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.
Large Green has been claiming there needs to be a S4V in order for the merger to go through. He seems to contend that without the S4V there would be a change of ownership. Am I wrong about assuming any of these Large Green positions?
BBANBOB, I'm still concerned about "classes 16, 17 and 18 have to be "paid" before that can happen". I'm talking about Large Green's theoretic share distribution to escrows to keep ownership and satisfy the merger agreement. Is this not a legitimate concern?
Large Green, thanks for indulging and educating me. Believe me, I hope your theory holds up.
RickNagra, what is the basis for your bold prediction?
I thought a cash distribution (if any) would show up in the brokerage accounts where the amount of escrows are listed. Seems logical. Why would checks be sent to the home address instead?
What are the highlights from the new 8K?
If escrows are getting paid on July 31, won't classes 16, 17 and 18 have to be "paid" before that can happen? If so, how possible is that scenario?
What say you, Large Green?
"Re: "DOCUMENTED PROOF IN WMIH 8K FILING ON 2/13/2018 SHARES MUST BE ISSUED TO ESCROW SHAREMARKERS SIMULTANEOUS TO MERGER CLOSING
These are shares for NSM SH, KKR conversion and none for escrow which WMIH has no relationship with anymore since 2012.
The filings never said that shares are for Escrow, nowhere does it says."
Thanks again jerrylev. Are you saying that POR 7 makes Large Green's contention below about shares being issued impossible?
"DOCUMENTED PROOF IN WMIH 8K FILING ON 2/13/2018 SHARES MUST BE ISSUED TO ESCROW SHAREMARKERS SIMULTANEOUS TO MERGER CLOSING
As NSM/WMIH merger currently stands, it FAILS and cannot be closed according to required merger closing documents.
As stated with information we currently know, there will be roughly 1.2 billion outstanding shares at closing, so UNLESS there is more forthcoming, this merger CANNOT close.
This due to an ownership change this merger creates with currently known information under Section 382 of the IRS code on closing and this is in direct violation of merger documents required at closing
Section 382 of IRS code says 51% ownership must be maintained by >5% owners, otherwise there will be an ownership change so to avoid a minimum of 450 million shares MUST be issued to Escrow ShareMarkers simultaneous to merger closing"
Thanks jerrylev. So you feel Large Green's theory about shares being distributed to escrows holders for assets at or around the time of the merger to maintain ownership has "holes in it"?
Isn't NSM an $18+ stock?
Even without the potential escrows' assets and just the WMIH NOLS, does a merged NSM/WMIH have $10 potential within 3 years? In this scenario, what will the merged NSM/WMIH likey open at?
If "WMB Class 17’ Was Settled as of 12/31/2017" are escrows next in line to be settled?
Basically, how do AZCowboy and Large Green differ in their forecast for how and when escrows will be distributed?
AZCowboy, what do you think of Large Green's merger/share distribution theory that saves the ownership and NOLS?
"Surely, you jest". lol
bond, if that's the case, I'll be thrilled if Large Green's theory comes to fruition. That kind of immediate value for escrows would certainly be "fair and reasonable" compensation. Even after having to wait about ten years.
diamondg, makes an interesting point. Some of our associates are probably interested in much more after waiting about ten years. Let's hope, if we do get shares, that WMIH is well run and has some great earnings potential.
Post merger, what's a realistic price target for WMIH in 2 or 3 years? How realistic is a $5 or even a $10 price target in three years after the merger? The results of Large Green's theory would be "fair and reasonable" IF a $10 WMIH share price was achieved in 3 years. Not really great, but "fair and reasonable". Especially, compared to the current value.
pm, then would the conversion be 3300 x 6 = 19,800 new WMIH shares?
Large Green, according to your theory, would 100,000 shares/escrows end up being 3,300 x 6 = 19,800 new WMIH shares?
Large Green, I'm confused. Please do the math for me. If someone has 100,000 escrows, they wouldn't be issued 600,000 WMIH shares according to your 6 for 1 theory? If not, about how many new WMIH shares would 100,000 escrows fetch?
This is really an interesting point pertaining to the merger, "David (WMIH) eats Goliath (NSM) gaining majority when we were only a Shell. Think about it! Makes no sense whatsoever unless there is more to it."
Hopefully, this is where the mysterious escrows' assets come into play.
lodas, a follow up to what you posted, "if Wamu make a home with corporate equity, that is to say, stockholders money, then yes,we would own the equity that the loan produces, and we would have title to the loan". So if the loan was made with shareholders money, shareholders would be entitled to that money that they provided in the loan. What about the interest payments, does that belong to the shareholders, too?
I'm just trying to "connect the dots" to understand better what is in the trusts that might belong to escrows. Would it be the money shareholders provided in order to make the loans, plus the interest the loans produced?
Thanks, for educating me on this.
lodas, thanks for the explanation. You posted, "if Wamu make a home with corporate equity, that is to say, stockholders money, then yes,we would own the equity that the loan produces, and we would have title to the loan".
Are saying that, in this scenario, if the loans are paid off, escrows would own the interest payments that the loans produced? If the loans were not paid off, escrows would own the home itself? I don't quite get the "we would have title to the loan".
I gather that you're not "banking" on a "shares for assets" event for escrows in conjunction with the NSM/WMIH merger.
lodas, do you feel that there are escrows distributions coming from various trusts? If so, do you feel the escrows distributions will be in shares of WMIH in conjunction with the merger with NSM? Or a cash distribution later.
fixedrops, along those same lines, "When is the last time anyone in any official capacity has said that there are assets that will be coming to escrows, eventually? Or even indicated that indirectly".
The lack of communication, concerns me as an escrows holder.
When is the last time anyone in any official capacity has said that there are assets that will be coming to escrows, eventually? Or even indicated that indirectly.
If none can be presented, doesn't that bother any other escrows holders besides me?
What shares for value ratio would allow the needed 51% ownership? Maybe that provides a clue as to the value coming to escrows.
Would a 1 for 1 escrows/WMIH shares exchange to common shareholders be realistic in helping to satisfy the 51% ownership requirement? How many shares would that amount to?
bumpkin, Large Green, lodas, could the "assets" (collateral) that secured the loan be what's in the trusts that belong to escrows holders? If so, won't escrows holders, at some point, need to be compensated for those "assets"?
Wonder what "assets" WMIH has that enabled them to get that kind of a loan? Has it been made public what those "assets" are or just speculation?
lodas, why exactly are you so bullish on WMIH's future? Is it solely based on Nationstar's mortgage potential? What does the current WMIH have to offer in this merger? Do you see any chance that escrows will be a direct factor in the merger? That seems to be what Large Green has figured.
After the merger, if interested in the mortgage business, would Amazon offer $10/share for WMIH? Potentially, it's probably worth more than that.
thanks again lodas. You posted "if Wmih made it known that they were sitting on billions of dollars of money?". Do you feel that escrows will be a direct factor in this merger?
lodas, I was contemplating your analogy about not revealing wealth to certain parties. Is the reason for not disclosing the potential assets "windfall", to keep the WMIH share price down for conversion purposes?
lodas, I was contemplating your analogy. Was the reason for not disclosing the potential assets "windfall", to keep the WMIH share price down for conversion purposes?
To me, that's another puzzling issue about the landslide NSM vote. Why would they vote to leave the NYSE for the NASDAQ?
lodas, that's a very interesting point. I hope you are on to something.
When the merger becomes final, does WMIH automatically become an NYSE company because NSM was?