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.
Has FDIC closed out the receivership for any other banks that it is supposedly suing on behalf of for Libor? I really hope we do not need to wait for Libor for the receivership to close out and class 18 addressed.
The odd thing is, its the same exact imbalance figure as far back as 2015 and all of a sudden the figure creeps up slightly to $27B as of the first quarter of 2019.
Do you have a link to that FDIC response? TIA
Ron, do you have any example of escrow markers out living past Bk closure for another stock?
HM, take a look at my post #573500..
Is it not suspicious that the same $26B in extra assets sits on JPM balance sheet that is not part of their shareholder equity? The funny thing is the same exact imbalance of $26B shows up on their balance sheet since 2015 (I havent checked their earlier balance sheet so I dont know how far back it goes)...
Here's the kicker. That same $26B imbalance figure just increased slightly to $27B for the first time in their 2019 march quaterly report.
Can someone please get an answer from the LT regarding if the bankruptcy closure can happen before the FDIC-R Libor cases are settled?
I dont think that can happen. How can the judge allow Rosen to release FDIC-R before shutting down BK? I would assume all cases regarding LT has to be resolved before BK closure is allowed. LT has a claim against FDIC-R still. It will not release that claim until FDIC-R resolves and that wont happen until Libor cases are settled.
So again, how is Rosen expecting to close BK before Libor cases are settled and FDIC-R resolves and LT releases its claim against it?
I dont think escrow markers can exist beyond the bankruptcy closure...and I dont think Rosen can close BK without releasing FDIC-R. I do t think FDIC-R can be release before Libir cases are settled...so I'm still puzzled by Rosen's claim that BK closure would happen early next year at the latest...when FDIC is saying Libor cases will go on until 2024??
Ron, do you know if escrow markers can exist after Rosen closes the bankruptcy?
LG, thats the puzzling piece that I cant get my head around. How can Rosen close the BK without releasing FDIC-R? and he cant release FDIC-R until it resolves -- which means he has to wait for the Libor cases to end. Libor cased are supposedly scheduled to 2024...so how is Rosen claiming to shut the BK down by early next year at the latest?
Anyone who can answer this with 100% certainty is not on this board. They probably took their "proof" of return and got a loan against it from an investment bank and is enjoying the beach somewhere...
I am only asking this question because, LG broght up a theory that we may not get paid until 6 months after BK closure. I dont think BK closure can happen until FDIC receivership closure. So if there is BK closure, and Fosen says, sorry "nothing for escrow markers", then at that point wouldnt our markers get deleted?
Why would they still be around for another 6 months so that bankruptcy remote assets can return to them?
And if they are still around 6 months after BK closure, who will be in charge of making sure the remote bankruptcy assets will return to those markers?
LG, so are you saying that we dont need the markers to receive the remote bankruptcy assets after BK closure?
LG, do you not think our escrow markers will be deleted after the closure of bk? How would the estate justify leaving our escrow markers open after they propose closing the bk with "nothinf for escrow"?
FDIC Libor suit is for $400B?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/17/the-fdics-libor-rigging-case-is-a-serious-problem-heres-why/amp/
So usual settlement of about 10% should yield $40B?
So if Wamu represents about 25% of the assets of failed banks, we should receive about $10B?
Justice, take a look at my math again.
Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Total Shareholder Equity = 0 ==> it should be zero.
However, if you do this math for JPM balance sheet for the last few years, you keep coming up with the same exact $26.068B.
Who owns this? Someone mentioned that it could be a reserve for legal liabilities. Wouldnt the reserve show up under liabilities then?
Balance sheet doesnt balance. The strange thing is, its the same exact imbalance figure going back to as far back as 2015.
AZ, do you have any estimation of the percentage of releasing commons owned by the hedgies? I recall years ago someone posted something like 800 million of 1.2 B releasing common shares being owned by the hedgies/institution. Are there any documents to back this figure?
