1 billion in senior notes!
https://investors.mrcoopergroup.com/events-and-presentations/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Mr.-Cooper-Group-Inc.-Announces-Pricing-of-Offering-of-1-Billion-of-Senior-Notes/default.aspx
😆 Good point, this would wrap up overnight if so
And now Schwab after hours showing $66.. interesting.
well, the proving date for class 10 was on the 21st, so being after that date might’ve been the cause for the order failing.
It’s surprising no one’s really talking about todays PPS. The MB is clogged with sky is falling sentiment
A couple weeks ago far prior to the deadline - I was also confused and sent proof of my holdings at Schwab (redacted except details specific to the CTs I own) to the email and ATTN: to Diane N. something. My gut says its not necessary because my holdings are in street name, but after seeing so much misleading #$$#% with WAMUs BK over the years, I felt I needed to send something anyways.
I couldn't access the claim form back then either...it went to an error page..too many redirections or something. However, the way the statement reads, they ask for your proof of claim, and if requested, to send them more detailed information about my holdings. This tells me 4 things: PWC must know all about Street name holders if only a general a proof of claim is required. Secondly, if they have questions about a claim, they say they will ask you to provide further proof (which I did, because the claim form is non-existent). Thirdly, this proof of claim information about my personal proof of holdings "as may appear to the administrators to be necessary" seems like its not such a big deal,...as if they already really know. Fourthly, the PWC letter that mentioned the deadline and the 'within 2 months payment schedule', actually only includes a 'transfer of claim' page, to inform them if you sold your CT interest to another party. So why would PWC include a 'transfer of claim' form a person could print out directly, but not include a 'Proof of Claim'? Tells me the Proof of Claim page its not really necessary, and they know who holds what... I'm guessing the Proof of Claim is really for people who don't hold in street name.
It will be telling after the November 21 deadline, if the sell feature at Schwab is also then frozen, just like the Buy button hasn't been available for a while. If money is coming within 60 days, I think they'd need the CTs to stop moving around amongst different holders until its all caught up
At the end of the day, I have sent a copy of my holdings to put my mind at ease. Overkill? probably...but..well is it? lol...
The bottom of the PWC letter does say "A creditor who has not proved their debt by the last date for proving may be excluded from the dividend"
‘..a distribution within 2 months of November 21, 2023’s proving deadline’
Says it all right there, don’t it 😃
Was the letter just for ECAPS? UK holders? Will CT holders get different notification?
Another version: https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-restructuring/administrations/non-lbie-companies/lbh-plc-in-administration/dividends-to-creditors.html
COOP, aka Mr Cooper Group Inc, aka 'the registrant', has an "Ultimate Parent" corporation as verified by GLEIF.org, that could be shorting COOP without being an insider... from one pocket to the other.
GLEIF.org is the international legal entity indentification (LEI #) platform, that every single corporation derives their LEI # from.
According to GLEIF.org, COOP aka Mr Cooper Group Inc has a "Direct Parent" and an "Ultimate Parent" who can remain anonymous due to a 'consolidated accounting exception'.
For kicks, what if something like JPM was COOP's "Ultimate Parent"? No wonder we haven't ever seen any other public proof due to consolidated accounting exceptions for anonymity. JPM could be shorting COOP to control its PPS for COOP's future mergers? or maybe JPM is shorting COOP to buy up cheaper shares for itself to flip later - just another way to make old WMI pay for itself ? I'm sure there's other scenarios. But it is curious how COOP always trades far below book
is OOP shorting itself to buy up shares?
Not saying RD is correct, but to your question, banks that conspired to manipulate LIBOR negatively affected other banks like WMB and WMBfsb, who were owned by WMI - so ultimately WMI was harmed or lost income from LIBOR manipulation. I think any LIBOR lawsuit proceeds on behalf of WMB/fsb pass thru the receivership and reduce the FDIC's bottom line on the WMB balance sheet. Altogether, the theory is that it could maybe be part of positive wave that overcomes the negative FDIC WMB estate, and residual could flow back to WMI. I think that's the theory at least.
Maybe its oversold, and there's a 'owners of record' date upcoming.. if nothing else, holding could make for a good squeeze
When you say Trust as if there's only one......There's multiple Trusts out there other than the WMILT. Just like holding marbles in your hand, the WMILT was just one marble. Now take the WMILT marble and throw it into the pond - its gone - the WMILT is dead. The remaining marbles (P,K Uq Trusts) are what's left today - whose asset pools were frozen in safe harbor outside of Chapter 11's sticky fingers. There are other Trustees/Trusts STILL to this day managing P, K, and Uq assets, SEC reporting.
