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.
"Golden Cross" today! "Cup with Handle" still intact!
MA-50 is about to cross MA-200 today ==> Golden Cross (green circle)
Definition of "Golden Cross":
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goldencross.asp
The previously reported "Cup with/and Handle Pattern" is still intact:
Explanation (and possible price target) for the "Cup with/and Handle" pattern:
http://www.profitf.com/articles/patterns/cup-handle-chart-pattern/
Chart courtesy of StockCharts.com
$WMIH Golden Cross today!
Chart: http://schrts.co/8Bd1JV
Now 164 institutional owners of WMIH with a total ownership of 41.03%
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-overview.html?t=WMIH®ion=USA&culture=en_US
Exactly, termination of WMB receivership will be reported at least here like all the other terminations of bank receiverships you can find there:
Search term "receivership" (newest documents first):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=receivership&order=newest
Or with the search term 'fdic receivership "washington mutual"' (newest documents first):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=fdic+receivership+%22washington+mutual%22&order=newest
40,000 buy @ $2.50 ==> L2 and real-time chart
Level II: http://cdn1.boardpost.net/quote.php
Real-time chart:
Chart: Cup with Handle Pattern (update)
Explanation (and possible price target) for the "Cup with/and Handle" pattern:
http://www.profitf.com/articles/patterns/cup-handle-chart-pattern/
Chart courtesy of StockCharts.com
Compare to my both Fannie Mae post where a Cup with Handle pattern occurred:
Before breakout: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122719267
After breakout: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122994873
Breakout gets confirmed when PPS crosses the orange line
If the PPS doesn't manage to break through the $2.52 in the next days we probably will see the $2.20-$2.25 range again IMO
The cash you've got was for fractional shares. Instead of giving you 50.68 shares, which is not possible, you got 50 shares, and the other part (equivalent to 0.68 shares) in cash. And that's all!
That means, if the PPS goes above the orange line (breakout confirmation), the odds are good it will go higher. Usually the height of the cup (about $0.25) in the next step. But it is of course(!) no MUST. Read the provided links, there you will find a good explanation about this chart pattern...
No investment advice! Make your own decisions...
What happened at FNMA? It went higher! Click at the links and have a look at the charts...
Thanks, I try to bring up WMIH from time to time in the neverending escrow discussions so that new investors don't think they are stranded on the wrong board.
Unfortunately there are almost no discussions/responses for WMIH/charts...
WMIH Chart: Cup with Handle Pattern (Continuation)
Explanation for "Cup with/and Handle":
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cupandhandle.asp
http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:chart_analysis:chart_patterns:cup_with_handle_continuation
Compare to my both Fannie Mae post where a Cup with Handle pattern occurred:
Before breakout: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122719267
After breakout: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122994873
Breakout gets confirmed when PPS crosses the orange line
Chart courtesy of StockCharts.com
CBA09, please don't be too focused on the point that the $40.2 bln. (not 42.2 as you wrote!) were subtracted from the real estate mortgages. That was not my main point, I only think it is interesting that the difference is exactly the $151 bln.
(If you don't know that number you can have a look at a previous post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120602020)
And I wouldn't go as far and say the 40.2 bln. must come back (remember, this number contains also the total liabilities, as you can see in the text below the screenshot)
My main point is that these asset-related equity "adjustments", which are usually for adjustments(!) only, in this case "adjust" (are the sum) the complete(!) equity (100% !!!) and the total liabilities.
So I've made a new screenshot to point that out, and made some calcualtions below:
For a balance sheet there is the rule:
Total Assets = Total Liabilities + (Shareholder's) Equity
or
Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets
For the receivership assets you have to add the $1.888 bln. premium.
Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets + Premium
and subtract the "adjustments" (which in this case is the complete(!) equity (or net assets) AND the total liabilities)
Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets + Premium - Asset-related equity adjustments
So the term equates to this simple form:
Total Assets = Premium (+ a few other dollars, but not noteworthy)
The question is, what does it mean exactly?
Did the 26 bln. in equity go poof?
Or were they donated to JPMC completely for free?
Or were they transferred to JPMC completely, but they still have to pay for it (book value in P&AA...)?
Or does the FDIC somehow keep assets of about 26 bln. that justifies this calculation?
hotmeat, from your own statement
I am absolutely with you, the language is about the claim, only the claim! The claim is accepted by the FDIC as it is and will not be reduced and so the pro rata share with the other claims with the same priority is fixed. In no way does the language assure that the claim will be paid in full.