Please Help me with this math problem!!
I was just looking at JPM balance sheet for the last few years...
2018: Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Total Shareholder Equity
$2622.532B-$2,366.017B-230.447B = $26.068B => shouldn't this be 0 ?
2017: Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Total Shareholder Equity
$2,533.6B-$2,277.907B-$229.625B = $26.068B => shouldn't this be 0 ?
2016: Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Total Shareholder Equity
$2,490.972B-$2,236.782B-$228.122B = $26.068B => shouldn't this be 0 ?
2015: Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Total Shareholder Equity
$2,351.698B-$2,104.125B-$221.505B = $26.068B => shouldn't this be 0 ?
What is up with this imbalance of $26.068B? Different years, different assets, different liabilities, different shareholder equity...but the same $26.068B imbalance in the balance sheet.
Can anyone with accounting experience please help!!
Who owns the $26.068B?
It looks like POR6 would not have wiped the commons out. It seems like POR6 would have awarded 100% of WMIH to the Preferreds or PIERS and left escrow markers for commons... such that when bankruptcy remote assets return, Preferreds would be paid face and all left overs would go to commons.
It seems that all POR7 did was copy POR6 but also allowed to participate early in recovery by splitting WMIH 75/25. Returning assets will still payout according to face plus interest for Preferred and then remaining to commons.
Only difference between POR7 and POR6 is commons got 25% of WMIH.
File a suit with what evidence? Since there is zero disclosure, its very difficult to file without any evidence. Also, who will pay for the attorneys?
I'm not suggesting that we own over $300B principle of loans backing these ABS cert. I'm just saying we own a certain percentage of the "profit stream (total interest - interest liability)" to those loans - in the form of ABS certs. The bank that originated the loans to back these ABS certs cannot legally own the certs per securatisation law. Which means they are held under separate subs of the parent WMI. So JPM cannot legally take ownership of these ABS certs by simply purchasing WMB, the orginator of the loans that backs these certs.
Since I believe these certs are held in remote bankruptcy trusts, we are at the mercy of the trustee of these trusts as to when they get distributed. WMILT does not have any control over these trustees - hence "bankruptcy remote".
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that these trustees are in cahoota with the hedgies. See Alice Griffin's Exhibit B
AZ, thank you for your steadfast support to the board all these years. I agree with you and have no doubt there are ABS certs benefiting the estate that are held in bankruptcy remote trusts. I have just become disillusioned with the release of these assets anytime soon. Perhaps Exhibit B that Alice Griffin brought up isa possibility. The trustee is in cahoots with the hedgies and have found a way to utilize the bankruptcy remote assets without ever distributing. They can potentially be making money with those assets for another decade while legally witholding distribution.
I thought class 17 should have gotten at least one distribution by now. Maybe FDIC is preventing the trustee from distributing to class 17 until the Libor suits are all settled.
Without any disclosure, we are at the mercy of the trustees of the bankruptcy remote trusts..which leaves the possibility of the trustees being corrupt.
If Judge Mary has zero authority over the remote bankruptcy trustees then we are open to potential robbery without our knowledge. We need to figure out a way for forcing disclosure. Unfortunately the US Trustee office do not seem to care either.
Who can we trust if we cannot ride the coatails of the hedgies...since Griffin's Exhibit B made clear the potential of the hedgies colluding with the trustee to benefit without retail. The hedgies are not under time pressure to receive diatribution, because they can already benefit by colluding with the trustee to access the assets in the form of low interest loan - Exhibit B.
ABS certs cannot be owned by the bank that originated the loans. So WMB cannot legally own those ABS certs per securatisation rules as the originating bank. That means WMI have had to hold them under separate subs. Most likely, the certs would be sitting in bankruptcy remote entities. So there are only 3 possibility here.
1) Wamu as the largest S&L never participated in any ABS certs.