.. if she released - her 'future distribution allocation' isn't coming from the Trust called WMILT. It's dead and gone - WMILT has no future!
A released share future allocation distribution comes from fiduciary Trustees of Trusts managing Prefereds Kqs, Pqs....or other Trusts managing Uqs depending on what flavor you held and released.
The separate trustees managing these separate Trusts know who their beneficiaries are, and how to reach them via DTC.
Thanks for the clarity. From my understanding, DOR resale sales tax accounts go dormant after 2 years of inactivity - no more sales revenue. However a DOR presence could still exist to collect taxes paid / routed through 3rd parties. For example, in a real estate sale, excise taxes are collected by title & escrow and forwarded to the DOR on the sellers behalf, even if they don't have a licensed presence.
Other than to prove a charity exemption from paying tax, I can't imagine why else it was open. But it's not open as of Sept 25, 23 as you said.
I'd say this is all just proof the WMILT is dead and gone, just like the Chapter 11 is dead and gone. The future is/was whatever WMI's Preferred managing Sub that still operates and SEC reports regarding Pq,Kq, as is the still accumulating WMI capital trust returns for Uq. And of course there is WMI Holdings/WMI/now COOP that some received in shares as well, if they haven't sold it.
I respect anyone taking the time to search for the last puzzle piece we are all missing, but anything in the WMILT or within the Chapter 11 umbrella of 'certain assets' is a dead end box canyon. There's nothing left there.
Our future is literally spelled out in the relationship between COOP and it's Direct Parent (xxxx)...&...COOP's Ultimate Parent (XXXX).
It's all gonna get tied up in pretty bow one day. The 'when' is the puzzle piece. Figure out the Direct and Ultimate Parent's relationship to legacy shares who released, and COOP's future, and you'll know what you own.
There is no actual "license" for the WA DOR. The only way to be licensed literally, is through the WA SOS. Once licensed, you get assigned a DOR account based on your SOS corporate identity. They are hand in hand. For the DOR account to be active, buy closed/dormant for tax purposes is with incorrect information somewhere along the line, or...a very interesting research topic. However, didnt the WMILT state they donated their cash residue to charity around September 2022(21) ? The DOR account, no tax...could exist simply due to WMILT needing to show tax exempt status for those donations due to charitable donations...in other words, it wasn't an excise taxable exchange of money transaction.
We don't have an income tax in WA. We do have a sliding scale Excise Tax of about 2% for most people's real estate transactions. I don't know all the ramifications of having a tax paying presence, without being a legal corporate entity allowed to conduct business in WA.
To really dig into it and speculate, I'd have to actually see filings or proof of these occurrences to understand the context. The only reason I can guess you'd need a DOR account without tax collection and without an SOS license, is if there is nothing coming in as a taxable transaction.
Seeing as how the WMILT is closed up shop, I'm inclined to believe that this is all just tidying and wrapping up WMILT, as WMILT is no longer a conduit for returns.
No surprise to me. Washington‘s corporate filings & registration is a completely different department than the Dept of Revenue. They rarely communicate. You have to file and register separately with each. The WMILT hasn’t been active in WA for a couple years regarding its legal existence. I’m not surprised the Dept of Revenue finally closed the book on their end. It could be that when the OP who discovered it open recently, prob triggered some movement to verify current status as non active.
In a separate but similar note, DTCC’s agent GLEIF.org still reports Mr CooperGroup, Inc has having a Direct Parent corporation, and an Ultimate Parent at the top, using a non-reporting anonymous exception. After posting weeks ago, the info remains the same, no one has challenged or corrected those facts on an organizational or authority level.... that MrCooperGroup inc is just a SEC Registrant subsidiary for its Direct Parent (xxxx), who both operate at the privilege and pleasure of the Ultimate Parent (XXXX).
Incidentally when I reported this Direct/Ultimate Parent info years ago based on DTCC’s former entity status tracking sub, GAMEI - a domestic USA company, reiko filed a challenge and the info was changed/deleted. Now that DTCC uses GLEIF.org an international entity tracking company not beholden to USA courts and SEC, the info about MR COOPER GROUP’s Direct/Ultimate Parents reports and holds as truth
Price didnt matter for NQ and KQ. "This security is accepting closing transactions only". The only transaction this security class is allowing is either for people selling out their positions for good or buying back a short position. No other option. Not available for me to Open another position in these securities. This tells me Class 10 is getting ready to be paid based on the recent court transcripts of substantial funds available
NASDAQ def: "Closing transaction
Applies to derivative products. Buy or sell transaction that eliminates an existing position (selling a long option or buying back a short option). Antithesis of opening transaction."
