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.
I'm not disputing that an RS changes nothing fundamentally, but I can think of no company where their shareholders would welcome this action. This course is rarely, except in very few cases, viewed as a positive development. No matter the gloss placed on an RS, it's usually not what anyone wants to occur. Do you know of any such cases where shareholders clamored for their company to do an RS??? Please enlighten me? WMIH could be one of the exceptions but i'm taking a wait and see attitude rather than pretending everything's all good and i'm ok with this.
The only clear rational I can see at this time is that they want to limit the amount of tradeable shares in an effort to prevent manipulation of the stock by external, or internal predatory funds/firms. Having a large OS makes it easier for this to occur. If that is the case fine, but as I've stated since 2012, I have zero trust in the major parties here.
True but conversely by doing an RS they also elevate the pps out of the reach of many if not most retail buyers and also have more control over the amount of tradeable shares. Take this scenario, we have an RS and the pps goes to $20,...how many retail holders do you believe will panic sell if the SP drops to $15 or $10, keeping in mind the now severely limited liquidity??? Can't say if this is good or bad yet for sure but it is bothersome IMO. My holdings will be reduced to just over 1?K shares from currently over 1??K,...personally I prefer greater liquidity than less, I don't like this at all.
The only reason I can see other than an attempt to discourage retail is to maintain control of the company's stock liquidity to prevent manipulation of the pps by external parties while the they attempt to grow the business based on solid technicals, instead of overhyped trading.
Quote: "the authorized shares are NOT affected automatically in a R/S"
He never attributed a statement to anyone. It's implied that R/S's do not automatically affect the A/S. In our case WMIH chose to do so.
Just saw what you are referring to in the 8K. Yes, apparently WMIH is going against the norm, which IMO is not a good sign. This raises my suspicion that they seek to eliminate retail and take this company private, if that's possible. Vastly reducing the A/S base is not what a company that seeks to return to the prominence of the former WMI would do. That is unless i'm missing something else here.
Well apparently WMIH decided to go against the norm since it's NOT standard practice to include the A/S in any RS. I would hardly refer to an anomaly as "rubbish" when compared to the utter nonsense that's thrown about here.
And???......Keep up the irrelevance...it's your right!
That's incorrect...A reverse stock split affects only the Issued and Outstanding stock, the Authorized shares will not be reduced by a reverse split, unlike a forward split where more shares may need to be authorized.
When there are any major developments regarding WMIH the conversation is usually dominated by that topic. I personally don't care to debate about WMIH daily based on "pennie swings" since I find these uninteresting as you do the Escrow discussions. As I've stated before, feel free to take your issues up with Ihub Admin about the discussion here. Until a decision is reached learn to live with what's being discussed or alternatively, don't read anything. These continuous "rants" are inane!!!
What happened since that initial post???
Info about a potential R/S came directly from company docs and a response from IR to a poster here. I think that would be enough evidence to not dismiss it as a possibility as I initially did.
When he posts ANYTHING that remotely makes sense i'll be happy to engage in a sensible discussion as I do with many posters here. As long as those posts mimic those of RD's fantasies, no thanks...that would be a waste of a post and my time.
Per the R/S, until I see some indication that the company seeks to artificially increase the pps to return to the NYSE or increase market visibility, it is not on my priority list. If it comes it will occur after the merged entity has established it's financial position based on the NOL usage and it's positive effects on WMIH's profitability.
This discussion IMO is a bit premature.
And my OPINION is that this theory is utter nonsense or is it that only you are entitled to an opinion?
What is there to answer? That the $165B JPM shed to comply with regulations belongs to WMI? No answer needed because it's complete nonsense and backed by not one shred of evidence. Same as every one of his posts.
You keep posting irrelevant info that I've never claimed. Never said OB assets do not exist, what i'm saying is the $165B JPM shed doesn't belong to us. Just throwing out wild assumptions daily is not DD, it's basically irrelevant noise.
