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.
bkshadow, could you please explain, why WMIIC was a "guarantor" for the financing agreement, if it has no value. What role did it play?!?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312515001790/d845621dex103.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312514448569/d839695dex102.htm
TIA
Or perhaps uplisting next week (Tuesday), and release a few weeks later? Possible?
Thanks, please have also a look at LG's post about WMIIC as guarantor, it totally makes sense
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109815582
Assets owned by Subsidiares of the Failed Bank are not "Assets" within the meaning of this definition
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=104593627
Nice big white candle
Something big will happen over the weekend or next week IMO
GLTAL
Interesting Doc: The FDIC’s Resolution Planning Process
http://www.fdicoig.gov/reports13%5C13-004EV.pdf
It is worth to read the 24 pages in detail!!!
Chart Update
2-year-daily line chart:
The PPS is at the right end of a big symmetrical triangle and it seems it will break it upwards. If not, it bounced back nicely from the bottom of the triangle three times in the past (green circles), and I expect it would do it again (at about $2.0 this time)
Indicators:
MACD turning positive, RSI very bullish, Accum/Dist reached new all-time high and I've never seen anything remotely similar to this
Chart courtesy of StockCharts.com
Could be now, we had some 2.23$ trades today...
http://cdn1.boardpost.net/quote.php
the BOYS are loading up and when they've had their fill they'll let it fly, imo.
http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Business-profile?s=WMIH:QBB
Locust Wood Capital owns 3.95m as of 31 Dec 2014
Pre-holders who bought WAMUQs for 8$ received "almost nothing" when they got WMIHs that traded around 1$ and shortly thereafter for 0.50$.
For those pre-holders WMIH must reach 240$ (!!!) to recover their initial investment or at least 60$ to recover 25%.
IF escrows don't get paid THEN I would say that's far away from "fair & reasonable" and far away from a good job done by SUSMAN GODFREY
Blue, I think your second point is not correct.
According to...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312515001790/d845621dex31.htm
SECTION 5. Mandatory Conversion on the Mandatory Conversion Date. (a) On each closing date of any Acquisition, the number of outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock having an aggregate Liquidation Preference equal to the net proceeds of the Offering utilized in such Acquisition, on a pro rata basis, shall automatically convert into a number of shares of Common Stock equal to the Liquidation Preference divided by a conversion price equal to the lesser of:
(i) $2.25 per share of Common Stock (the “Initial Conversion Price”); and
(ii) the arithmetic average of daily Volume Weighted Average Prices of the Common Stock during the 20 Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding the public announcement by the Corporation of its entry into a definitive agreement for such Acquisition, subject to a floor of $1.75 per share of Common Stock (the “Floor Price”
Yes it was a single 1.8 million trade as you can see here in this L2-video at 0:08
I cannot answer your question who sold, but yesterday's 1857K trade @ 2.18 is very similar (the number of shares) to the 1987K trade that showed up for a few seconds at the Ask by MM CDEL on 01/06/2015
Here my original post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109656858
Unfortunately in the current L2 video from yesterday (@ 0:07) you cannot see which MM did the trade:
Yes, 2$ would be too low for a full recovery, many pre-holders bought for 8$ or much higher I know, but I think from the viewpoint of a Ch11 judge/our EC "fair & reasonable" doesn't have to mean a 100% (or greater) recovery. If inverstors recover 25% of their initial investment it COULD be called "fair & reasonable" IMO.
BTW, I wrote "at least" 2$ But I'm with you, in this special WaMu case with billions of assets and no real insolvency, 8$ would be more just. But that means, more than 44 bln. must flow down to the WMILT and many many post-holders would become very very rich!!!
I am a post-holder, but I think "fair & reasonable" should be viewed from pre-holder's eyes. So I think "fair & reasonable" should mean at least 2$ for common pre-holders, and at least face value for preferred pre-holders.
What terms? It was a "blank check" concerning the escrows. No value was ever mentioned, but 3rd party suits (Goldman Sachs and others) sounded promising, but the WMILT didn't want to pursue them for a reason.
The EC/MW/Susman encouraged us to sign, but we really didn't know what we will get!!!
Never ever! M&A announcement between 03/20/2015 and 07/05/2015 at the latest, and escrow recovery also starting this year IMO
Golden Cross coming soon
50 MA about to cross the 200 MA
http://scharts.co/1zaUKfu
Should bring a new "boost"
If WMI is a "general" creditor of WMB/FDIC-R then...
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html
If you hold senior unsecured debt or subordinated debt, your claim with the Receiver has already been registered by virtue of bond ownership and there is no need for you to make an additional claim. If the ownership of the bond changes, the claim against the Receiver will follow the ownership of the bond. Please note that under federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11), claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution. At this time, the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank does not anticipate that subordinated debt holders of the bank will receive any recovery on their claims.