Interesting note: I tried to buy more NQs and KQs from Schwab today to add to my holdings, and the order was cancelled for the reason:
"Order messages
1. Your order cannot be accepted. This security LEHNQ is accepting closing transactions only. (DO911)"
Payday is coming.
Mark up? Wait till all the foreclosures and short sales start kicking in again next spring because people have been overpaying for real estate for the last 6 years, thanks to nearly free money on 3% interest rates. All the home buyers who only put 10-20% down are f.d as real estate values are already down nearly 10% and counting, especially when you throw in closing costs and taxes to close a transaction, and there's tens of millions of recent home buyers who are trapped for years to come, or bail/buy themselves out at closing to protect credit, or they short sale / foreclose.
Yes indeed! I'm just stunned to see it spelled out in the open so casually. No legal-eze, no semantics...just like its written on a chalk board. COOP has a Direct Parent & and Ultimate Parent. People can argue about who's who, but there's no contesting the fact that COOP has mislead who pulls its puppet strings - and its not themselves.
That's exactly right. AZs been saying this for years. COOP is just a registrant.
COOP's Direct Parent (xxxx) and Ultimate Parent (XXXX), use "consolidated" accounting schemes (COOP as registrant) to hide behind COOP's skirts in anonymity. It's ironic that a global G20 regulatory authority (FSB) that's responsible for issuing LEI #s (Legal Entity Identification) around the world to stabilize global financial markets, and whose domestic influence is through the DTCC (prev GMEI, now GLEIF.org)...is where all COOP's secrecy is laid bare.
Goodietime: I got your message, I dont have PM. I will not post on Boardpost. When AZ and Ron got kicked out, someone with admin access on BP was not only reading my PMs on BP, but also accessing my private WAMU group Gmails.
According to the DTCC (GLEIF.org), the domestic operator for the international G20's FSB...the Ultimate Parent (XXX) who has an ownership interest greater than 50%, owns Direct Parent (xxxx) who has an ownership interest greater than 50% in COOP, Mr Cooper Group Inc. COOP is clearly hiding which corporation is really standing behind it, which is in direct conflict with who it offers itself to be to investors.
COOP's self generated application for their own international LEI # states their ownership hierarchy. COOP wrote this! Did COOP lie in their required LEI # application? It's one or the other buddy! I'd trust an international regulatory body responsible for managing global financial security to have more accurate information than the domestic regulatory bodies, responsible for the theft and cover-up of WAMU. It's starting to stink around here.
As a 15 year plus investor of the COOP lineage, I and others need to know exactly what we are invested in. Pumping half truths is dishonest.
A bit of color: remember GLEIF.org states MR Cooper Group Inc's application for LEI registration, gave the Exception rule for NON-PUBLIC Reporting of its Direct & Ultimate Parent(s) names based on....Direct Parent: "fully consolidated..by the accounting standards specified." Ultimate Parent: ultimately consolidated..by the accounting standards specified"
"What is the difference between consolidated and parent accounting?
Consolidated financial statements are used when the parent company holds a majority stake by controlling more than 50% of the subsidiary business. Parent companies that hold more than 20% qualify to use consolidated accounting. If a parent company holds less than a 20% stake, it must use equity method accounting.
"Consolidated financial statements: the financial statements of a group presented as those of a single economic entity. Subsidiary: an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, that is controlled by another entity (known as the parent)." COOP is a Registrant
"Ultimate Parent Company means a Company, which owns more than fifty percent (50%) equity shareholding either directly or indirectly in the Parent Company.
We need to demand from COOP at the next shareholder meeting, Who is COOP's Direct (xxxx) and Ultimate (XXXX) Parent !! Investors have a legal right to know who is pulling strings that can affect their investment. It is dishonest to pump half truths about COOP, because COOP is just a puppet.
This data is clear and true. GLEIF.org operates under mandate from the DTCC (formerly GMEI) to issue, track, and manage LEI #s (legal entity identifier) for corporations around the globe. This whole system was created by the FSB, and the DTCC is the USA's managing mechanism for the FSB.
