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 CUSIP number consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters and numbers, which act as a sort of DNA for the security(escrow share) - uniquely identifying the company or issuer and the type of security. The first six characters identify the issuer and are assigned in an alphabetical fashion; the seventh and eighth characters (which can be alphabetical or numerical) identify the type of issue; and the last digit is used as a check digit. Escrow markers are the generic term for you escrows or the amount you own
Not big on deciphering financials but this "email" is actually laughable.
So are you saying that those $100+ Billion in "off balance" assets(cash + un-liquidated mortgages) shown in the 2014 10K were always accounted for exactly the same in every 10K since JPM acquired them in 2008?...that they were right under our noses and we just never noticed them?
While I agree that filings(SEC, court etc.) are an important tool that assists with deciphering a case, it is by no means an absolute. If all one had to do was read official documents to fully grasp the direction an investment would take then no one would lose money in the market. The WAMU case everyone will admit is an anomaly to say the least so it is so absolutely clear, to me at least that the info being presented to the public is "watered down" and incomplete. One example is the recent 10K filed by JPM where they suddenly, out of the blue presented "off balance sheet assets" after years of their non existence according to their own filings and adamant claims by some that JPM bought "EVERYTHING" from the FDIC via the seizure of WMB for the paltry sum of $1.9 Billion (scoff).
It's funny since these claims were backed up using what you may ask?....official filings from the bankruptcy and JPM, only for them to now debunk these widely held "facts?" that were the "bread and butter" of the argument of some here. I am fully confident as we go along this process that more revelations such as this will be forthcoming that will again reveal to many that our grasp of this case is miniscule and an "extrapolative" analysis of all documents is required rather than purely taking them at face value.
I have a prior experience similar to the current situation occurring here due to my involvement back in 2010 with the QSGI bankruptcy(now defunct). Again here it was adamantly and continuously stressed by one poster in a very condescending manner that based solely on "official documents", there was no hope for equity...basically we were being "educated" by a self anointed "board professional"(deja vu). Those of us who shared a different view utilized another, less conventional form of analysis based on the method I mentioned earlier in my post, akin to what is being done here on this board. After all was finally revealed, those of us who believed in our own DD were greatly rewarded financially for our persistence and more importantly for some, vindicated after being the subject of ridicule due to our stance.
Prove what to whom and why??? That's a bit audacious on your part.
I've always wondered why i felt a sense of deja vu at times during heated exchanges between members of the WMIH board but i now have my answer. Back in 2010 i invested in another bankruptcy stock (Q**I- registration of securities recently revoked by SEC) based on the limited experience i gained from the WAMU case 2 years prior. That board had a makeup consistent with this one in that there were basically two diverging viewpoints on whether equity would survive after the release of the DS/POR.
The "Detractors", a smaller group led by, lets call him gon--lee insisted that what was declared verbatim in the "court filings" was absolute and there was no room for any form of interpretation, "reading between the lines" or application of "common sense" theories(sound familiar?).... but basically a "what you see, is what you get!" type situation. Suffice it to say the "Unicorns", championed by HD**TX had the alternate viewpoint and after the DS/POR was finally released, one party emerged triumphant and fully vindicated.
Hint: mythical equines that possess a hard permanent outgrowth, often curved and pointed.
Lets hope history repeats itself with regard to our Escrows!!!
Re-read his post again. He clearly stated the target is the LT ie the old debtors estate not WMIH.
So what's your take on thony's analysis of this much vaunted FDIC email (post #417451)??? Sounds rational doesn't it!!!
Very interesting analysis thony. I am not surprised though that some have decided to wholly accept a condensed response via an email in isolation without rationalizing its "facts" presented with info we have at our disposal as you so eloquently did.
Thank you.
This document has been the center of heated debates about it's relevance after the effective date of the POR V.7. It has been claimed that after the "effective date" that these claims were nullified by the POR and thus moot. What is interesting is that if one reads on further it is expressely stated that....
"in its capacity as receiver for WMB or in its corporate capacity, on account of WMI's statusas a creditor, and do not withdraw or release any rights under the Global Settlement Agreement,"
I am yet to locate anywhere, in writing that nullifies this WMI claim.
NOTE: This document was approved and signed by Judge Walrath after the acceptance of the POR V.7 in court!!!
I've always wondered why i felt a sense of deja vu during, at times heated exchanges between members of this board but i now have my answer. Back in 2010 i invested in another bankruptcy stock (QSGI- registration of securities recently revoked by SEC) based on the limited experience i gained from the WAMU case 2 years prior. That board had a makeup consistent with this one in that there were basically two diverging viewpoints on whether equity would survive after the release of the DS/POR.
