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.
1.88 billion is full payment for the bank and all the assets and "libilities" period, end of subject.
What I think jpm was able to due is get there hands on all the holding company assets and over the years, slice, dice, wash, launder steal all the assets.
all imo
It doesn't matter, there was a run on the bank, the were not well capitalized from a liquidity perspective. Rottella asked the feds for a influx in cash and the feds turned him down and seized.
I totally believe that hanky panky paulson met with jamie snake oil salesman dimon and hanky seized wamu to shore up jpm's books since they were self insured and could not rely on aig.
But get in a court room and the FACT IS THERE WAS A RUN ON THE BANK and I think that in and of itself would justify the theft.
In a court room you would have experts from both sides debating the chit for 15 years to try to prove, legal/illegal seizure.
If a lawsuit has not been filed yet it is likely not going to be, unfortunately.
all imo
I asked this question earlier.
How much has susman billed over the past couple years and who is paying the bills for susman to represent escrows.
just curious,
thx in advance for the answer
all imo
Fred, you are correct but it does not matter. Without going into detail, there was a run on the bank, period.
Rottella was begging the feds for a short term influx in cash but the feds had the right to seize and they did.
Their reasons for seizing are disgusting, but they had the right to do so. Try to prove differently in the courts and wait for 15 years to find out.
You guys need to understand how the game is played. It is not who is right and who is wrong, it's who is the most powerful and has the deepest pockets.
Rottella's email to the feds is incriminating and shows the distress wamu was in.
all imo
pick, i was joking about rosen. those who have most at stake. I would think those that have 10s to 100s of millions in losses have done a thorough investigation and can't come up with a way to win a lawsuit without the suit costing more than the damages collected. that is the problem.
deutsche bank sued and will get some monies back, but how much will be determined in about 5 years of additional legal battles.
The problem is all the holding company assets have been stolen or sold at liquidation value and those funds have probably been turned over to fdic to pay claims.
ALSO, REMEMBER THAT GREENBERG SUED THE FEDS AND WON AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID, YES, YOU WIN BUT NO MONETARY DAMAGES. THAT WAS CRAZY.
They are all gone, all imo
how much do you think, my guess it's going to take about 10 million for susman and rosen to agree to release fdick.
all imo
time, very simple, it was risk/reward and a thought that there would be a several billion coming back. That was then, this is now. I believe the holding company had several billion in assets but they are now long gone, without a fight.
I also thought a lawsuit would be filed detailing what the holding company actually owned. I thought it would have been filed a couple of years ago. When a lawsuit was not filed I realized we were sold out by susman etc.. If a lawsuit would have been filed it would have been game on.
I knew it was a long shot but at the time I said why not.
Even though not directly a decision factor I thought Willy would fight like heck for more than just the nol's.
all imo
pick, susman is a relatively small boutiquey firm based in texas that wants to play with the big boys, so they opened up small offices in ny, chicago and I think san fran.
They have some good lawyers and are very well known for stealing talent and paying entry levels big bucks. Not saying it's bad especially for some of the entry levels who make 160k plus coming in. But to think they are in the big boy league, not even close.
Not only that, the legal field is a game of negotiation and especially being based in texas I can see them wanting to play ball with jpm and weil to form future business relationships.
That's the scum bag legal profession imo, it's all about future business. Who is going to make susman more money down the road, wamu share holders or possibly establishing a relationship with jpm. Not saying certainty but that's the legal world. Who is going to make me more money down the road with billable hours, a win for wamu share holders or a relationship with weil and or jpm.
all imo
pick, the main problem I have with certain posts is that they get peoples hopes up and literally tie them in knots.
There are more than a few mom and pops out there that read this board and may have a few escrows and with some posts stating that 100+ billion is coming back I can see them trying to calculate how much money they will make and base decisions on the dream. all imo
green, your dd is very good, unfortunately it is not real world.
You have not taken into consideration the history of how bk's work, the political ramifications of giving wamu share holders more than just a token payout through escrows, the strategic positioning that jpm has been using to steal the holding company assets over the past 7 years, the power of jpm and their lawfirm and the money behind jpm litigation, the likelihood that most holding company assets were commingled with bank assets or at least to the degree that jpm could use that in court.
Add the incompetence of fdick and just plain attitude that they could care less about former wamu share holders and you have jpm being the winner and escrows being the loser.