I don't say it will not, but one can NOT derive from the settlement language that this claim will be paid in full.
Higher highs, higher lows, Golden Cross imminent ==> chart
MA-50 will cross MA-200 in a few days (only $0.023) away --> Golden Cross
Accum/Dist at a very high level
Chart courtesy of StockCharts.com
Exactly!
Sorry, Total Liabilities $ 13,835,062,288 must be replaced with Liabilities at Inception - Unproven $13,784,603,449 in the calculations. I've copied the wrong row. Nevertheless, the calculations are correct when you replace the number. Sorry again...
I want to add one thing: the $40.2 bln. is EXACTLY the sum of the left "Total Liabilities" ($13,835,062,288) and the left "Net Assets" ($26,430,109,191) less the "Subtotal - Administrative Liabilities" ($50,458,840) Total Liabilities $ 13,835,062,288 Total Assets = Total Liabilities + (Shareholder's) Equity Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets + Premium Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets + Premium - Asset-related equity adjustments Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Net Assets + Premium - Total Liabilities - Net Assets + Administrative Liabilities Total Assets = Premium + Administrative Liabilities
+ Net Assets $ 26,430,109,191
- Administrative Liabilities $ 50,458,840
=============================================
= Asset-related equity adjustments $ 40,214,712,639
I know for a valid balance sheet it is necessary that:
which is eqaual to
(to match the items above)
For the receivership assets you have to add the $1.888 bln. premium.
So, they do the calculation backwards IMO.
BECAUSE the receivership has only 1.9 bln. in assets (today 2.7) they have to subtract "something" from the above equation to keep it valid
This "something" is our "Asset-related equity adjustment"
As we have seen above, those consist of the "Total Liabilities" and the "Net Assets" so the term equates to
or simplified
$1,938,458,840 = $1,888,000,000 + $50,458,840
(There are "missing" a few dollars. If you add the $4,197,164 Income / Loss of the Liquidation Since Inception line to the left side (Total Assets) then you have exactly the $1,942,656,004 from the inception balance sheet.)
But nevertheless I cannot understand WHY they do the calculation the way they do it.
If you compare the right column "Inception Balance" with the left column "Current Balance" you can see that for example the "Liabilities at Inception - Unproven" were reduced from $272.3 bln. on the right side to $13.7 bln. on the left side, meaning JPM assumed all except the $13.8 bln. (WMB bonds)
But if you look at the "Net Assets / (Deficit) At Inception" you can see that the $26,4 bln. were not reduced by one dollar!!!
What does that mean? Why do they carry the $26.4 bln. on the receivership balance (left side) just to reduce them later by the asset-related equity adjustments. The liabilities were reduced as expected and only the $13.7 bln. are carried on the receivership balance because JPMC assumed the biggest part.
This means, the "adjustment" is not a small on, but a 100% adjustment, reducing all the equity!!!
Any further ideas?
Tanja, please have a look at post...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=125025995
There is also a question for you...
The whole secret is in the $40.2 bln. asset-related equity adjustments of the "Inception Balance Sheet" from 2008 (run date 2009) IMO!
These (negative) $40.2 bln. of the internal inception balance sheet are the only reason that the FDIC had "only" the $1.942 (which increased to currently $2.7 bln. due to the $800 mln. tax refunds) on the "public" balance sheets. These (negative) $40.2 bln. cause the (negative) $11.8 bln. that the FDIC shows on the public balance sheets every time since 2008 (https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html click on Balance Sheet Summary)
WITHOUT these (negative) $40.2 bln. the current FDIC balance would be much much higher!
I've copied footnote 8 to the document's first page and it states it could be for "unrecorded assets". Are "assets" in trusts/offbalance assets are unrecorded assets? Didn't they pass to JPMC and the FDIC knew it already in 2008? I don't know...
IMO NOBODY could explain what these (negative) $40.2 exactly consist of. What justifies an "adjustment" of $40.2 bln.?
It COULD NOT be a reduction of the loans to fair market value, because JPMC also wrote down the loans by $30 bln. IMO EITHER the FDIC can do a reduction OR JPMC can do it AFTER the purchase, but NOT BOTH (BEFORE the purchase, and once again AFTER the purchase.)
So IMO the whole secret is in the $40.2 bln. asset-related equity adjustments.
BTW: Is it a coincidence that the recuction of the real estate mortgages ($191 bln.) be these asset-related equity adjustmens ($40.2 bln.) results exactly in the "mysterious" $151 bln.???
Can somebody help?
