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.
Allow me to eliminate any potential "wiggle room" in my previous statement......
There will NEVER be an S4V sale conducted between the LT/Markers and any other Entity for WMI legacy assets/interests!!!
Satisfied???
I rarely make predictions but i'm going to make one today, August 21, 2018......
There will NEVER be a Shares 4 Value (S4V) "sale" between WMIH Corp and the LT/Markers for legacy WMI assets.
The S4V is as far as i'm concerned is a "dead" issue with zero merit. Basically waiting for the final nail to be driven into it's coffin.
I was referring to S4V soon being debunked before you interjected. Try sticking to the topic being discussed.
What exactly does A & M or JPM have to do with S4V???
Still not the death blow...S4V is still alive, albeit not for much longer imo.
The point I was trying to make is that any such assets would not be referred to as WMI Estate assets.
WMI does not own them nor would NSM IR be aware that the WMI Estate holds an interest in same.
All NSM does as a servicer is collect the payments and transfer them back to the Trustee.
They are not responsible for the distribution to individual participants which may or may not include the WMI Estate.
It is the Trustee alone that will possess a list of the participants in the respective Trusts, not NSM IR.
There's a big difference between WMI and WAMU/WMB assets. What then was all this talk about WMB SPE originated Trusts being listed on NSM's (now WMIH's) website?
If he meant specifically WMI assets, then he would be correct since those assets would be Trust owned. WMI would only ""own"" a Participating Interest in those assets, not the entire asset.
WMI = Holding/Parent Company
WMB = main Banking Subsidiary of WMI
WAMU = WMI and it's direct subs + WMB and it's direct subs combined
I can however see that promoting WMIH as being involved in the distribution, or benefitting from $10's-$100"s of Billions in cash and/or Mortgage assets, how that could be deemed as "pumping" the stock.
Has DB received and distributed the $600M they received from the Globic Settlement with the FDIC?
If ZERO info on the subject was available or it involved complex language as in the POR then fine. If i'm proven to have been wrong about everything, the S4V or $50B-$300B coming back or old Commons owning the WMI estate, everyone would be so ecstatic, I don't think anyone would really care, they'd be RICH!!!
I truly hope that those promoting these fantastic theories to posters who religiously believe in them enjoy the same treatment as I would "IF" they all fail to materialize. Somehow, I don't believe that will be the case.
Can you read and comprehend??? I'm quoting the LT documents!!!
The LT states they will Liquidate LT assets, Convert said assets into CASH...NOT SHARES, and then Distribute said CASH to beneficiaries.
Nobody was ever referring to any cash that may have been generated already by assets.
It seems you just don't get this most basic of statements or just plain refuse to.
Over the past day or two I've been looking at this possible RS issue and i'm now tending to believe this could actually be a huge positive for WMIH.
Our financials are already solid especially with new business expected and the usage of the NOLS, it will only become better.
Reducing the OS will prevent, to some extent, abuse of trading by external parties, thus limiting the threat of manipulation.
I'm still not sold on the 1-12 exchange but imo this will be reduced as the pps increases up to when a decision is made.
With solid technicals, increasing business opportunities, greater market visibility and the use of the NOLS I believe we could see a dramatic rise in the pps over a short period of time.
"Spin" is presenting a biased or altered interpretation of a fact to support a particular viewpoint ie trying to convince posters here that CASH somehow equates to SHARES of WMIH.
What room is there for any other understanding? Some issues are vague and little info is available, in this case however that is certainly not the case. It's a ridiculous premise to say the least.
Everything associated with the LT and WMIH does not necessarily constitute a conspiracy theory or require complex analysis by professionals. In this case it's as simple as the text states...CASH!!!
Yes liquidation could refer to the process of dissolving a business/contracts or, converting assets into a more liquid currency. The FACT you guys keep conveniently ignoring is that the LT stated what the currency any assets would be liquidated into....CASH. None of these attempts to "spin" the text will change anything!!!