The "Detractors", a smaller group led by, lets call him gon--lee insisted that what was declared verbatim in the "court filings" was absolute and there was no room for any form of interpretation, "reading between the lines" or application of "common sense" theories(sound familiar?).... but basically a "what you see, is what you get!" type situation. Suffice it to say the "Unicorns", championed by HD**TX had the alternate viewpoint and after the DS/POR was finally released, one party emerged triumphant and fully vindicated.
Hint: mythical equines that possess a hard permanent outgrowth, often curved and pointed.
Lets hope history repeats itself with regard to our Escrows!!!
Thank you, I will.
I don't need to provide anyone with proof of what a general statement made by the EC means. My interpretation coupled with other unresolved and vague issues leads me to believe that it's not over. That simple! This reminds me of what I've been saying all along....how can anyone claim to have finished the puzzle when so many pieces are missing from the "BOX"... metaphorically speaking.
I've been trying to impress this on Esc detractors for a long time to no avail.
So the EC stating POR V.7 is F&R denotes that this is all we get and thats it? Sorry but i cannot argee with your assessment of that and insist that it entails much much more.
"You reap what you sow"....when people feel they are being attacked or belittled because of their beliefs or claims they usually respond with same.
You speak on behalf of the EC on what they meant and didn't mean by that statement now. Please continue proving my point!!!
I am wrong??? I have on more than one occasion stated my expectation for any Esc payout and it falls way short of the numbers being bandied about now. I too view these fantastic posts with apprehension and question their accuracy at times but what i will not do is attempt to disparage, denigrate or defame those from whom these posts originate.
This truly is the crux of my peeve with some posters here.... their blatant arrogance and disregard for the FACT that we all are "in the dark". Regarding the many vague issues existing here, for anyone to wholly invalidate others opinions as unequivovally false is in and of itself the true falsity.
The "BIG BOYS" holding many escrow markers is the main reason why I know any cash available will go directly to LT. These guys are all about cash and I really don't see funds returned to the trust being funneled anywhere else but their/our pockets. Personally...give me cash since I don't trust these people one iota !!!
Possible for the un-liquidated assets but not for any cash returned. I foresee legal ramifications regarding KKR/Citi's apparent "predatory" share purchase that would make this scenario unlikely since it would seem that equity was being "screwed" again..
Your post reminded me somewhat about something I read in April, 2014 regarding the FDIC during testimony for a foreclosure case.......
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
PennyMac was founded in 2008 in Southern California, when a group of mortgage and bank industry veterans came together in the midst of the housing and financial crisis at that time. Our goal: to build effective mortgage and lending solutions for homeowners and other customers. In the five and a half years since, we have grown into one of the leaders of the US mortgage market.
PennyMac's first line of business was modifying residential mortgages originated by other lenders, under such programs as the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The original lenders were often large banks.
How is that???
There are the skeptics who are just as or even more adamant that escrows are worth NOTHING. I merely remind them of the FACT that NOBODY, including yourself has a full grasp of this case and what is to come. As for wasting my time, well it's mine to "WASTE"(as you put it)as I see fit now isn't it!!!
Read the post I was responding to and you'll get my point.
Really!!!...Of all the people you chose B. Rosen? Why not Susman or Willingham both of whom actually seek our interests. Rosen has been anti equity from day one so he has earned zero credibility on this subject as far as I'm concerned.
Have "you" proved that Escrows are worthless....NO!!! Until they are deemed so by the "professionals" who are the only ones in the "know", your rhetoric is without merit.
Back to the point at hand....during the said period the pps of pref's was not continuously falling as you stated. It bottomed out and actually rose since I would have gladly purchased more at the lowest price available.
Coincidentally during this same period buying pressure was high even though most retailers were unsure of the outcome for equity and I surmise that many may have sold and invested in PIERS, thus stimulating the vibrant trading that was experienced by the various equities.
So what are you stating exactly...that accumulation of shares cannot occur without an accompanying continuous rise in the PPS???
P.S. It was during this said period prior to the releases deadline that I bought my WAMPQ,s so I am very familiar with the trading characteristics at this time. Try again!!!
"The deal is a departure for TPG, which typically seeks to gain control of companies. Private equity firms don’t typically favor taking minority stakes, but regulatory restrictions make it difficult for buyout shops to take controlling positions in financial firms."
It was an "emergency" capital injection in an attempt to stabilize WAMU at that time due to mounting losses in early 2008, purchasing 176 Million shares of WAMU at $8.75 per share(25% discount) and $5.5 Billion in convertible preferred stock (cash infusion). NOT HALF the company as wrongly stated in a previous.
This IMO occurred when their plan for PIERS to reap all the remnants of the estate fell through in POR V.6 and being "colored" for insider trading. Following this Piers were sold off to some extent to retail and there was a spike in buying for Pref's and commons(to a lesser extent). All this occurred prior to the deadline for granting the releases in POR V.7 .
Note: I distinctly remember this trading period since It was at this time I sold all my common shares and reinvested in WAMPQ's.