No lawsuit, escrows have no chance.
all imo
rockie, well stated, let's take it one step further, THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR A BUNCH OF REASONS. all imo
bban, stop being so naive, sussman is a highly regarded boutique, they can't compete with the likes of:
Wachtell, Cravath, Skadden, Arps, Kirkland. All do work for JPM and that's just the tip of the iceberg, jpm and their deep pockets wheel a lot of power, do you not get that.
Susman isn't in the top 100 in the most prestigious rankings and look where jpm lawfirms are, all in the top 20 and look where Weil, Gotshal & Manges is ranked, top 5. hmmm, I will say it again, susman is out of their league.
Also, regarding Susman, who is paying them now, care to show me how much they have been able to bill for wamu work over the last couple years. And who are they now billing, is it still the estate, I don't recall? Now compare that to weil, and how much they have been able to bill. I have not stayed on top of this but my guess is susman has billed very little and weil continues to rake in nice coin. I could be wrong and have not looked it up but what I know about how estates and bk's and trusts work, I think I'm accurate.
bban, I respect your opinion but stick with what you know, stay in your own league.
all imo
let me rephrase, wmih is a otcbb stock and is very low on the radar screen per sec etc.. and disclosure is limited. We better hope the wmih bod is share holder friendly and not just out to make money for the insiders. KKR's rep is sinking for me, that is all I'm saying.
I can list several ways the insiders could screw share holders but for now I won't because I still believe just not as strongly as before.
all imo
jest, my call, 10s of millions, let's call it, the sacrificial lambs that jpm gives back to fdick and says to fdick, that's all the assets we can directly link to wamu holding, the rest is ours unless you want a 15 year legal battle. Fdick than says, ok, who cares, than goes to rosencrap and sussman and the release is given and the catastrophe is then put to bed for good, and escrows lose. end of subject. This will happen a few years down the road so be prepared to dream big until then and let the greed set in and tie up your lives for years more. I'm banking on wmih and their nol's and m&a BUT I DO HAVE TO SAY I AM LOSING FAITH MOSTLY BECAUSE KKR SEEMS TO BE NOT THAT GREAT, SEC VIOLATION AND LOSE 5 BILL IN GAS PLAY, OUCH. ON FACE VALUE IT IS NOT THE LOSS, NOT ALL M&A WORKS OUT, IT'S HOW THEY LOST THE 5 BILLION AND I HOPE THEY ARE NOT OUT TO SCREW WMIH TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSSES. all imo
jest, the case is not closed, there may be small money coming back to the estate, until the books are closed the fdic will not be off the hook. Standard legal procedure based on what a non lawyer has seen before.
Some are speculating way way out about the stupid fdick release.
Regarding Deutsche bank (sp) bank, IT IS NOT RELEVANT REGARDING A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT AGAINST FDICK. Regarding the release of funds, I think DB is suing for 8 billion, lets see what happens when that case is settled and very little money is their for them which would surely suggest no money for escrows.
What is the projected time line for DB decision? By the way, why do you think they went after jpm first and not fdick, hmmmm.
And you guys think fdick is a steward of escrow money. wow.
all in my opinion.
jest, that's possible but unlikely. the lawsuit would state that this demand for such and such must be investigated now because the assets are being misused, or runoff improperly, or negligently managed, you get my drift.
imo
picks, very well said, rosen is our enemy and sussman is out of his range, thx for the color, imo
bban, what does your gut say:
1. 100+ billion coming back to the estate, ie, holding company assets returned.
2. 10-100 billion
3. 1-10 billion
5. 500m to 1 billion
6. 100-500 mil
7. 50-100 mil
8. 10-50 mil
9. 1-10 mil
10. less than 1 mil
I say 1-10 million and fdic is then released. What say you and for that matter anyone else. all imo
miller, answers in CAPS
is it legal to hid assets?
FOR JPM IT IS, THEY ARE SMART AND HAVE STRATEGIZED WAYS TO HIDE/STEAL THE ASSETS AND WITH THE BEST LAW FIRMS WORKING FOR THEM AND THE BEST ACCOUNTANTS IT'S NOT HARD.
did kmart hid assets from share holders?