The data is clear. GLEIF.org registered Mr. Cooper Group Inc (COOP) with a NON-PUBLIC Direct Parent...and...a NON-PUBLIC Ultimate Parent. Another fact according to GLEIF.org, as early as 2018 and updated in 2022 to present, is that WMIH CORP and WMI HOLDINGS are in fact alive - a GLEIF.org stated as "New Value".
FSB who is in charge of global financial security would get this right. They aren't under the thumb of the US courts, SEC, FDIC, or any other domestic regulating entities. COOP is clearly hiding its hierarchal Parents due to some "binding legal constraint" within the United States only. COOP has a duty to report any legal constraints that restrict my 15 year investment about Who or What I am invested in. When COOP says in shareholder meetings they 'could' sell XOME but really can't without Parent corporation approval, it's quite misleading.
Screenshots were taken, stored, and printed. I'm not letting this one go.
"In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, regulators worldwide acknowledged their inability to identify parties to transactions across markets, products, and regions. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), together with the finance ministers and central bank governors represented in the Group of 20 (G20), therefore, advocated developing a universal Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) applicable to any legal entity that engages in financial transactions. Implementation of the LEI will increase the authorities’ ability to evaluate systemic and emerging risk, identify trends and take corrective steps." https://www.gleif.org/en/about/history
"The FSB represented the G20 leaders' first major international institutional innovation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has described it as "in effect, a fourth pillar" of the architecture of global economic governance, alongside the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization."
New proof that "COOP is just a "Registrant" or "CHILD" corporation for a much larger corporate entity in hiding. According to GLEIF.org.... 'Mr. Cooper Group' is the "CHILD" of both an unreported "NON-PUBLIC" "Direct" Parent, and "Ultimate Parent".
Scroll down the MR. COOPER GROUP page on GLEIF.org, to the 'PARENTS' section. Review both the Direct and Ultimate Parent tabs which refer to the "Exception" by which the Direct and Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc, uses to hid their identity to the public. Direct Parent being the closest Parent Corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation. And, Ultimate Parent being the furthest Parent corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation.
Direct Parent: "Direct Parent Exception Reported" "The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
Ultimate Parent: "Ultimate Parent Exception Reported" The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record
So, how does an LEI numbered corporation (originally granted & generated by GLEIF) such as Mr Cooper Group Inc claim a "NON-PUBLIC Parent Exception" in their LEI Reference DATA to GLEIF.org, if it doesn't have a parent as some claim ?
"Non-Public, whenever the relationship information is non-public and therefore creates obstacles to releasing this information. This category includes cases where there are obstacles in the laws or regulations of a jurisdiction restricting the reporting (“Binding Legal Constraint”); the existence of other legal constraints such as articles governing the legal entity or a contract (“Legal Obstacles”); where disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the legal entity or the relevant parent (“Disclosure Detrimental” and “Detriment Not Excluded”); and where the consent to disclose the parent LEI was not obtained (“Consent Not Obtained”). An entity is not required to provide non-public relationship information in order to register or renew an LEI. https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/current-versions/level-2-data-reporting-exceptions-2-1-format
What is a "binding legal constraint" is A binding constraint is one where some optimal solution is on the line for the constraint. Thus if this constraint were to be changed slightly (in a certain direction), this optimal solution would no longer be feasible."
What binding legal restraint prohibits Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) from Reporting its Direct and Ultimate corporate Parent relationship ? Let that sink in...... That tells me there is a gag order on who owns COOP right now...what could be so controversial? JPMC ?
So, Why would releasing Mr Cooper Group Inc's Direct & Ultimate Parent identification create an obstacle? Why stay Non-Public if its just an...'accounting thing' as stated "in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified." Why is it detrimental for BOTH the Direct & Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc to be public information? What would the damage be if these Parent corporations of Mr Cooper Group Inc were to be named publicly?
A bit of color: remember GLEIF.org states MR Cooper Group Inc's application for LEI registration, gave the Exception rule for NON-PUBLIC Reporting of its Direct & Ultimate Parent(s) names based on....Direct Parent: "fully consolidated..by the accounting standards specified." Ultimate Parent: ultimately consolidated..by the accounting standards specified"
"What is the difference between consolidated and parent accounting?
Consolidated financial statements are used when the parent company holds a majority stake by controlling more than 50% of the subsidiary business. Parent companies that hold more than 20% qualify to use consolidated accounting. If a parent company holds less than a 20% stake, it must use equity method accounting.