I hold this hope for the mere fact that we "little people" actually hold a miniscule amount of escrows compared to the HF's and the like who hold the vast majority. If any payment is made they will basically reap another windfall of billions in addition to that which they received as creditors of the estate. The escrow shares we own are insignificant when viewed on the grander scale, so basically we benefit by association.
Yes it was in WMI's name at seizure but the judge ruled(I have no idea why) that it was to remain with JPM. Is it still there?... I also have no clue since I basically wrote it off as lost since that ruling.
Please read the senate hearing transcripts. Still smoke and mirrors but at least "somewhat" more accurate than some news article.
The much quoted $77 Bil which you obviously got that 60% figure from was not solely subprime loans but a total of specific MBS's sold by WAMU to investors. These were composed of Prime loans mixed in with Subprime. The actual subprime loans were much less and even included Prime qualified borrowers who could afford their loans but were encouraged to take subprime loans which WAMU could profit more from. In actuality by the time of seizure WAMU had reduced subprime lending to a minimum unlike the likes of JPM et al.
There were never "MULTIPLE" $20 Bil runs on the bank at any point. The largest was approx. $16.7 Bil over 9 days which actually was the justification for the seizure, all according to the plan that was orchestrated by the FDIC and JPM.
Regarding the pps and losses please refer to internal memos to the OTS where by WMI devised a plan to fund WMB wit approx. $25-30 Bil(not 100% sure on figure)) in cash injections to stabilize the bank. PPS is a direct function of shareholders sentiment based on fear and info available, thus if "negative info" is being leaked to the "street" in a unabashed attempt to devalue a company, obviously the share price will plummet.
WMIH has absolutely no standing to query the whereabouts of the $4 Bil that was in WMI's name, only the LT....period!!!!!
While I agree with a lot of what you posted, I suggest you revisit some of your facts and figures since they are in some cases totally incorrect.
I was just reinforcing Tanj's point that Deutche Bank held only $92 Bil of the $190 Bil in total MBS's that JPM acquired in 2008 and that their suit is actually for approximately $10 Bil as he correctly stated. Obviously there are "OTHERS" who dispute these facts vehemently!!!
Notice a trend!!!............
"A unit of Deutsche Bank AG (DB) is suing as a trustee for clients over what it claims are a half-million mortgages they hold in securities, arguing that WaMu breached contracts in writing them. That lawsuit, seeking "more than $10 billion", named the FDIC and J.P. Morgan as co-defendants"
"In August 2009, Deutsche Bank, as trustee for about $92 billion of notional WaMu securitizations", filed suit against the FDIC demanding the repurchase of billions of dollars of mortgages that they argued violated representations and warranties in the pooling agreement."
"In acquiring WaMu in "2008", JPMorgan took over "$190 billion in mortgage securities" that had been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
In "2009", Deutsche Bank, as trustee of roughly "$92 billion of notional WaMu mortgage securitizations", sued the FDIC"
"One of the largest cases involves Deutsche Bank National Trust, which filed a lawsuit in 2010 asking either the bank or the regulator to cough up "$6 billion to $10 billion" for low-quality mortgages in WaMu securities."
"A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has to face a "$10 billion lawsuit" tied to the failure of Washington Mutual Bank.
The judge refused the F.D.I.C.’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, which had been "brought by the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company over bad mortgages that were securitized by Washington Mutual"."
And the list goes on and on. These snippets were gleaned from articles found on sites such as "The Street", "Washington Post", "Ritholtz"/blog", "ADVFN" and the "NYTimes".
EVERYONE
It is apparent not everyone on this board is as enthusiastic about the overwhelming Escrow discussion here. May I suggest in the interim that either WMIH or ESC (in bold) begin each message for identifying the subject matter and easier filtering of posts by users until a more permanent solution is reached. Just a suggestion based on compromise.
WMI was never at any point bankrupt...this is a fact that has been stated clearly by those that oversaw them. They were in fact suffering from "illiquidity" which simply put means they lacked cash which was unavailable due to their massive "Portfolio Investments".
These investments if sold back then in 2008 during the crisis would have resulted in an enormous loss on those assets. In lieu of this those very assets were "TEMPORARILY" assigned to JPM for servicing as clearly evidenced in their last 10Q.
P.S. To believe JPM bought BILLIONS of the former WMI's assets from the FDIC for a paltry $1.9 Billion is just plain delusional.
WOW....how was this missed for so long?!?!
There is much speculation regarding Escrows and WMIH to some extent on this board which is warranted since we lack clarity and "concrete facts. As far as I'm concerned, WMIH is already a winner and we just await the final announcement of our acquisition to move forward. Escrows though are totally different scenario and the cause of much consternation and rife among the parties here. Personally, I believe the lack of unambiguous information re Filings etc. is the crux of the problem at present otherwise this topic would have long been "put to bed" in favor of either one of the theorized outcomes.