2) FDIC colluded with the trustees of these bankruptcy remote SPVs and illegally gifted these ABS certs to JPM.
3) Brian Rosen is being a real dick and is legally playing by the bankruptcy rule book and would not acknowledge these ABS certs in bankruptcy remote trusts until distribution time...which I have no clue when the timing of such event is.
So 1) 2) or 3). There really are only 3 possibilities.
Jerry, you did not answer my question about class 17. Dont try to deflect. Are class 17 not guaranteed by ABS certs. What was DB trustee of? Why did they sue JPM/FDIC for put back claims for?
So if there are ABS certs for class 17 that surived the "gifting of everything" to JPM, is it not reasonable to assume there might be ABS certs that survived for the benefit of class 19 and 22?
Remember, FDIC still hasnt acknowledged the existence of ABS certs for class 17 but we know for 100% certainty that there was a multi year long lawsuit by DB (as trustee of what?) against FDIC/JPM for put back claims.
So really? There are no ABS certs that survived the "gifting of everything" to JPM?
Thanks RD. I almost forgot about May 1st. I'm ready for a laugh. I'm looking forward to the excuse BR will give for the no distribution on May 1st.
Jerry, are you saying there are no ABS certs backing class 17? So what was that whole DB lawsuit against JPM/FDIC for put back claims about?
RD, I thought you said they have until June 30th? What is the May 1st distribution date? Is that the last day to request extension.
Well, maybe we'll see the Libor settlements finalize by then. Is that June 29th?
Jerry, we know for a fact that class 17 payout is backed by ABS cert. That was the whole reason for DB lawsuit against FDIC/JPM for put back claims. So at least class 17 has ABS certs backing them for 100% certainty and those were not "gifted" to JPM as part of WMB purchase. Why they still havent been paid out 2 years after the lawsuit settlement is puzzling..my best guess is Libor suits need to finalize. Only impediment left with FDIC-R resolution.
So if ABS certs were backing class 17 and those were not "gifted" to JPM, is it not reasonable to assume there were ABS certs were guaranteed against the preferred shares? Why would anyone lend Wamu billions of dollars for fairly low interest in 2008 without any asset gurantees?
So yes I still believe there are ABS certs in remote bankruptcy trusts that will pay escrow.
Libor lawsuits may need to be resolved before any other classes get paid. I know AZ has stated many times that class 17 bonds are guaranteed by some European ABS but after its hard to ignore the obvious why they still havent been paid 2 years after DB settlement...while JPM got their $800mil right away.
I think FDIC wont release class 17 money while they are still negotiating Libor suits with various banks. If they start releasing safe harbored funds now, it will not help their arguments against various banks on impact of Libor damage to Wamu estate. The banks will simply point their fingers at the huge safe harbored assets and say "what damage?"
So, unfortunately, like Brian Rosen said, this may take until end of this year or early next year to resolve.
There are no other time consuming impediments to closing out this bankruptcy other than the Libor suits.
Can anyone think of any other impediments to closing out the bankruptcy?
Or he could have simply past away waiting for escrow payday. I really feel sorry for those here who are in their 70s and 80s. I hope the judge is aware that even if the final payout is fair and reasonable, the timing may not be for many who are elderly...or may have past away.
AZ, that may have been her intent but regardless, I was hoping she would come through on her Exhibit B in court. There is still this nagging question that I have...
Why hasnt the hedgies made any noise all these years on the obvious delays that Brian Rosen purposely imposed using the employee claims?? If there are billions to be had by the hedgies, you would think they would have filed objections on the delays to move the process along. Thats billions they could have reinvested in the market upswing in the last few years....
Unless, of course, they already have found a backdoor access to those funds through Kustorous and have been unfairly benefiting all these years while retail is let to rot in the dark "waiting".
I cannot believe she filed Exhibit B without following through at the court. Something smells very fishy. Maybe she was threatened...or simply bought off. But I dont buy that whole "I'm incompetent" act in court.