LG at no point in my posts for the last 5+ years have I ever stated that I did not believe there are no beneficial interests that could be returned to our Markers. I find it incredulous that such a statement could be made when I believe I have been one of the strongest proponents that such interests exist. I've posted now 3-4 times a stated fact that you keep ignoring in that there is no possible way CASH means SHARES. I don't understand this resistance to what seems most basic. This is becoming tedious imo.
The whole sentence is to Liquidate, Convert to Cash AND Distribute.
Steps 1-3 must be taken as a whole, not parsed to prove a point.
To confirm what you said it should have stated...Liquidate OR Convert to Cash AND Distribute.
That was certainly not what was written.
Wrong!!!
A big deal is constantly made of the LT being a "pass thru entity", it's not. All it means is that the LT is not responsible for any taxes to be paid or holding onto any income it receives. It transfers all income it receives and taxes to be paid to the individual owners of the Trust, ie Marker holders.
Pass-Through Entity. What it is: A pass-through entity is a special business structure that is used to reduce the effects of double taxation. Pass-through entities don't pay income taxes at the corporate level. Instead, corporate income is allocated among the owners, and income taxes are only levied at the individual owners' level.
There is no other interpretation of "Converting to Cash"...this could never mean "Converting to Shares". That statement simply does not support your view.
I've always wondered why it was expressly stated that all inter-company claims between WMI and WMIIC would be transferred to the WMILT. In past 10Q's filed by the Trust they indicate that inter-company claims with WMI's subs that were merged and dissolved were eliminated. I do not recall any mention that the WMI-WMIIC inter-company claims were treated with in the same manner, so they could possibly be active. Here is my analysis (in red) of the info you posted.
Quote: "the Bankruptcy Code does not alter the treatment of valid intercompany claims. Like all other claims against a debtor, claims of a parent, subsidiary or affiliate against a debtor(collectively, “Intercompany Claims”) are entitled to pari passu treatment with claims of unaffiliated third party creditors having the same priority"
This seems to indicate that once the inter-company claims are of the same priority as Creditor claims, they must also be paid.
Quote: "they often are separately classified and afforded different treatment under chapter 11 plans of corporate debtors, particularly those with complex corporate structures. In many cases, there are no distributions under a chapter 11 plan on account of Intercompany Claims between and among debtors in the same corporate family who are reorganizing in jointly administered bankruptcy cases. Instead, such claims are reinstated. The reinstatement of Intercompany Claims preserves a means for the reorganized corporate family to move cash between related entities on account of the repayment of Intercompany Claims after the company reorganizes, which may be more efficient and cost-effective than transferring funds via dividends."
This part is most interesting in that it seems to confirm AZ's theory that WMIH, as owner of WMIIC would be in a position to reinstate any inter-company claims between WMIIC and WMI (now WMILT). There are a few issues that need to be resolved in that the WMILT is not part of the WMIH corporate structure but is a related entity to a small extent. The fact that the WMILT owns these inter-company claims though is important to note. This subject requires analysis by persons with greater knowledge on this subject.
Quote: "Complications may arise when distinct corporate entities within a corporate family have different assets and liabilities owed to third party creditors. Whether or not Intercompany Claims are recognized and respected may significantly impact the recoveries of third-party creditors. Creditors may insist that Intercompany Claims be taken into account when calculating the recoveries of third party creditors at different corporate entities. Even when Intercompany Claims are taken into account when calculating recoveries to third-party creditors, Intercompany Claims may still be reinstated as part of a chapter 11 plan so that they can be used by the reorganized company to efficiently transfer value within the reorganized corporate enterprise."
This part is irrelevant IMO since it deals with Creditor issues of which WMIH Corp currently has none. It also is not applicable since the inter-company claims were retained solely by the WMILT, NOT WMIH and again the LT is not a part of WMIH's corporate structure. The only avenue for WMIH's involvement is where it can utilize it's 100% ownership of the former WMIIC's equity interest. This could mean that WMIH would have managerial control of former WMIIC assets/interests but would have to transfer all cash benefits to the WMILT, as owner of the inter-company claims. On the surface it would seem that AZ could possibly be right to some extent.