I think you don't get the "theory" right
FDIC took WMB and WMB subsidiaries and also wrongfully WMI assets
FDIC realized they messed up things
FDIC sold WMB (and everything "below") to JPMC, but not WMI's assets
FDIC held WMI's wrongfully taken assets off-record (and out of BK)
BK has to close
WMI's assets will be returned to the WMILT as only successor of the estate
Again, I do not claim this "theory" is true, but that is my interpretation of the "theory", and IF the assets are WMI's assets, then WMB bondholder claims cannot be paid with WMI's assets/money, NEVER NEVER NEVER
So I have to say again:
Junior and senior bonds not trading higher at the moment is not a proof that the FDIC does not hold WMI assets (not WMB assets) off the record IMO
No matter if there are $100 mln. or $20 bln., the WMB bondholder will not see a dime of them because they did not belong to WMB, only the parent company WMI!
Why should the FDIC-R pay off WMB bonds, IF the assets possibly held off-record were assets of former WMI or direct subsidiaries that were unjustly taken?!?
I don't claim that those WMI off-record assets do exist, but:
Junior and senior bonds not trading higher at the moment is not a proof that the FDIC does not hold WMI assets off the record IMO
And "big money" is not buying into any theory that the FDIC-R has found the same tens to hundreds of billions that are asserted to exist in the receivership; the junior bonds are pennies and the senior bonds most impaired. Big money, like the Paulson funds, "bailed on the WMB senior notes."
Original OTS Fact Sheet
Don't forget the original OTS Fact Sheet
http://www.occ.gov/static/news-issuances/ots/press-releases/ots-pr-2008-46b.pdf
How was it possible to sell a company that has
Total assets as of June 30, 2008: $307.02 billion
Total loan servicing: $689.7 billion total loans serviced, including $442.7 billion in loans serviced for others and $26.3 billion of subprime mortgage loans
So the following M&A targets are possible:
1) Capmark (CPMK) (very likely, market cap OK, BOD connections)
2) former KFN or parts of it (bought back by KKR)
3) Greenlight Re. (GLRE) (market cap only a little bit too high)
4) Genworth (GNW) (market too high)
5) a small bank out of FDIC's receivership (there should be many)
Other good suggestions?
I cannot see anything unexpected here. IF the theories of illegally seized WMI assets/mortgages is correct, they wouldn't show up on this web page which is the balance sheet for WMB.
IF they really took WMI's assets, they would be held off-balance by the FDIC or at least not on the WMB balance sheet IMO
Large Green, WMI Investment Corp
http://www.crmz.com/Report/ReportPreview.asp?BusinessId=2242
All of the banking assets of WMI were sold to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) prior to the Bankruptcy Petition Date and all of the securities and investments held by WMIIC were liquidated and the value distributed in connection with implementing its emergence Plan.
Business Summary
WMI Holdings Corp., formerly Washington Mutual, Inc. is a holding company. The Company is a parent of WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc. (WMMRC), and WMI Investment Corp (WMIIC). As of December 31, 2013, it had no operations other than WMMRC’s reinsurance business with respect to mortgage insurance. As of December 31, 2013, WMIIC does not have any assets or operations.
They showed up with 1987K shares in the Level-2 Ask on Monday Jan. 5, I cannot prove if they are owner of the shares, but the evidence I provided suggests that they are NOT. Of course I could be wrong, and they bought low , own them and sell them now. But then I don't know how you can explain the short volume ratio numbers in relation to the actually traded share numbers...
Correct, if all these 1.9 million shares are bought, and CDEL or anyone else won't put a new big order at 2.20, the PPS could rise. But up to Friday, not all 1.9 million shares from CDEL got bought.
Look at the 5 day chart and especially the volume:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WMIH&p=D&yr=0&mn=0&dy=5&id=p37297236458
Wednesday and Thursday don't count, because the PPS stayed below 2.20, so no trades belonging to this big order.
Monday's, Tuesday's and Friday's volume together is still below 1.9 million! Furthermore, not all trades were at 2.20, some were sales into the Bid, or were 2.19 and 2.20 trades from CRTC and other MMs
But if all of CDELs 1.9 million shares are sold, there are good chances that the PPS will go higher (if they allow it...)
But you are right, a high demand of 4 million shares or more would solve the problem immediately...
Because the demand for WMIH shares is high after the KKR/Citi news. If people are willing to pay 2.20 or more, why should the bid fall back to 2.00 or 1.80, only because lots of shares are sold/shorted @ 2.20?
