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.
Wait until the financials are released with the NOLS being factored in...you'll see.
I've answered that question twice already, if my response wasn't satisfactory enough that's not my issue.
Once again....POST 543826...got it now???
Btw...WAMU's banking sub was officially renamed WMB in 1994, not 2001...WRONG!
I only saw that one today so it must have been freshly picked from the "Theory Jar"...LOL
Are you being serious or is this some kind of joke?
Based on Wells assertion that the "Trust never merged with WMI", what are the implications for any assets of the WMCT 2001 if any are actually still available?
Also what is your position on the ridiculous claim that those Trust assets were the collateral used for the WMIH-NSM merger debt?
Facts are agitating....especially when it dispels the bs you're being fed daily. I can understand why it upsets so many here.
Posting facts that some here don't like is now "antagonism" according to your logic. As I said, all these post contain nothing of substance that credibly refutes anything, just whining and jabs. It's really pathetic....
How refreshing would it be if they addressed the actual content of a post to disprove what is being conveyed. Rather, it's always about avoiding the core issues with mindless rhetoric and personal jabs. Still waiting patiently for such a response.
When did this stop being a discussion board where everyone is free to express their own opinions and rebut others???
Edit: What I post is based on what I've actually read, unlike some others here. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't make it incorrect.
Any Trusts that WAMU retained an interest in for which cash returns were pledged to WMI will return to WMI after the bankruptcy is closed. WMI never owned any Trusts, only Participating Interests in those Trusts so that question is moot. When bankruptcy was filed in 2008 it was usual for entities in bankruptcy to stop receiving payments to secure those assets as stated in most Trust's documents. They would have continued to function, it's just that payments to the WMI estate would have ceased.
As you said ALL remaining assets are owned by the WMI estate, ie the Equity Interests we were issued after old WMI stock and their documents were cancelled/voided. This was done because the old rights of Preferred would not have allowed Commons to receive a distribution before their $7.5B debt was paid in full. Within the bankruptcy estate there simply was not enough left to settle this debt and that's why they were cancelled. This constant attempt by some to rewrite history using misleading theories based on zero facts is truly pathetic.
I'm still waiting for anyone to post an excerpt from a PSA or other Trust document that shows Commons or Preferred (PQ or KQ) were ever backed by any Trust. Never mind that the Prospectus's for the Preferred stated clearly that they all, even Commons, were not directly supported by any Trusts whatsoever. With all the supposed ""study"" of these documents that is purported this should be easy to prove yet it's never done. Why would that be!?!
What part of old shares being CANCELLED and that we were reissued new Equity Interests do you guys not get? All these nonsensical excuses won't change the fact that only the agreement in the POR applies.
What I find hilarious with his posts is that almost everything claimed is wrong and the documents prove it. I will list just a few....
1) Commons and Preferred were NEVER backed by any Trusts as stated in every Prospectus.
2) Cancelled equity cannot be revived to receive compensation therefore our new Preferred and Common Equity Interests represent our ownership of the WMI estate at the agreed 75%/25%.
3) QSR's are BANKRUPTCY documents hence BANKRUPTCY REMOTE Safe Harbor assets cannot be accounted for in them.
4) COOP is not entitled to any possible returns from the legacy WMI estate, they are a new company making this suggestion the silliest of them all. The only beneficiary of returned assets will be those who released via the WMILT...veiled "PUMP" imo!
There's a term commonly used in investing when claims are made that falsely promotes a company in an attempt to make said company appear more financially viable than it actually is, ie the claim that COOP is poised to receive BILLIONS in cash.
TPS: 93.2% released
Series R: 96.9% released
Series K: 90.8% released
Commons: 70% released
One simply has to look at WAMU's last Form 10Q for the period ending June 30, 2008. Securitizations are off balance but retained interests must be reported as assets as per SEC rules. From the 10Q we saw that WAMU held anywhere from ~$26B-$30B in proven investments. If more exists it simply is not substantiated based on the reporting requirements of retained interests.
NOTE: The reason for the need to report retained interests on the books is that it can severely impact a bank's solvency (asset default) and thus affect it's Capital Requirement needs.
Retained Interests In Securitizations And Implications For Bank Solvency
Funny that for all these years of intense study of the '"process"' and ""Segregated"" Trusts, not once has either the scholar nor the "Crew" ever posted one shred of evidence from a PSA or other Trust document that shows Commons are a direct beneficiary of any Trust assets/interests. It's all bluster and zero substance!!!
That was a quote from AZ, not me. In almost every post he makes this claim without fail. Nothing to do with me!
From WAMU's 2005 letter to the FASB re changes to Safe Harbor rules....
Washington Mutual would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Exposure Draft ("ED") referenced above. Based on our consolidated assets at June 30, 2005, Washington Mutual, Inc. (the "Company") was the largest savings institution and one of the largest residential mortgage loan originators and mortgage loan servicers in the nation. The Company actively sells mortgage loans and servicing rights in securitization transactions and retains servicing responsibilities as well as senior and subordinated interests.
To most here there is little to no doubt that the company retained interests in it's securitizations as indicated above,...it was a banking norm.
The only issues are, how much were/are they worth (cash) and where are the remaining unliquidated interests/accumulated cash currently being secured.