LOLOLOL...……….
Rubbish!!!
How does that have anything to do with our Markers or WMIH Corp.? Some of these theories are just pure nonsense.
DB managed $165B in MBS's as Trustee. This amount was not all owned by WAMU, that's just ridiculous. The SPE's that issued them may have retained from 0-5% of that total ($0-$8.25B), not the whole $165B.
I already own all the WMIH shares I intend to own, the ones I received in 2012 for releasing and those I purchased since. What are you even talking about? Yet another example of posting and not having a clue about what is being discussed.
Fair enough but we shall see "soon" enough. I still believe there's something to this case re the FDIC.
bk....based on the Prospectus of the Series R + K Preferred stock I will have to disagree. It clearly stated that WMI, as the parent company, was entitled to receive dividends from it's banking AND non-banking subsidiaries.
This would indicate that there would have been inter-company agreements which dictated when and how much these transfers would occur and account for. The dividends from banking subs, WMB and WMBfsb, were regulated due to federal law but not their SPE's since they are purposely separated from the bank.
This is the reason why their retained interests, IMO, Available for sale securities (~$26B worth) were not ""sold"" to JPM and therefore not included in the P&AA...ie Assets not assets.
This is further bolstered by looking at only $258B out of $299B in WAMU assets being transferred to JPM. The FDIC's Statement of assets in liquidation (post# 518718) show a $40B+ Asset related equity adjustment which in Note 8 is referred to as an FDIC Unrecorded Asset.
SERIES R PROSPECTUS
Our ability to pay dividends on the Series R Preferred Stock will depend upon the operations of our subsidiaries....pg S-17
We are a holding company and our principal source of cash is dividends and other distributions from our banking and non-banking operating subsidiaries. If we are unable to receive dividends from our operating subsidiaries, we may not be able to pay dividends on the Series R Preferred Stock. Federal laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends and other distributions that our banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank and Washington Mutual Bank fsb, are permitted to pay or make, and, although Washington Mutual Bank fsb may currently pay dividends to Washington Mutual Bank without prior approval from the OTS, such approval is currently required in connection with the payment of a dividend or the making of a distribution by Washington Mutual Bank to us. Each of Washington Mutual Bank and Washington Mutual
Joint admin...Rule 1015(BS)...Joint admin...Rule 1015(BS)...Joint admin...Rule 1015(BS)...Joint admin...Rule 1015...(BS)Joint admin...Rule 1015(BS)...blah blah blah....LOLOL
WMI NEVER originated any loans, they were all issued by WMB and securitized by it's SPE's like WMAAC and WMMSC. The retained interests they held produced cash returns which were all or in part pledged to WMI as the parent. WMIH owns nothing!!!
Any new business is great for the company, BUT, I would much prefer that $65B would have been WMIH originated loans. That imo is the sector that "we" will be honing in on.
The current Trustees that control those Trusts would be the ones that would be required to file, not the LT as you stated.
The LT as it's function dictates would be a distributor of assets, not manager, hence it's not their responsibility to file those reports.
Quote: "Termination of Filing Requirement. A securitizer may terminate its disclosure requirement upon filing a notice on Form ABS-15G if it has no ABS outstanding that are held by non- affiliates.”
Based on the above quote, could it be that all third party investors have been paid and the only interests remaining belong to the Master Issuer (WMB) or it's SPE's (WMAAC, WMMSC, LBSC etc), thus there is no need for public filings???
As CBA09 stated, the issuing SPE (WMAAC, WMMSC etc) would have held the certificate for any Retained Interests, not WMB.
How would the FDIC have been able to sell those "interests" to JPM when the assets of WAMU's Subsidiaries were NOT subject to the P&AA? (ie Assets, not assets)
Also, wouldn't any cash generated by those Retained Interests have been pledged, All or in Part, to WMI as the parent company?