IN A WAY, UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR, LAMBERT BAMBOOZLED THE JUDGE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON TOLD THE COURT HE WANTS THE KMART BK DONE IN A YEAR, SO MY OPINION AND THE JUDGE ADMITTED THIS AFTER THE FACT, HE FD UP. WHAT LAMPERT DID WAS GET VERY FAVORABLE APPRAISALS TO SWAY THE COURT.
did kmart DURING its bankruptcy disclose assets?
YES, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE
after kmarts bankruptcy... did assets suddenly unicornly appear?
NO
just a few questions that have been on my mind lately..
unicorn theories have been given this name due to magical hidden assets appearing out of no where.
i was wondering if its ever happened before... ive heard kmart had hidden assets appear out of thin air with out the judge knowing. i was wondering if such a thing is even possible.
YES, IT HAPPENED WITH THE CALPINE BK, ALSO WITH MF GLOBAL BUT READ MY LIPS, ONLY AFTER THE TRUSTEE SUED AND CLAWED BACK. THAT IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE WITH WAMU, NO ONE FIGHTING FOR ASSETS IF THEY DO/DID EXIST. THERE ARE SOME CLEAR CUT ONES THAT COME TO MIND FOR WAMU THAT BAFFLE ME AND BBAN MENTIONED A COUPLE. VISA SHARES AND CORP HEADQUARTERS, COMMON SENSE WOULD INDICATE THEY WERE HOLDING COMPANY ASSETS. WHY NO MAJOR LAWSUIT GOING AFTER THE VISA SHARES ALONE. OOPPPS, I KNOW, BECAUSE JPM SOLD THEM OFF VERY EARLY ON OR WAS IT FDICK THAT SOLD THEM OFF. STILL, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT IF THEY WERE HOLDING COMPANY ASSETS. THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THE WAMU BOOKS WERE COMMINGLED WHICH GIVES JPM THE GREEN LIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO WITH ASSETS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY.
obviously hidding assets are ridiculous.... especially billions of dollars in assets.
YEP
i realize kmart is like comparing apples oranges...
NOT REALLY, JUST ANOTHER THEFT IN BIG FINANCE.
but my question still remains.... is it really possible to hid assets from the courts, public, por's or any GLOBAL settlement agreement during a bankruptcy....
NOT HIDE THEM REALLY, JUST LIE ABOUT THEM AND VALUE AND WHO THEY BELONG TO. IT HAPPENS IN ALMOST EVERY CORPORATE BK.
OR does the courts have to disclose assets before a bankruptcy company emerges?
HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH WAMU, WHATEVER THE ASSETS ARE/WERE, NO ONE IS LOOKING FOR THEM, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME IT IS ALL HUSH HUSH AND FDICK AND JPM ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO TURN THEM OVER.
ALL IN MY OPINION AND MINE ALONE
goodtime, what do you mean the fdick will win, THERE IS NO FIGHT. Wamu holding company assets just went bye bye, right into jpm's hands and no uproar by anyone. Why, because jpm had 7+ years to slice, dice, wash, launder, give away, hide all the holding company assets and no one is looking for them. all imo
They are not going to deal with it, the law changed after wamu, so what, instead of going to the bank at least we get satisfaction that the seizure can't happen exactly as wamu did, hmm, until it happens again. lol
all imo
Don't say I don't contribute, lol, here is the entire wsj FDIC article.
The FDIC’s Bank Holding Company Heist
Recapitalizing a failing subsidiary bank with the assets of the parent firm is contrary to law.
By Paul H. Kupiec And
Peter J. Wallison
Dec. 22, 2014 7:03 p.m. ET
43 COMMENTS
Limited liability of shareholders is a basic principle of corporate law. Shareholders can suffer the complete loss of their investment in a corporation, but creditors of the corporation cannot sue shareholders to recover what they may have lost in a corporate bankruptcy. Yet to “protect” against future financial crises, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has proposed a new bank-resolution process that would upend this principle.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law authorizes the Treasury secretary to seize control of failing “systemically important financial institutions” and turn them over to the FDIC for “orderly” liquidation. This was intended to be an alternative to bankruptcy which, following the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, has been portrayed (erroneously) as a disorderly process.