IMO these returns may have to be shared with JPM (WMB) unless there are strict provisions WMI is entitled to all returns from those retained interests.
I am patiently waiting to see how the $40M or so that's left will be distributed to our Markers since the LT clearly stated that only LTI's are for cash yet we were all lectured to that..."~I will NEVER".. 'be issued an LTI~...".
Those $365B in assets, as you claim, were not funded using WAMU cash but rather customer deposits and federal loans. It's not WAMU's money and therefore has to be repaid so it's definitely not worth $365B. Not sure why this logic is this difficult to follow.
Save your post for around the 6th Nov, 2018 (21 day stay ends) or if/when the employees actually file an appeal since until that time it's rather pointless. Gloating at this stage seems a bit premature!
Agreed...anyone that takes a basic look at any of WAMU's SEC filings would see that the vast majority of their assets were in the form of wholesale loans and MBS's.
Unless these loans were financed using WAMU's own cash then these loans are not worth their net value, ie $100M does not equal $100M in value but rather a fraction of that (interest profit minus costs).
We know that banks do not fund loans using their own cash but rather use customer deposits or borrow from the federal government and as such it must be repaid.
My point is that just because WAMU held $300B in assets it doesn't mean that the company was WORTH anything remotely close to $300B, in fact it's substantially less than that.
Correct...there are certain facts that are not available to us, the main one being if SH assets exist and what they are worth if they do exist.
What info is available is concisely outlined in your post and does not align with these inventive interpretations some are attempting to present.
That I can handle since everyone who's ever invested has made decisions they regretted after the fact. What I can't tolerate are those that misrepresent members posts and those that lack comprehension skills. It's just downright infuriating, and yet comical at times.
If you don't get how nonsensical that idea is at this point that's your issue. There will be no S4V for any WMI retained interests in MBS's and no amount of this useless rhetoric's gonna change that.
Quote from the LT Agreement: "Liquidate, CONVERT TO CASH and Distribute"...you keep ignoring this conveniently.
This is tedious.....
There's a process to reach the SCOTUS and they're not even close to that stage, which I doubt they even can at this point. If you believe that Fake News, I have a 100 foot marshmallow bridge to sell you. Your """reliable""" source for that story says it all,...FB??? LOLOL
This is always the problem on this board, in that people never read or understand the initial post on the thread.
There are posters who are asserting that COOP is entitled to receive legacy WMI assets just like our Markers are entitled to.
As I've said on many occasions, this is pure nonsense since that would mean, >80% of that value was gifted to entities that never released.
All this talk about COOP "purchasing" WMI estate assets is irrelevant to the discussion.
If the "purchase" insinuation is related to the S4V fantasy, well...my position on that is unchanged, and never will unless it magically occurs.
Servicing Rights do not equal Ownership Rights....big difference.
I do not contest that COOP could end up servicing legacy WMI assets.
I do contest assertions that they will receive any legacy WMI assets!!!
Those that make that assertion are "shoveling manure".
Agree 100% lodas...the investors that will move this stock don't rely MB DD to decide if they will invest in COOP or not.
But I do also agree with JWW in that 90%+ of what's posted here has little to nothing to do with COOP.
Hopefully these extraneous issues will be resolved by years end and we can finally focus on the company itself.
To receive distributions for our Markers when/if assets come back?...NO
To benefit greatly when COOP's PPS takes off?...obviously YES
Quote: "Once the judge closes this bk assets come back to wmih/coop to support that falling 14 bucks."
Please explain how COOP, which is a completely new and separate entity from WMI, is entitled to legacy WMI assets???
If they were the continuing WMI business, why didn't they also acquire WMI's existing liabilities (Piers debt etc) in addition to the assets they received in the POR???
COOP is entitled to nothing owned by the legacy WMI estate, that theory makes ZERO common sense and is a complete sham.
He was referring to the nonsensical idea that some here float around that COOP is entitled to WMI legacy assets/interests. If that was the case, our ownership percentage in those assets went from 100%, pre-merger to <20% post-merger. The NOLS and how the company was being run has nothing to do with his question, it's about legacy WMI.
Yes it absolutely does. Since commons are the last in priority in terms of payment, ALL old WMI stock (commons + preferred) had to be cancelled.
This allowed for commons and preferred to be paid simultaneously where we were issued NEW Preferred + Common Equity Interests.
The old stock and documents detailing their rights had to be cancelled/voided to allow for the modified 75%/25% split of assets.
If this wasn't done it was possible that old WMI commons could have received nothing since preferred were owed $7.5B, which was not available within the bankruptcy.
That debt would have had to be paid in full before commons saw a cent, so this accommodation was made so all could benefit.
The Sussman team wouldn't have had solid proof of SH assets because they never got access to WAMU's books. They meant that we all would benefit from the increase in pps as the company acquired assets and became more successful. I'm not saying that there aren't SH assets since I firmly believe there are WMI owned residual interests in MBS's. It's just that Justin and Parker were referring to something other than legacy WMI assets.
That meant we would benefit as the Newco's pps increased as the company grew, not that COOP would receive legacy WMI assets.
If that is the case then the largest beneficiaries of returning assets would be KKR and other HF's who never released.
That idea is not only counterproductive, in that it would only cause further delay but it's just ridiculous at this stage of the process.
Exactly...I honestly don't get what these guys post about sometimes. It's baffling!