Just as it's anyone's right to question my posts, as many "cheerleaders" do, which by the way I am willing to defend with available facts and logic. It's also my right to call out BS when I see it plain as day...if you have a problem with that then too bad!
QUESTION TO THE BOARD.........
Who believes that the possible Billions in WMI's legacy assets belongs to WMIH Corp and as such the Releasing Shareholders (Markers) ownership stake was reduced from 100%, pre-merger, to now <20% ownership post-merger???
Neither the Receivership nor the Bankruptcy has been resolved to date, so your overconfident assertions have as much credibility as those who claim we see $100's Billions.
The facts are that it is customary for these processes to last for 10+ years, especially for a case this grand so the long wait should not be unexpected.
To state that there is "zero evidence of $$$ for escrows" is IMO patently false since official FDIC docs have been posted that seem to show Billions in assets available, but no specifics.
DB, a huge multinational corporation owed Billions by the FDIC, just like us peons, had to wait 9 years before their claims were even settled, so I ask, who are we in this scenario???
WMIH only recently completed it's merger with NSM is also now getting off the ground so again your expectation of a meteoric rise in pps is grossly misplaced.
Most here actually base their posts on a realistic outcome using the available facts, unlike just pulling ridiculous articles from the web that have ZERO to do with us.
Great question but IMO it was directed to the wrong party, ie Mr Gallagher. It would be more suited to the LT, FDIC or W. Kosturos (if possible).
I don't need to...I've already established it is BS, ie your interpretation of how it relates to legacy assets.
What was posted is 100% wrong in that only the PSA for each pool of Trust assets determines what happens to the assets upon liquidation. Show where one PSA states that Class 22 or Class 19 is supported by the Trusts? In any event, stock that has been legally eliminated has ZERO claim to anything from the WMI estate. Dispute that!!!
So googling A+M will provide all the answers to our questions about Markers and Trust assets....excellent DD!!! LOLOL
If those Trusts are still active and the original servicer contracted a 3rd party servicer like NSM to carry out these duties then NSM would be involved. That's not even the point I was making, nice dodge. Clueless!!!
I posted earlier certain facts about former TPS Trust assets and that there are no Trusts backing Commons and Preferred stock. As I stated, if one took the time to read the relevant info they would know this, to which you seemed to take offence. A certain poster keeps insisting there are separate Commons assets and Preferred assets and provides ZERO proof of either. Do you have any???
Never said there were no Trusts. What I said was they NEVER backed Commons or Preferred stock. Try reading a Prospectus.
I did!!!
Did you know that NSM's major business is that of a servicer?
Could it be that these loans show up on NSM's site because the original servicer "farmed" out these loans to NSM instead of doing it themselves?
Did that post lead you to believe WMIH owns those Trusts and if so how exactly???
What we need to determine is.....
1) What percentage, if any, did the SPE's retain in each of the Trusts they originated?
2) What did the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA's) state regarding the allocation of earnings from any retained interests?
3) How did the seizure of WMB and the subsequent WMI bankruptcy filing affect these retained interests?
4) Who now possesses these retained interests? (I do not believe they could be sold/transferred to JPM so the answer is the FDIC)
5) Does all or part of the proceeds from these interests belong to our WMI Markers and how much cash has been accumulated to date?
To date we have none of these answers.
A. Do you still see returns for escrow markers? If so, how much and what year/quarter?
Yes I still believe escrows will be paid and it will be from the approximate $26B in WAMU assets I believe the FDIC still holds. Until we can see what exactly comprises those assets, I hold onto my $2B-$10B prediction. As for the timeframe, I believe it will happen when the bankruptcy and/or receivership is closed anywhere between the 10 year anniversary in September 2018, to March 2019.
B. WMIH pps December 2018?
Based on the performance of WMIH's assets (former NSM assets, not our legacy WMI assets) and the NOLS being applied to the profits, I believe the pps could increase to ~$3-$4 once those events are factored into the market.