"Consolidated financial statements: the financial statements of a group presented as those of a single economic entity. Subsidiary: an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, that is controlled by another entity (known as the parent)."
"Ultimate Parent Company means a Company, which owns more than fifty percent (50%) equity shareholding either directly or indirectly in the Parent Company.
COOP's Direct Parent is alive (xxxx) and owned by those who released...who is then owned by (XXXX)'s controlling interest in (xxxx).
And if one thinks old WMIH Corp or WMI Holdings Corp is dead ??..., as of May 20, 2022 they were both listed as "NewValue" "Modifications" to GLEIF.org's "Changed Fields" under Mr. Cooper Group Inc's LEI identification number under "LEI Record Changes". https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record_modifications
So, Mr Cooper Group Inc is hiding both its corporate Direct & Ultimate Parents under a NON-PUBLIC veil, yet illuminatingly lists WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp as the "NEW VALUE" other entity names for the CHILD corporation we and the public know as Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) !!! I betcha one of the two, WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp, is the Direct Parent (xxxx) of Mr Cooper Group Inc, and the other is the direct Parent of the other.
AS to the Ultimate Parent (XXXX) of Mr Cooper Group Inc ? Who'd stand the most to gain? JPMC ?! They bought the farm in 2008, why wouldn't they need to buy the landscape as well - especially to make RICO lawsuits go away. According to the definitions provided, the Child corporation Mr Cooper Group Inc can't do anything without the say-so of its Direct and Ultimate Parent who own the controlling interest in Mr Cooper Group Inc.
Think about that last sentence... how could the Ultimate Parent (JPMC ?) dictate COOP's corporate direction? They'd have to own more than 50% of the company.... How could/did they (JPMC ?) get greater than 50% of the Child corporation COOP ? Either through 1) buying up enough Preferred and Common shares before 2012 reorganization and/or a combination of both 2) buying up WMIH/COOPs loose shares quietly and steadily for years....Whatever they couldn't get pre-bk, they could've got for pennies from frustrated legacy holders who bailed early.
Makes me wonder about COOP's year long statements to this day !! about buying up so many shares of itself...or really maybe for another's ultimate benefit.....JPMC ? As COOP was a portion of the legacy WMI for those who released, If there's a COOP payout component in the future from JPMC ?, the more you own of yourself the less you pay to others...meaning it'll cost them nothing really.
In any case, AZ was and is g.d right this whole time about COOP hiding behind someone else's skirts. He's graciously shared other direct and 'accredited' proof that I'm grateful for, but I still wanted to see if there was other info available to those who might look. And there is, and its quite revealing...and not that hard to find and disect.
Why would COOP ever do something Bullish to protect their PPS ? They've announced quarter after quarter, years over year, that blah blah they keep authorizing share purchases....stock purchasing goals which never get completely met. And stock repurchase goals won't be met the higher the PPS goes. COOP is probably driving down its own stock, in relation to whatever minimum PPS threshold needs to be crossed. There is no incentive to protect the PPS if your goal is to buy it back.
It's always bothered me from day 1 how this stock wasn't supposed to trade initially, but it did. I can't help but wonder if all of WMIH/COOP's quarter after quarter flogging the 'buyback our shares because it's undervalued' pony is because it was over authorized / oversold to begin with...
No, its about Washington Mutual Preferred Funding as manager for incoming REIT Trust interest income, and how Oregon state thought that because they had WAMU banks operating in their state, that WMI then owed them excise taxes (which is not an income tax, just a transactional tax) for Washington Mutual Preferred Fundings REIT income collections for the benefit of WMI.
What I love about the footnotes I posted, is that while Oregon and the WMILT argue about whether an excise tax is appropriate in the filing, The LT is forced to explain in detail, what and how they've been hiding for years.... how they hid the sausage. Honestly they didn't even have to hide it, because it always was hidden from the books. remember, Washington Mutual Preferred Funding's source of interest income from the Capital Trust REITs, is hidden as it doesn't report on WMIs Federal or State Consolidated Tax Statement !! Hidden in Plain sight ! The REIT trusts are separate tax entities from the whole WMI consolidated tax group that you posted. When the REIT Capital Trusts distribute annual interest income, then WMI receives it (annual 90% rule) and that income becomes baked into shareholder profit.
Tax stuff was boring to me, and I didn't read it until now, and I'm glad I did. It proves that WMI has always had residual interest income assets coming from OUTSIDE of the Bankruptcy court's jurisdiction AND the Receivership....and that the residual legacy estate for those who released is not worthless !
