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.
So what happened to the assets or the value of those assets that were assumed to be protected by the corporate veil?
It looks as if the equity committee wasn't considered a relevant party.
Does anyone remember just how the corporate veil was observed? I remember it being an issue early on and then the issue went away. Was that because from that day forward, it was observed and all the players knew that?
WaMu shareholders approve increasing authorized shares
Published: June 24, 2008 6:46 p.m. ET
0
By
SueChang
Markets reporter
??
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Washington Mutual WM, +1.27% shareholders on Tuesday approved a proposal to increase the number of authorized shares to permit the conversion of preferred shares recently issued by the company into common stock, the thrift said in a statement. In a separate proposal, the holders approved the conversion and exercise of these securities. The proposals are related to a $7 billion offering by WaMu to boost its capital.
Gee whiz, I agree.
Yeah, I know it's about wmih, this is the WMIH board. That's an awful lot of authorized shares. Do you recall how many WMI had authorized when wamu was stolen?
...and that is all the hedgies were trying to get a hold on before por 7? awful lot to go through for relatively little. must be some big plans with those extra 3 billion shares
So then, as of yet, I'm still not seeing F&R from those NOLs alone, in light of what was done. jmo
Isn't the actual value of the NOLs less than what jamie paid for wamu? Ithought it was 1.25 billion or about 6 bucks a share before KKR & Citi came on.
It is seen as a laboratory for what they hope to be able to do in the future, and is therefore of interest to our readers and clients.
So, do the caps mean that the $5.92 billion in NOLs doesn't actually exist either?
I'd be willing to sacrifice anything that MAY be coming to the escrows in order to see some accountability.
Yeah, it appears that whatever ticker in my account I last opened is what comes up the next time I click on a tracking number. It doesn't just happen with the wamu markers...it happens with any of the markers/cusip numbers in my account.
..wait, didn't you already do that? At least if you're gonna dump again, now's the best time, again...wouldn't want to be holding this pos after on or after 7/5.
Wow, you're on a roll today. Tell it like it T I iz.
I agree. That's one reason that to this day none of the talking heads want to talk publicly about the WAMU theft. Of course any of them talking about it now would just leave them looking uninformed and stupid. There's talk that Greenbergs' AIG case will be appealed and likely will end up being decided in SCOTUS. If you look at that plea to Bair witch it looks like they were clearly solvent with a solid game plan going forward. I really don't think Jamie & Co are out of woods yet. Sure hope not.
Probably cost more to write that check than to tape a nickel to a postcard.
While I agree, it also depends on the case and the size of the class. I've been the recipient of a few class actions over the years, and as you say, most of them paid pennies and all of them had huge numbers in the class.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a class action suit here.It seems the judge gave them good cover and maybe Greenberg could help them out by sending in a top notch legal team(like his). So the government ended up with a 22 billion dollar profit from AIG's TARP relief, and Fannie & Freddie have paid back their loans in total plus about 40 billion dollar profit, a cash cow they do not want to let go of, even though they should have already ended the conservatorship, Too bad they didn't do as well with GM, but then again they would've had to wait for the share price to rise like everyone else. No, they needed to liquidate that GM stock at a huge loss, a move that individually few would do. But alas, it's not their money, so it doesn't matter. To me, this is just another string to be tugged on.
Then that is what should have happened, naturally. Not what did happen that lead us here. It seems that as a little time passes people act like what happened here, didn't. Just as the judge said in the AIG case...except that AIG did get a bailout and that's a huge difference in the two.jmo
WAMU wasn't even given the chance to be saved by TARP. It was used pure and simple.jmo
So, IF #37 comes into play by some chance & those folks end up winning substantially more in their litigation than we end up with by settling .. where would that leave us? Of course that would mean a judge would get to hear a good bit of the evidence that was kept out in BK court. How could the culprits allow that to happen? Settle with them for whatever they want and since we settled, we're forbidden from publicly complaining?
