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.
The TPS had a provision that once WMB was ?seized? or undercapitalized those assets were to be deemed as "core Capital" of WMB and an "Exchange Event" would be triggered. The TPS assets would be contributed as soon as the event occurred (ie automatically), to shore up the bank's financial position. This is all documented in the POR and Court filings and would have been known if people took the time to read instead of listening to those who post falsities.
Read the TPS prospectus, it's included in the document about what happens if WMB was seized or becomes undercapitalized. It was done to protect WMB and as such those assets were deemed to be "Core Capital" to WMB. The investors were fully aware of this provision since they signed on and agreed to it. Most likely those investors never expected such an event as WMB being seized was ever possible so they agreed to it. Also this action was affirmed by the bankruptcy court and stated in the POR so it's legality cannot be questioned. I suggest you do your own DD instead of paying attention to posters who don't know what they're talking about.
I was referring to RD posting daily about companies assets that have ZERO to do with us and have been wrong 100% of the time.
The TPS WERE BACKED by Trust assets until the Exchange Event occurred in 2008. When that happened the Trust assets were automatically transferred to WMB and then to JPM as confirmed in the POR. This was also affirmed by the bankruptcy court with the Blackrock litigation where they tried to argue the assets were not transferred, which they lost to JPM. All the TPS were converted to WMI Preferred Stock which ARE NOT backed by any Trust assets as can be easily confirmed. Just read a Prospectus for the Series R or Series K and also includes the Series the TPS were converted to.
WMIH's future lies with generating new business by originating loans rather that focusing on servicing. Their aim, IMO, is to recreate a company similar to the old WMI that acts as the parent company of a diverse financial corporation. This occurring all the while they continue to eliminate retail holders as has been their intention from the beginning.
From the looks of it, this huge increase in volume is a result of the hedge funds buying and selling shares among themselves thereby controlling/manipulating the stock price. The games here will never cease until they get rid of retail!!!!!
The same story every time...if similar words (ABS, Escrow, Trusts etc) are used in describing other companies transactions, it's all somehow automatically related to Escrows.
As per your post, your issue should be taken up with the relevant personnel at IHub. Until a decision is reached, I suggest you learn to live with it.
What was presented came from a poster with actual work experience in the financial field...CBA09. No one else, including myself, can take credit for those statements he made.
CBA stated that any Trust assets held outside the bankruptcy would be allocated according to the provisions documented in each Trust's associated PSA.
The usual verbiage in these documents lay out that in the event of a liquidation of the company priority applies where higher classes are paid in full before the next class in line.
This means that all WMI Preferred shares would have to be made whole, possibly with interest, before Commons could receive a dime, but, they would receive the remaining spoils of the estate.
The problem is that the PSA's do not address our situation where bankruptcy was filed and ALL Preferred and Common shares were cancelled thus IMO nullifying the payment priority laid out in the PSA's.
The same would have applied if ALL Preferred and Common shares were cancelled outright, as per POR 6, where AAOC would have received all returns from the estate and Equity would have received nothing.
It seems you're conflating the separate issues of a 75%/25% split of WMI legacy assets ($40B) and WMIH doing an R/S of it's common shares, both of which are totally unrelated.
If you owned WMI commons prior to March 2012, released and received Equity Markers you will be entitled to receive a share of ANY returns from the WMI estate ie the $40B referred to.
If you own WMIH shares that were issued for your releases in 2012 or subsequently bought WMIH shares on the open market, those shares will de subject to any R/S by WMIH.
Both issues are mutually exclusive.
Probably because most posters here own both escrows and WMIH and hope to benefit well from both. Is that a problem?
What exactly does WMIH, a reorganized and totally separate company, have to do with possible WMI legacy Participating Interests in Trusts originated by WMB and/or it's SPE's??? PLease explain!
I would have posed this question to the source of this bunk but he conveniently never responds to difficult questions.
LOLOL.....just repeat the same mumbo jumbo over and over and make false claims....now that's DD!!!
Doesn't seem that those $39B in assets could have come from Wachovia since they were wholly merged/acquired by Wells Fargo, unlike WMB's assets which were placed into receivership and sold to JPM. Based on the document you posted, the timeline when the assets were retained and the FDIC Statement of Assets it seems likely that it referred to WMB. Again, great info!!!
Wells Fargo's Second Proposal
On October 2, during the period Citigroup and Wachovia were negotiating a final merger agreement, the board of directors of Wachovia received a communication from Wells Fargo that included an offer from Wells Fargo to acquire all of Wachovia's stock by merger. Contrary to its original communication days before that FDIC assistance would be needed as part of a Wells Fargo bid, the new Wells Fargo proposal did not involve any direct financial assistance from the FDIC. Based on an IRS notice issued September 30, Wells Fargo had determined that certain U.S. federal income tax benefits resulting from the proposed Wachovia transaction would allow it to acquire Wachovia without FDIC assistance.