AIMHO
This still does not explain the LT's stated legal mandate to Liquidate, CONVERT TO CASH and Distribute all LT Assets to Trust beneficiaries.
The LT Agreement is a legal binding document that the LT is bound to abide by, which does not involve exchanging Trust assets for WMIH shares.
Exchanging assets for shares does not equal "Converting to Cash" in any way.
Sorry but imo what little evidence is available does not support the S4V claim.
It's stated in the LT Agreement where Escrow markers are not tradeable and cannot be transferred except by Will or Intestate.
Your escrow shares does not entitle you to receive cash from the WMILT, only the remaining shares in the Disputed Equity Reserve.
To receive cash from the LT we will have to be issued LTI's, which are a type of IOU and is also not tradeable.
The amount/proportion of LTI's one receives will be solely based on the quantity of Escrow Markers one holds in their account.
LG based on your posts I can safely assert that you believe the S4V will take place between the WMILT and WMIH Corp.
That being the case, how do you reconcile the LT's mandate laid out in the LT Agreement by which they must abide.
"The purpose of the WMILT is to Liquidate, Convert to CASH and Distribute LT assets to LT beneficiaries only". (paraphrased)
W. Kosturos as Trustee of the WMILT has no power to ignore this mandate as set out in the LT's originating document.
I did but where I believe you err is that the WMILT's obligation is to those who Released, not WMIH.
I expect to see a filing soon which states that the agreement to share A+M employees between the WMILT and WMIH will be terminated due to the merger.
The LT is mandated to maximize our assets for our benefit, not to do WMIH any favors.
WMIH is the reorganized WMI, a new corporation not entitled to anything WMI owned prior to 2008 and not outlined in the POR 7.
First I would like to ask with whom will this transaction be conducted between?
WMILT and WMIH Corp?
FDIC and WMIH Corp?
Directly between "Escrow" holders and WMIH Corp?
If your answer is any of the above three, please explain how this will happen when such a transaction, Shares 4 Cash, is not possible with either?
If it's neither of these then please explain how this S4V process would work?
Finish the sentence which it seems you conveniently did.....
Liquidate, Convert to cash and Distribute, as in that order.
These actions are not independent of each other but rather part of a course of action.
Step 1: Liquidate- legally wind up or dissolve assets and agreements
Step 2: Convert to Cash- sell said assets to raise cash
Step 3: Transfer cash to beneficiaries
Any cash collected will be distributed, but the remaining interests that will continue to produce CASH may or will have to be sold not traded for shares, the actual mortgages are untouchable since they are owned by independent Trusts.
What you are suggesting is that the participating interests that would provide us quarterly distributions in CASH be converted to shares of a company with no guarantee of success...that's just ludicrous. The only conversion will be to CASH,...not shares!!!
The LT's stated mandate is to CONVERT TO CASH all assets of WMI, so they therefore are not the ones who would be part of this S4V. The next option would be the FDIC whose mandate also is to liquidate ALL assets in their possession to CASH and distribute to claimants and then to equity.
That being the case I ask, which party will be negotiating this fabled S4V on behalf of our Markers since the obvious two, The LT and FDIC, cannot??? The only con here is this S4V fiction that's being continuously fostered here.
1. What is the WMI Liquidating Trust?
WMI Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) serves as a mechanism for liquidating, converting to cash and distributing the Liquidating Trust Assets (as further described in these FAQs) to the holders of beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust Beneficiaries”).
Seems crystal clear to me.
Could be but IMO it's more about persons being misled by ""posters"" who refuse to accept actual documents and then ignore or try to spin the text of said documents to suit their own position on the subject.