But here’s the rub. The largest, systemically important banks in the U.S. are subsidiaries of still larger bank holding companies. The FDIC’s proposed new bank-resolution process would seize the property of these bank holding company shareholders and creditors to bail out the creditors of a failing subsidiary bank, which is not authorized under Dodd-Frank.
This idea has gained momentum among bank regulators since it was introduced late last year and is likely to be adopted by the FDIC in the near future. Never mind that the plan is at odds with the way corporate law applicable to banks has worked in the U.S. for many years. Or that, as designed, the plan could impose losses on a bank holding company far in excess of its equity investment in a failing bank.
Assume that a bank holding company has $600,000 in equity and $1 million in assets, which includes an investment of $500,000 in a subsidiary bank. If the bank suffers a $1 million loss, it will wipe out the holding company’s investment in the subsidiary bank. Although the loss would cause the subsidiary bank to fail, under limited shareholder liability the bank holding company would still have $100,000 in equity and $500,000 in assets.
ENLARGE
Bloomberg
Under the FDIC plan, however, the agency will seize all the remaining bank holding company assets and use them to recapitalize the failed bank. In effect, in order to protect the creditors of the bank, the shareholders of the bank holding company are wiped out.
This outcome is no different than if a court were to hold that the owner of shares in a bank is personally liable for its losses, something that has not been done in the U.S. since bank shareholders faced “double-liability,” which was eliminated by law in 1953.
This confiscatory plan for carrying out the FDIC’s Dodd-Frank authority has no legal basis. Title II of the law authorizes the Treasury secretary to seize a bank holding company only if the holding company is in danger of default. Yet regulators claim they have the power to compel a bank holding company to recapitalize a subsidiary bank even if doing so violates limited liability and renders the holding company insolvent.
Not only is there no authority anywhere in Dodd-Frank for the FDIC to seize the assets of a solvent bank holding company, there is also no authority to use those assets to recapitalize a failing subsidiary.
It is important for Congress to address this issue in its next session. If the FDIC were ever to use this plan for a failing bank, likely in the midst of a financial crisis, the shareholders and creditors of the bank holding company would surely sue to prevent the taking of their property without legal authority. Courts, looking at a settled provision of corporate law, would want to see some legal support for FDIC authority to take the bank holding company’s property. Finding none, it is likely the courts would stop what could be a necessary step to keep a large failing bank from causing a wider financial crisis.
All indications are that the FDIC will proceed with this proposal unless Congress intervenes. There are two possibilities. Congress can amend Dodd-Frank so that it explicitly authorizes this regulatory overreach—putting shareholders and creditors of bank holding companies on notice that they are at risk for the losses of subsidiary banks. Or it could simply make clear that taking the property of bank holding companies to save the creditors of a subsidiary bank is not permissible.
What is important, however, is that Congress act, one way or the other.
Mr. Kupiec, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has held senior positions at the FDIC, IMF and Federal Reserve. Mr. Wallison, an AEI senior fellow, was general counsel of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.
absolutely,
jpm could care less about fdick, matter of fact, jpm is a fed reserve bank and has more power than fdick, I can here jpm now doing one of two things.
1. Telling fdick to lawyer up if you want to try and claw back the assets.
2. jpm telling fdick-r trust us, the books are so convoluted that none of the assets can be directly determined to be holding company assets, they are all co-mingled and per law and gaap, if that is the case, it will take years to unwind all of this and in our opinion (jpm's) you are only talking a few million dollars that are truly holding company assets. I can here fdick telling jpm, ok, just give us back what you think were holding company assets and we can close the books on this.
And not a lawsuit in sight to fight this, ask yourself why?
all imo
bban, my take.
1. Agreed fdick had no way to decipher in 24 hours, my thought is that they just turned everything over to jpm. Holding company books with bank books. We agree on that point, right, jpm got everything.
What I know about jpm is they are very dishonest in the way they do business, I have direct experience with this. They have a defined strategy, if the chit hits the fan and they are holding assets that belong to a company, they keep the assets until someone of power comes after them or they are sued. This has been their mode on many deals I am aware of. YOU HAVE TO SUE THEM TO GET WHAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO YOU. They have a business model based on this.
You can look it up how companies had to fight to get their money out of a jpm bank.