The Classes (LTI's) above Tranche 6 that need to be paid before Equity sees a dime are....
Piers: $38.96M
Allowed General Unsecured Claims (GUC's): $560K
Disputed GUC's: $448K
TOTAL: $50.1M
Employee Claims (EC's) are not a legal issue since they are fully covered by the Disputed Cash Reserve.
If Equity is compensated before the EC's that would undermine the Debtors/FDIC case as to why they should not be paid.
A payment to Equity, it could be argued, showed that WAMU was not in as bad a position as portrayed when WMB was seized, and that the employees were not negligible in their fiscal duties.
That IMO is how the EC's would be used underhandedly to delay a final resolution.
WMB Snr. bonds were paid from BB Liquidating Interests which i believe was negotiated or because they were entitled to their share of that asset (not 100% sure).
WMB Sub. Bonds were deemed to NOT be part of the Debtors estate and was therefore denied any compensation.
This payment of Class 17A and denial of Class 17B in no way affects their $13.8B claim against the FDIC, it is still a valid claim against the receivership.
Classes 19 + 22 are separate from Class 17 since we are a ""debt"" of the WMI estate, Class 17 is not, they are now a ""debt"" of the FDIC only.
There is no longer any APR with regards to Preferred and Commons, it was voided when Commons received a distribution along with Preferred.
Based on the lower document (Failed or Closed Bank Mergers) in your post# 518718, it clearly states that JPM acquired only $258.58B of WMB's assets. Exactly as you said.
I don't want to make a definitive statement on that just yet since i was totally wrong thinking that the Covered Bonds and WMB Notes were the same.
As Justice posted, the Covered Bonds and the supporting assets were assumed by JPM and they have been making payments to those investors.
At this point i do not believe JPM will be assuming the WMB Notes as they did with the Covered Bonds since it seems there were no assets associated with those bonds.
For now i suggest that you inquire of AZ to provide evidence of what assets backed those WMB Notes since he claims to own them...best of luck with that!!!
I will attempt to ferret out any info that could prove or disprove whether the WMB Notes were actually supported by loan assets and post my findings.
That probably explains why JPM did not assume liability for WMB Snr and Sub Notes as they did for the WMB Covered Bonds.
There doesn't seem to be any underlying mortgage asset pool that supported these Notes as was the case for the Covered Bond Program.
Hopefully we're right about the $40.2B Asset Related Equity Adjustment being..."actual assets", retained by the FDIC.
Thanks
What is your opinion on the question asked in post 531066. It was suggested to me via pm that they are separate WMB debt obligations. I find that hard to believe when the totals are compared.
Class 17A (WMB Snr. Bonds) were already paid according to the POR and thus are only owed now by the FDIC.
Also, Class 17B (WMB Sub. Bonds) were disallowed and not entitled to any distribution in the POR, but now owed by only the FDIC.
Read ARTICLE XXI of the Confirmation Order, it's right there in plain english.
Also look at the QSR's for the LT, Tranche 5 are not listed as a current debt, proving they have been satisfied per the POR.
The only remaining debt owed by the LT are Piers, GUC's (Tranche 2-4) and disputed GUC's...surprise, no Tranche 5 debt!!!
Annex C is now irrelevant with regard to Tranche 5 WMB Bonds and as such they are now an FDIC issue.
Legally nothing to do with the LT or any payment to equity...ie Optics!
You keep conflating WMI and WMB, both are separate and not interchangeable. WMI needs to settle with bankruptcy Creditors and Equity, NOT WMB Bondholders, they are an FDIC debt.
As I said, the problem of WMI being paid before WMB Bonds is an "optics" issue, not a legal one since WMI owes them nothing, those Bonds are not part of WMI's bankruptcy estate or otherwise!!!
They were included in the POR because if they weren't they could have IMO obstructed the progress of the POR settlement by continuous legal challenges to the process.
Any assets owned by WMI are most likely being held by the FDIC so obviously they would be hesitant to release assets that would be used to pay equity while leaving debt "senior" to equity unpaid.
Receiverships are NEVER easily or timely resolved, so whatever the reason for the delay, it's because they seek to obtain the most equitable outcome for all the remaining parties.
If we are to be paid solely from the FDIC, then yes, we will have to wait until all senior debt is paid in full before we see a cent but if our payment is via the LT, then WMB Bonds are not our issue, legally.