As I've stated before, I have no idea what what is, if anything is coming back. As I've also stated before, I don't see F&R from organic growth in WMIH alone, either, unless the M&A that we're all expecting creates "Jack & The Beanstalk" type organic growth. You're correct in that I am a realist and the mere fact that a judge correctly identified and agreed with Hank Greenberg is in my opinion a pretty big deal.
Who said anything about escrows? Oh, that was you. Also, I'm not really sure what dollars you're talking about. I was merely pointing to the fact that AIG got bailed out and WAMU got reamed out, but in both cases, illegal actions were used to accomplish that.jmo
Not really. The government bailed out AIG. Nobody bailed out WAMU, although similar illegal tactics were employed in each. So, it looks as if the plan to wipe out equity in future bank seizures, may not be legal after all, in spite of Geithner bragging about that back in '10. They had to bail out AIG because they were heavily exposed to MBS. Big ole mess is what these idiots created.jmo
Judge Rules for Greenberg in Suit Against AIG Bailout But Nixes Damages
Judge says Paulson. Geithner, And Bernanke's actions were not legal. Appears like FNMA & FMCC are rising on the news.
really, because by any standard wmih at least has assumed upside potential with options to hold or sell and move on, whereas the escrows can't have any positive assumptions associated with them nor options.jmo
It used to be the creditor would do an extensive credit history analysis(even before the modern information age)and if you didn't pass, you didn't get the financing, and you'd be forced to downsize your choice, or wait until your financial viability improved. So, in my opinion those working in and particularly the heads of those operations completely abandoned COMMON SENSE. It is not rocket science.
Thanks. That makes perfect sense. So, why would banks finance houses for people who really(it was forseeable) would not be financially capable of meeting the financial obligation of a house?
Actually, here in the real world the borrower only needs to be late on a payment and they start going after the co-signers...at least that's the way it was 8-10 years ago. I don't know how they do it in the world of high finance.
But the bank will only accept me as guarantor if I have a house or other capital/assets. Right?
And, yes that is absolutely right. Which makes one wonder...why would anyone abandon age old GAAP and pure common sense in order to provide financing for people who really could not afford the homes they were buying, paricularly in the age of instant knowledge regarding just about anything including individuals' financial well being? That really takes away plausible deniability doesn't it?
exactly my sentiments.
What are the chances of similar actions by fdic-r on jpmc, or are they indemnified? Can't they just change the deal if they want?
If you had read bkshadows post before you wrote, you wouldn't have written. thanks bk.
Yup, and that's all they really have to do. People understand errors but not the appearance of corruption and coverups.jmo
Yeah, that's it, the fdic only erred in THAT seizure. NO. I wonder if there was a scriveners error regarding Colonials asset list. Were they held by a holding company?
If wmih does an aquisition of a profitable operating company, wouldn't that target entity already have employees that have been working to make that company profitable? When an M&A happens, the majority of that effort will be performed by professionals who do that work for a living.jmo
I agree and that will tell what Fair & Reasonable actually means to them(those who told us), as well as what F&R actually turns out to be.
You guys haven't lost the battle...the problem is there is no anything regarding the new company that is worth talking about. The notion that the discussion on this board has any real affect on the interest in our company is kind of humorous. For example, I was thinking of investing in JPMC(not really, I wouldn't do that)and I went to their IHUB board to see what the peeps were saying...they weren't talking, so I left and went over to the Citi board...they weren't talking either, so I left and went over to the KKR site. Well, you'd think there'd be big action there, but to my surprise(not really, I wasn't in the least surprised), there wasn't anyone over there either. So, I came back here, where, at least there are people.
So, my assessment is this; if you guys got what you wanted, you'd be the only 2 people on the WMIH only site. WMIH is gonna do what it does, as will JPM, C, and KKR...within a week you'd both be back trying to warn us that we're wasting time dreaming of escrows, which by the way don't expire for years. It'd be lonely town. jmo and glta.
probably rarely...if he was on the short end of the deal
We have nothing because our BOD proves week by week how useless they are, where's the BIG change after moving to Delaware??