This is my explanation for this strange trading behavior. All IMO
Look at my reply to your other question. If someone sells to the Bid again and again, the PPS would decline. If someone puts lots of shares at the Ask (lower than all other demands), you can prevent the PPS from rising, because you are the only one servicing the Ask. All IMO
IMO it is all about the conversion of the B preferreds
The higher the PPS, the less common shares for the B preferreds
Let's say the Ask looks like this:
2.89 <----- 1000 shares
2.25 <----- 3000 shares
2.20 <----- 1.9 million(!)
2.19 <----- 3000 shares
If someone wants to buy 3000 shares and sets a limited order to 2.19, he would get his 3000 shares for 2.19
Now the 2.19 is gone and the Ask looks like this:
2.89 <----- 1000 shares
2.25 <----- 3000 shares
2.20 <----- 1.9 million(!)
If someone wants to buy 50.000 shares and sets a 2.25 limit, the order should be executed at 2.20, because someone wants to sell 1.9 million shares at 2.20
The new Ask is
2.89 <----- 1000 shares
2.25 <----- 3000 shares
2.20 <----- 1.85 million(!)
As long as someone puts enough shares at the 2.20, he can create a "fake wall" there and prevent the PPS from rising.
Hmm, the facts are:
1) On Monday, CDEL showed up with 1987K shares @2.20 at the Ask
2) Monday and Tuesday we had a high Short Volume Ratio of more than 70% (http://shortvolume.com/ enter WMIH and set time period to 5 days)
3) Wednesday and Thursday the PPS stayed BELOW the 2.20, and the Short Volume Ratio was only 5% (Wednesday) and 40% on Tuesday which means no shares from CDELs 1987K order @2.20
4) On Friday the PPS reached the 2.20 again, and CDEL could continue its sale from the Ask at 2.20, and the Short Volume Ratio increased to 81%, its highes value since early 2013!
Seems very strange to me. But if you assume the short volume date is accurate, then the conclusion must be that CDEL is shorting WMIH
These are the facts, but one can only speculate about their reasons...
That means 319,133 out of 394,173 (total volume for Friday) were short sales.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortsale.asp
Somebody sells borrowed shares he/she doesn't own, and has to buy them back later...
Good or bad? Hmm, for me it seems CDEL (who has a 1987K order at the Ask for 2.20 for the last 3 or 4 days) wants to PREVENT the stock from exceeding 2.20 with this short sales at all costs.
For which benefit? I don't know...
WMIH: Accum/Dist at new all-time high
On Friday the Accum/Dist line reached the new all-time high (together with the highest Short Volume Ratio of 81% since early 2013)
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WMIH&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p31638295410
WMIH:Highest Short Volume Ratio for 2.5 years! 81%
On Friday the Short Volume Ratio was 81%, the highest value since early 2013
http://otcshortreport.com/index.php?index=wmih&action=view#.VLKABSuG9ED
Or better here:
http://shortvolume.com/ and enter WMIH and the time period
BBANBOB, 5 day old TPG article
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-05/tpg-capital-said-to-near-halfway-mark-on-10-billion-fund.html
...
In its final megadeal, a March 2008 bailout of savings bank Washington Mutual, $1.35 billion mostly from TPG’s 2006 and 2008 funds was erased when the government seized the lender the same year.
...
You are right, they did not SELL IMO. But I said "paid secretly" to keep their mouth shut and GO AWAY to enable the selling of a multi-billion company for only 1.9 bln. to JPMC
WMIH is not on the Pinks, but on OTCQB. But I think that doesn't change anything according to reporting.
But I agree, IF they didn't sell AND not got paid secretly, one must assume they are still holding a major part of WMIH (and of course tons of ESCROWS)
What if TPG got paid secretly by JPMC/FDIC to keep silent?
Basically there must have been enough money to pay TPG and make them go away...
IF TPG signed releases and got WMIH shares and escrows, they would still be a majority holder of WMIH. Could this be kept secret legally???
So my guestimation based on these facts is:
1) Announcement of M&A (acquisition) probably in Jan. or Feb.
2) Definitive execution of M&A not before March 20, but rather shortly thereafter than towards June or July
3) Exercise of warrants/conversion of A preferreds probably all at the day of definitive M&A (which also means automatic conversion of B preferreds) to trigger only ONE "Test Event"
Could you go along with that?!?
Yes incredible accum/dist peak for the last two days, near to the all-time high
Chart (acum/dist behind PPS):
http://scharts.co/1BTei6Y
UncleBo, they love to make money on the spread...
If the MMs buy 250.000 at $2.17 and sell for $2.18, or if they start shorting at $2.18 and cover at $2.17, they earn $2500.
This is what is happening at the moment IMO, at least with the 1987K position from CDEL(which only showed up some seconds and then was changed to a small value) at $2.20 at the ask.
Read paragraph to the end of the post, IMO it explains exactly what is happening:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108599259