_________________________________________________________________________
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
haha, no the MB is apparently not ready. I'd never read that footnote before, largely because the tax filings as a topic seemed too boring to want to dig into ....but it's funny what you find in places you wouldn't expect it to be !
well, Oregon was not claiming tax for the REIT profit,....Oregon was just going after the transactional excise taxes plus penalties and interest....again,...Not the WMI REIT's profit. If so it'd be a far far far larger number.
In any case, the WMI REITs were never taxed solely as a business, nor could it be. Oregon lost, Walrath signed off in 2012. Generally speaking, REITs dont pay tax as a business, because the tax liability is passed down to each beneficial owner upon receipt of their share of the REIT's income. That's the whole point of a REIT. Each and everyone of us who released had to fill out a W-9, as we are all individual beneficiaries of the WMI REITs.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
Mr Cooper Group...is going to need a new trick pony to ride going forward in this new economy. The party is over. Mortgage originations are gonna be unreliable income as homeowners don't want to sell/move/give up 3 times the house for half the money at 3% interest, versus a new smaller un-updated home now at a 7% + interest rate. The few people moving now are largely those without a choice. The majority of homeowners are gonna stay put, and the real estate inventory market is gonna continue to be constipated. Stuck
COOP's always got its efficient servicing platform to continue generating some income, but as far as buying new servicing portfolio rights?...I think its gonna be an extremely tough row to hoe. As mortgage originations dry up, there's gonna be a lot of competition for purchasing new servicing rights for easy income.
What's COOP's next move before the end of the year, and income drops from sputtering mortgage originations? For one, I think I'd be tapping those legacy WMI capital trusts for future passive income to make up the gap. WE and they could all use it going forward. It's been over a $50 average PPS for many days.... I guess we'll find out in the next few months to come.
GLTE, it isn't easy out there
Lol, probably! This’ll be the last time they can report that now that home grown mortgage originations are falling off a cliff.
please stick to the classic look. Classic is much easier to distinguish between posts
If JPMC were to be closing the sale of not just the bank, but the entire WMI enterprise lock/stock/barrel, to satisfy the Texas and DC litigations that went silent.....then "the financing of possible acquisitions or business expansion" is very relevant.
JPMC could simply announce they acquired the WMIH/Mr Cooper Group enterprise, as a complimentary marriage to the 2008 purchase of WMB... as part of that, those who released are quietly folded into the transaction, and compensated for their % of legacy ownership.
Time will tell.
Ps and Ks who released......regarding the 'Preferred Managing Sub'...it has also "never been sold to JPM" through the PAA even though it was a WMB sub.
"Not Acquired by JPMorgan"
"Washington Mutual Preferred Funding Delaware / Not acquired by JPMorgan"
"Washington Mutual Preferred Funding LLC / Not acquired by JPMorgan"
Further confirmed by Norway's Central Bank (Norges Bank) Government Pension Fund Global Holdings, page 11. 2009 https://www.nbim.no/globalassets/documents/holdings/fi_holdings_spu_sorted_09.pdf
As you said..it's never been dissolved, it is SEC trackable, ...and JPM didn't buy it in the Purchase & Assumption Agreement"
https://www.nbim.no/globalassets/documents/holdings/fi_holdings_spu_sorted_09.pdf
One of your best posts ever! The italicized verbiage quoted 1000% sums it up perfectly
Thanks AZ for clarifying. That is obviously even better news. So I will go out now and have another nice day !! lol
holee molee, I am more than ready.
Thinking about the Capital Trusts liquidation preference and the $50 day average for 90 days requirement as the last blockade to fall, before COOP can utilize the Trust debt structure, and those who released commons get their % of the last 15 years of interest income and compounding interest.
Taking a random sample of the last 90 days of COOP's average daily trading, I come up with $48.80. Thinking about the fast rise of COOP's PPS over the last few days, I wondered how many more days of COOP trading at $60 + were neccessary to effect a 90 day average PPS of $50 or higher.
I come up with 8 days at $60, minimum,...before COOP can get there hands on the Capital Trusts, and we get our hands on what we waited for. minimum.
Of course a random average sample is just that..random and variable. COOP could get there in less than 8 days by trading far higher than $60. Obviously there is a rush to get somewhere with the PPS, and something is about to happen.
What they'll do, and how they'll do it is the big question. It's been an exciting week for sure!
Wonder how much the lurker lost when Piers were capped ? ; )