AIMHO
Can anyone positively confirm whether the WMB Covered Bonds issued in December 2007 ($7.78B) and June 2008 ($6.00B) are the same entities and debt as the WMB Snr and Sub Noteholders that currently hold a $13.785B claim against the FDIC???
I find it extremely difficult to believe that both are separate forms of WMB debt when one examines the totals. A mere difference of $5M seems a bit too coincidental IMO.
WMB Covered Bond Program: $13.78B - pg 11 of Wamu June 30, 2008 10Q. Link in post# 531033.
WMB Noteholders Claim: $13.785B - FDIC Statement of Assets in Liquidation, post# 518718. Recorded as "Liabilities at Inception-Unproven".
Quote: "WMB and Subsidiaries securitizing MBS did retain interests, senior and subordinated, after the MBS owners were paid P and I in full. The amounts you are finding are such; investment grade retained interests are classified at Securities Assets, non-investment grade as Trading Assets. They are assets, on WMB's/subsidiaries books, and 'went to JPM as JPM purchase accounting discloses. They appear in WMI's 10K and 10Q because WMI consolidated financial reporting includes ALL SUBSIDIARIES, including WMB and its subsidiaries."
Based on the June, 2008 10Q WAMU held ~$25B in Securities Assets which were primarily comprised of MBS's. As the parent co., WMI was entitled to (pledged via inter-company agreements) all or most of the returns that were produced by these assets. In other words are you stating that the FDIC upon the seizure of WMB, eliminated WMI's interests in these assets under that sale? I ask since back in 2008 Safe Harbor protections did not only protect mortgage assets, but also the Participating Interests held by the SPE subs (not held by WMB IMO) and other 3rd parties which included WMI.
The assets I was referring to were the Covered Bond assets which do not have anything to do with Equity. We benefit only if those assets are still there and can be used to pay the bondholders $14B FDIC claim. Once paid that will remove the largest burden on additional FDIC held assets that may be available for distribution to Equity.
Re the PM
Quote: "The Covered Bond Program was assumed by JPM; the bonds which are secured by the mortgages in the private trusts."
This being the case how could the FDIC transfer ownership (sell) of those MBS's to JPM under the Safe Harbor rules that applied back in 2008?
Was there a provision in that program similar to the "Exchange Event" for TPS that stripped the Covered Bond investors of their rights to those assets or were those Covered Bonds different to the WMB Snr and Sub Bonds claims at the FDIC?
Seems to me they are the same Bonds due to the amount issued and claimed from the FDIC, ie ~$14B.
The mortgage loans covering the bonds are there....they could not be seized by the FDIC due to Safe Harbor nor cause the issuer to be in default, and in addition, $13.78B in Bonds were secured by $15.63B in assets (13.4% over-collateralization)
Note 5: Covered Bond Program
In September 2006, WMB launched a €20 billion Covered Bond Program ("the Program") intended to diversify its investor base, lengthen the maturity profile of its liabilities and provide an additional source of stable funding. Under the Program, the Company may, from time to time, issue floating rate US dollar-denominated mortgage bonds secured principally by its portfolio of residential mortgage loans to a statutory trust not affiliated with the Company, which in turn will issue Euro-denominated covered bonds secured by the mortgage bonds.
At June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, €6.00 billion in principal amount of Euro-denominated covered bonds with an average interest rate of 4.08% and $7.78 billion in principal amount of mortgage bonds, which are included in other borrowings on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition, have been issued and are outstanding. Mortgage bonds are floating rate instruments with the applicable interest rate payable on mortgage bonds tied to short-term interest rates. Euro-denominated covered bonds (and related mortgage bonds) issued on September 26, 2006, mature on each of September 27, 2011 and September 27, 2016, respectively; additional Euro-denominated covered bonds (and related mortgage bonds) issued on May 18, 2007, mature on May 19, 2014.
At June 30, 2008, rating agencies required 13.4% over-collateralization with respect to assets comprising the cover pool. Over collateralization requirements may change from time to time based on rating agency requirements, market conditions and composition of the cover pool. To be included in the cover pool, mortgage loans must satisfy eligibility criteria which are as follows: (a) no mortgage bond issuer event of default would occur as a result of including the mortgage loan in the cover pool; (b) current ratings on covered bonds would not be adversely affected as a result.
See pg 11 of document below.
Wamu June, 2008 Form 10Q
Quote: "Mr. Friedlander spent 5 years as a portfolio manager with Washington Mutual in Seattle, Washington, where he managed over $8 billion across RMBS, ABS, US government and Agency portfolios. He also served as the chief strategist behind the institution’s $25 billion investment portfolio.