Boris, thats my point. She could have brought up A&M payments as a way to address the remote bankruptcy assets. I dont believe that she is incompetent. Thats why I'm highly suspicious of her lost of words in front of the judge today.
Did Griffin get paid off by the hedgies during the weekend? Why didnt she bring up remote bankruptcy assets in court when she had the chance? I'm really diaappointed that she didnt push evidence of her Exhibit B. I really dont think she's incompetent. It seems a little suspicious that she was lost for words when the judge asked her where she thought the value might be coming back to benefit class 19 more than 100%.
LG, it seems like Coop management is going out of their way to hide good news by releasing this on Good Friday. I say management is in cahoots with the hedgies in supressing Coop stock prise. I'm not sure what their endgame is but they seem to want to keep the price low going into the annual shareholders meeting.
AZ, I dont know why you are worrying about the Griffin court case tomorrow. If she has no evidence of her Exhibit B, this will get immediately shut down by the judge and we can move on. I doubt the judge will unravel POR7 or the actual payout matrix of 75/25 to the end or not.
If you are right about 75/25 only applying to the LT assets and not the remote bankruptcy assets (which I hope you are) then that cannot be unraveled by any of Griffin's objections. That 75/25 final split has be predetermined long before POR7 by the various ABS trust agreements that are in remote bankruptcy now.
At the best case, if Griffin can prove Exhibit B, there could potentially be more assets returning to the estate (regardless of how 75/25 works) by forcing the return of the profits that the hedgies made with our "low interest loan" all these years. The judge might also disallow some of the hedgies escrow claim as penalty, which may also enlarge the retail share of final escrow payout...
So I just dont see how Griffin's objection can hurt retail holders now. If she has prove of Exhibit B, our payout time frame might be delayed for a few months while the court looks into this (maybe 6 months most) but we will all benefit immediately...
If Griffin can prove her Exhibit B:
1) We will have 100% direct prove of our remote bankruptcy assets immediately
2) retail escrow holders might get a bigger share of final pot of escrow payout as the judge may penalize the hedgies with equitable disallowance
3) final pot of escrow payout might get bigger with the judge forcing the hedgies to return their ill gotten gain by the use of free "low interest loan" of our money all these years
4) 75/25 issue will be what it would be..will not be affected by Griffin case.
Exhibit B: explains why the hedgies were so patient all these years...
I always wondered why the hedgies make any noise to hurry the estate to close out the employee claims and pay us out...They are the ones that stand to reap billions in escrow payout. Had this process closed back in 2015/2016 time frame, they could have use that money and participated in the market upswing of 2016 to now.
Why stay so quiet all these years if you could have had billions in your hand..
Exhibit B: makes perfect sense
They were very "patient" because they were making money using our money at 2% interest!
Exhibit B: Imagine if Griffin produces proof
What will the judge do to the hedgies after she let them off once already for colorable insider trading prior to POR7.
If Exhibit B comes with proof, its game over for the hedgies. Equitable disallowance and jail time...or pay huge penalty to estate.
At first I was worried Griffin's objection might delay this further...
But now I'm really pissed that all this delay all these years could be because the hedgies wanted to use our money as a low interest loan...
I want to see proof of Exhibit B on Monday.
If there is proof, I'm willing to wait 10 more years if need be. Bend these mofos over and ruin their lives like they have ruin ours for the last 11 years. I know its Good Friday...
AZ, like Lodas says, if she has no proof of Exhibit B, she may be exposing herself to Libel lawsuits from the hedgies...or worse yet, her life may be in jeopardy. There are large sums of money involved plus jail time. She better have something for her sake. I wish her the best of luck on Monday.
We'll see soon enough on Monday. I hope she has some proof to back up her claim. Wow, I would really love to see everyone's faces in the court if she produces the evidence for Exhibit B.
I hope she drops her evidence and just bend these mofos over and go to town on them!