I will give you one example: In a previous life jpm was holding customer segregated funds for a brokerage firm, there was fraud in the brokerage firm and it bk'd so instead of immediately turning over those funds to the trustee to give back to the brokerage clients they kept them for months/over a year, I don't remember exactly how long and the trustee either had to sue jpm or threaten suit, I don't remember it was years ago. That is when jpm turned them over. With all their high powered lawyers they of course came up with a legal reason to keep the customer segregated funds but it was bogus. Eventually they turned over the cash so the trustee could give it back to brokerage clients. The sacred cow to the brokerage industry is CUSTOMER SEGREGATED FUNDS. There are other examples. Try Googling, jpm holds funds pending outcome or an iteration of that theme.
MY TAKE, IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS AND YOU RUN INTO TROUBLE AND YOUR MONEY IS IN JPM'S BANK DON'T EXPECT TO GET IT BACK WITHOUT A FIGHT. Here is what disgusts me about this strategy, they know the business is "distressed" and that makes it easy pickings for jpm. To be balanced, I don't know how often jpm has been able to do this successfully without eventually turning the funds over but I do know that don't do it without a fight. SO WHO IS FIGHTING FOR THE WAMU HOLDING COMPANY ASSETS? NO ONE THAT I AM AWARE OF. YOU GUYS CAN SAY ALL YOU WANT THAT IT IS HUSH HUSH, I JUST DON'T BUY IT.
Regarding your second question, the books were seized because at the time the fdick dipchits were in such a panic that they did not know what to do and wamu was in such disarray they did not know how to protect those books. I still say that fdick trusted jpm and gave them the holding company books and over the years jpm has sliced, diced, washed, laundered, sold, gave away for tax reasons the assets. fdick doesn't care, the bond holders and creditors are not united and at least at this point don't think it's worth suing. Why, because they know jpm will tie things up in court for the next 15 years without a clear cut path to victory, it's not worth it to them. Who will pay the legal bills.
So jpm wins until they are sued and than the 10-15 year legal battle begins. Just think of what jpm did during discovery and the last minute doc dump. They play dirty and they want it all and have no intentions of giving anything back without a fight.
every word of this is my opinion and mine alone.
So why would wamu be any different, very simply:
NO LAWSUIT, NO ASSETS RETURNED
This by far is one of the best threads I have read on this board in a long time.
Let's bring a little color to this.
You would have to think that the visa shares would be wamu holding company assets. Why would they be bank assets, right. Some of the real estate, why would they be bank assets, you would think any good accountant and lawyer would layer these assets correctly, same with some of the trusts.
Here is the problem, that you guys just don't get and are very naive about.
One of two scenarios have played out since the bk:
1. The fdick panicked because they had no understanding of managing a huge holding company portfolio of holding company assets and just turned them over to jpm and told them to figure it all out over time. I can hear the fdic now - LET US BREATH THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO USE TAX PAYER MONEY, THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT. Now, seven, eight years later, jpm has stolen those assets by slicing, dicing, washing, laundering, selling, giving away for tax purposes, whatever, They are gone or hidden.
2. The fdick turned them over and jpm went through all the assets and in most instances are able to say they are co-mingled with bank assets so they are ours and fdick does not care. Maybe jpm turns over a few million in assets but I even doubt that because that may put some on the hunt for more. So jpm says fu and just keeps them until SUED. And of course still no lawsuit.
No one even raised a red flag when the corporate headquarters was almost immediately sold. Why? Why did the creditors not sue for that asset. lol or sue for the visa shares or sue for other real estate, sure seems like low hanging fruit. WHY??????
Oh I know, because jpm and the fdic have been very good stewards of all the wamu holding company assets and are just waiting to tie a bow around them and give them to escrow.
Would you like to buy the Alaskan bridge to no where or I can sell you the golden gate bridge cheap.
The one who could have broken this wide open was kirsten grind but she sold out and instead of winning a pulitzer she took the 450k advance and the job with wsj. Not bad for a young reporter.
Just one more thought, if you guys are right and there are over 150billion in wamu assets laying around, where are they and who is managing them. just curious.
all in my opinion.
No, they are still here because they have not been released just in case a few bucks come as part of the holding company assets. You do realize that anything more then a few million would be a shock and you guys actually talk in the billions let alone greater than 100 billion, laughable. all imo
show me in the regs that says fdic-r can hold assets that belong to a bk'd holding company and not pay off creditors, bond holders,etc..
they are not holding substantial assets of wamu holding, you guys can talk off book all you want, the assets are not substantial if any at all. all imo
That's simple, bk judges always put the burden of proof on the share holders and judges almost always agree equity should be cancelled.