@Tanja: Do your newest perceptions/numbers/theories somehow align with this inception balance sheet/the (negative) $40.2 bln.???
clawmann's post:
If your theory comes true, it is even questionable if the WMB(!) bond holders are entitled to ANY recovery from that "off balance" trusts, or am I wrong?
Why should the FDIC-R pay them from that money, if ...
From your other post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124980729
Yes, you are right, it was the search result from Google. It appears if you search for "Washington Mutual, Inc. and Joshua R. Hochberg, the Examiner", and then open the PACERMONITOR link. These 3 documents do NOT contain Hochberg. I am sorry for the confusion.
But it doesn't change anything in regard to the title of the following document and WMIIC as Defendant, which seems to be very strange
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160822000000000002
bkshadow, first time you don't have an answer?
I am not aware of any situation you didn't have an answer...
Could it simply be a scrivener's error?
And why is the title "Washington Mutual, Inc. and Joshua R. Hochberg, the Examiner" and even more strange/interesting, why is WMI Investment Corp. (WMIIC) now Defendant (against its own parent Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI)), and not against JPMC like in all the previous docs related to this case??!??
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160822000000000002
Unfortunately I don't see how your previous post helps to answer this question:
Co. 40 seems to be WMBfsb according to page 58 of
https://de.scribd.com/document/66850742/Washington-Mutual-WMI-Attachments-Exhibits-to-the-Final-Report-of-the-Examiner-Part-7-10
...and I assume Co. 2 is WMB, because all these mails are about a loan from WMBfsb (sub) to its parent WMB.
Unfortunately NOT WMIIC
Anyway, VERY interesting (you know, "assets within Assets are not..."!
Thanks Tanja for this awesome DD
Washington Mutual, Inc. and Joshua R. Hochberg, the Examiner
I found the following case on pacer, with the title "Washington Mutual, Inc. and Joshua R. Hochberg, the Examiner", 3 documents and 8 parties (including Hochberg):
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/8094/Washington_Mutual,_Inc_and_Joshua_R_Hochberg,_the_Examiner
WMIH 120-Minute-Chart from June 1 up to now
Each candle represents 2 hours of trading
120-Minute-Chart @ barchart.com
IMO a nice and healthy upward trend since June 15
I hope today before the long weekend
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
Somebody wanted these 200.000+ shares badly in the last trading minute and entered at least an order for $2.50 although the PPS was @ $2.42
So he bought everything out of the Ask up to $2.50.
Does he know more?
IMO the current trading range seems to be very "dried up" at the moment.
Lowest short interest ratio (5.21%) since 2013!
http://shortvolume.com/
Enter "FNMA" and for "Time Period" select "All"
Blackstone Group L.P. IS institutional holder of WMIH. They own 68,897 shares as of 06/30/2016 according to http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/wmih/institutional-holdings?page=2
But you are right, the Blackstone/Goldman thing has nothing to do with WMIH IMO
Not Thackeray III Bridge LLC?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111722953
BTW, great post, thank you for that!
If she increases the taxes, WMIH's NOLs would become worth more because they set off more income taxes than now, right?
6-8 months for M&A, probably 10th month now
According to these 8 pages (worth reading!!!) a well-implemented M&A usually takes 6 to 8 months:
The M&A Buy Side Process:
An Overview for Acquiring Companies
http://www.srr.com/assets/pdf/mabuysideprocess.pdf
Assuming that they had a new suitable target in November 2015 (after the deal failed in October 2015) we are now in month 10!
Because of the statement at the shareholder meeting...
Thank you
As OTC stock doesn't trade AH, could it all be Form-T trades?!?
https://incrediblepennystocks.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/incredible-penny-stocks-what-is-a-form-t-trade/
Answer: YES, WMI has still a creditor claim against the WMB estate (FDIC-R) IMO, look at my post...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109477099
...and all the replies.
And in addition to that, from the GSA (PDF page 234)
" “Released Claims”
"... provided, however, that “Released Claims” does not include...... (2) any and all claims held by entities against WMB, the Receivership and the FDIC Receiver solely with respect to the Receivership....."
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229111212000000000003
Court Denies U.S. Bid to Rehear Bank of America ‘Hustle’ Mortgage Program
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/08/23/424153.htm
They allow a $3 billion claim against the WMB estate, they don't pay the $3 billion! Slight differece...
Yes, the audio is still available:
http://wmih-corp.com/investor-relations/
and then "Webcast of 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders" or the direct link below:
https://pgi.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1102885