The highlighted statement can be confirmed in WAMU's June 30, Form 10Q where they referenced this Investment Portfolio under "Available for Sale Securities". At that time the value was quoted at $24.375B and consisted of highly rated MBS and Investments Securities Excellent DD as usual Dmdm!!! Thanks.
See pages 21, 39, 41, 49, 50 + 51 where the Investment Portfolio is cited in detail.
Wamu June 2008 Form 10Q
Did those $600M in loans represent all loans written or just those that were securitized and sold/retained, thus gaining protection by Safe Harbor rules?
WAMU management stated in the comment letter that "wholesale loans" were not covered under Safe Harbor provisions so those would have been sold to JPM in 2008.
Similarly, the ownership of the real estate the banks and other businesses occupied since nobody, to my knowledge, has ever established who really owned those properties.
Would be interesting to know what percentage, if any at all, did WAMU retain in those Deutsche Bank Trusts and if they did, where and how much those benefits are today,
I believe those issues are the main reasons this has taken 6-10 years to resolve. What the present reason is for the delay I don't have a clue. That's if our belief any payments will be made to Bonds or Equity holders is true.
They do know what belongs to WMIH.....Nothing! As for the accounting issue, fair enough since at this point it may no longer be an issue. As I've stated before it could be purely about "optics" as to why escrows haven't been paid yet. It would not be a good look if Equity was paid before DB, Snr and Sub bonds were. Hopefully these issues are resolved soon.
IMO the delay is due to accounting issues, determination of the ownership of assets and the sheer size of the WAMU receivership.
It seems there were many incidents of comingling and joint ownership of assets/interests between WMI and WMB which requires detailed analysis.
Until all issues are fully resolved there will be no payment nor any indication of the possibility of the bonds or equity being paid.
There have been several cases where the FDIC had initially said at the onset of a receivership that there was "no money" to pay certain claims.
Later, when receivership assets were ""revalued"" (ie properly valued), their stance changed and those same claimants received distributions.
I don't see any reason why the same situation could not apply to WAMU's receivership if one looks at the vast amount of assets involved.
I disagree, WMB Bond Trusts were overcollateralized by billions so the insinuation that the FDIC does not have enough assets to cover that debt is IMO incorrect.
The time issue is nothing new since those it is customary for FDIC receivership's to drag on for many years before they are finally resolved and those bond claims are lower in priority.
Even if the Trusts were not retained to pay bonds, FDIC docs show a possible $26B+ in assets which is almost double the debt owed to all bonds and DB, leaving ~$6-$8B for distribution to equity.
Quote: "So this is because bondholders are owed more than 10B if we pay them in full and so that will eat up everything that is left for escrow."
Again, WMB bonds being paid has nothing to do with how much "Escrows" will be paid. Those bonds were backed by their own Trusts which are totally separate from any Escrow assets. The only reason for the delay would be for "optics" rather than any legal issues. A case of apples and oranges.
Class 17 has nothing to do with the LT in terms of payment of their claims, only the FDIC is liable since that debt was incurred by WMB, which they seized and placed into receivership.
If payment of our "Escrow Markers" is to come directly from the FDIC, only then will Class 17 have to be paid off first since they are higher in priority under the FDIC's ""waterfall"".
IF our Markers are to be compensated in a meaningful way, IMO the process will be timed so that Class 17 and our Markers are paid concurrently to avoid any hierarchy issues between both.
Because WMIH has zero rights to any assets of WMI and even if WMIH does seek to purchase former WMI assets it would be a cash transaction. The LT, as manager of WMI assets, mandate is to liquidate assets into cash and so is the FDIC's, so an S4V exchange is not possible. In addition if any such transaction were to occur it would have to be made public because it involves the issuance of shares which is a "material event". There are many more reasons proving that an S4V is not possible than proving that it is.
I won't be laughing at anyone, trust me. At times I want to believe they are 100% correct so we all could prosper. The realist in me awakens and I return to reality.
To avoid the usual tantrums from "the Crew", let me make myself clear so as to not receive any further inquiring posts.........
1) I do own a large amount of Markers (Escrows).
2) I do own a substantial amount of WMIH stock.
3) I DO NOT believe Preferred shares were backed by any Trusts since their Prospectus's stated so.
4) I DO NOT believe Commons own the "original WMI estate" since they were cancelled.
5) I DO NOT believe there will be an S4V exchange since it makes ZERO sense.
6) I DO NOT believe WMIH has anything to do with any WMI legacy assets or cash returns.
The theories not addressed here I may hold belief in to some degree or have no opinion at all. Hope this helps the sometimes hysterical.
XXXX Markers
XXX,XXX WMIH
My escrow holdings has nothing to do with my attitude to S4V, it's just not believable and illogical.