Through their sale for CASH, not shares in WMIH. WMI indirectly owned Participating Interests (PI's) in MBS assets via SPE's, NOT THE ACTUAL ASSETS.
These PI's produce CASH therefore I find it extremely idiotic that a CASH producing asset will be "sold" for SHARES in a fledgling company.
Also, as the LT's mandate states, Liquidate, CONVERT TO CASH and Distribute, not trade assets for shares as you suggest.
The same applies to the FDIC which does not trade assets for shares in companies but rather liquidates them for cash which they are obligated to distribute.
What single piece of fact or document gives this S4V theory any credibility??? To my knowledge current and past events, and documents debunks it at every turn.
The problem here is "tunnel vision" on the part of some posters. If one reads the WAMU 2005 FASB Comment Letter (pgs 3-6), it clearly shows that assets of a bankrupt entity can also qualify for Safe Harbor protections. Safe Harbor is clearly NOT a fully bankruptcy remote process. It's documented...not an opinion.
Disclaimer: Regardless of my optimistic posts, I am still not 100% certain that there are any benefits from Safe Harbor assets due to our Markers as there is, as of yet, no verifiable proof of such existing.
I wasn't referring to the S4V theory, it was in reference to "the crew's" notion that old WMI Common shares own any legacy WMI estate assets,...if such exist. For this to occur they would have to be "resurrected" all the same because they no longer exist as a security. As for this S4V business, any completed RS will IMO destroy that argument completely, that is not to say it is even credible at this time.
You should pose your question directly to AZ, but in all fairness I don't believe he ever stated we could sell our Markers or they would be affected by any RS. You're mischaracterizing his claim.
Here's something truly humorous....someone honestly believing that a CANCELLED stock, ie Commons, could somehow be resurrected to claim ownership of ANY existing legacy assets, or that WMIH owns anything other than what they received in the POR since if they did, possible Billions in OUR wealth was transferred to KKR and Fortress when the merger occurred. The latter seems to sound a lot like the terms of POR 6, but last I checked that plan failed and POR 7 was passed but wthdik, i'm not an ""expert"" here.
I agree with everything you stated but as with everything associated with our WMIH ""partners"", I tend to scrutinize all their actions, rather than think it's all "chocolates and roses". I do not trust that bunch!!!
That's not what I said, you misunderstood my post. Obviously if there are 1B tradeable shares @ $1.50 predatory traders could use this scenario to do what they do to manipulate the pps up or down on hype rather than solid technicals.
By lowering the OS to 90M with an accompanying increase in pps the amount of tradeable shares are reduced where pps manipulation is less likely due to less availability. The effect of this is to also limit or decrease future retail participation due to the high pps and also a few companies owning the vast majority of the available shares.
Never said the pps couldn't go up but understand also small block trades can also have a greater effect on the pps if made by KKR or Fortress. I believe I've already addressed the math issue with any RS, yes that specifically does not matter but there are still other concerning issues.
Let's stop pretending that this possible RS scenario is an all positive move that is of no need for any attention or concern, it's disingenuous.
It's not about the $$ but rather the reduction in the availability of tradeable shares. KKR and Fortress who hold hondreds of millions of shares will not be affected as much as small retail holders. It would also be easir for them to manipulate the SP with small block sales due to the OS being so low.
For what purpose? WMIH is not under the purview of the bankruptcy court, they are separate from WMI. Pointless imo.
That's the purpose of asking a question, that someone might already have the answer. What's your point really???
I'm really interested if this was the script that was followed with NSM during it's existence or was their OS always 98M shares. In addition to the pros that an RS could have, lets not ignore the cons, eg share sales will have a greater negative effect on the pps with such a low OS compared to our current status. Not taking any fully negative or positive position as of yet, but will remain vigilant and also very skeptical of this move.
Exactly!!! KKR and Fortress etc are not our friends, everything they do is not for ""our"" benefit. Staying skeptical till we see the true motives behind this move.
Does anyone know if a similar action was done with NSM in the past??? That imo would be very telling!