The kmart scenario is fascinating because Lampert's strategy for stealing the company was genius. Rumor has it, he bribed the appraisers to undervalue the real estate at 10-20% of actual value and the judge approved the valuation. Shortly there after he went into M&A overdrive to convolute the assets, similar to what jpm did with the wamu commercial paper. Same dang thing, that is why I am almost certain escrows will get very little. The bk's always have similar themes, wamu no different than the others after the theft worked.
all imo
p.s. judge said after the fact he made a mistake, not that it did share holders any good.
One more point about conspiracy regarding the wamu theft. It was a theft and the thief did get away with it, ie, jpm.
What I am interested in knowing is who paid Kirsten Grind (sp) off. Who shut her up. Who gave her the book deal with 450k advance to shut her down early in the bk. And now she went from small town reporter to the wsj (i think). all imo
I would agree to a degree but that only goes so far. Who talks about lehman now, how about stearns, how about country wide. No one is talking, they are dead as is wamu, that is why they are not talking.
You guys are just to close to this, yes it was a theft, but the thief go away with it, ie, jamie snake oil salesman dimon, all imo
people, get a grip on reality. If there were anywhere near a billion dollars in assets that belonged to the wamu holding company, big holders of shares/creditors/bond holders would have sued for that billion dollars a long time ago. If there were 100+ billion plus like some on this board think, the press would be all over it, it would hit the nightly news.
As much as you naive folks think, those kind of numbers can not be hidden. REALITY CHECK, PLEASE!
IMO
diamond, sorry but I have escrows and you are wrongo on the return, it will be a pittance, if anything.
imo
error, just a simple question, 100 billion would equate to what percentage of annual earnings for jpm in 2014.
secondly, you guys want to say that jpm already divested themselves of 100 billion and there stock did not crash. well, that was truly off book and they were holding cash for large institutions that they had to give back because of change in regs.
You believers that escrow holders are all going to be multi millionaires are just going to say, see, no impact to jpm share price if they give us 100 billion because they have it sitting as off book, dream on people.
all imo
spider, dude, exactly what you said is why it will never happen. You said:
afraid jpm's stock will tank when they turn over the cashola to us.
This is where you just don't get it. JPM is a fed reserve bank and the disruption to the entire financial industry would cause a snow ball effect if jpm stock crashed, if jpm went down 30% it would cause a nightmare in the markets. My gosh, you guys are so naive.
Oh, that's right, the aforementioned doesn't matter because us escrow holders demand and deserve justice, lol. wow, clueless.
imo
123, why haven't the hedgies sued. One of two reasons, 1. They are insiders and they know there are 100+ billion coming mostly to them or
2. They realize based on their own analysis there is very little coming back to them, if there was they would have sued. They know if they sue they will be throwing good money after bad and they ain't that stupid.
imo
123, problem is there will be no spoils, you guys are hoping for a black swan event, why can't you comprehend how the game is played, it's very simple.
1. Waterfall almost always ends above equity holders;
2. Trustee said very little assets based on their action of zero clawbacks.
3. No lawsuits filed claiming huge damages and explaining huge assets missing that belong to the holding company.
4. No press whatsoever regarding equity has a chance for a huge recovery.
5. No info from fdic-r stating they are holding wamu holding company assets.
etc., etc., etc.
imo
yep, hedgies signed releases because they had no choice, thus the lions share of nothing is nothing, imo
wrongo meat, if nate does not show up in court, done deal, equity cancelled. all imo
All I am saying is this injustice is not going to be made right. JPM, wins, fdick hides and wamu share holders lose. Why do you think it is going to be any different. Because you can speculate that holding company assets were 100s of billions, that is a joke. I bet the wamu books were a disaster and I bet that holding company assets were commingled with banking company assets and I bet jpm knew that going in since they evaluated wamu 6 months earlier. No lawsuits, means no possibility of recovery for escrow. It's not in the cards. all imo
You can't buy in relatively small quantities, they are not liquid because it is not worth anyone's time to negotiate with bond holders. My take is they are worth more to the holders as a future tax loss. all imo