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.
BBANBOB, I just dont see how Rosen can justify the 1% class 19 award to the underwriters without putting a valuation on the remote bankruptcy assets. How did he arrive at 1%? Why not 0.1%? He needed to backup his 1% award number. Now the only excuse I can think of him using it in court without acknowledging remote bankruptcy assets is as follow:
"Your honor, I dont know what is in remote bankruptcy so I awarded 1% to the underwriters such that if class 19 gets paid face value, they will simply get 100% of what is owed to them. Remember, 75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets...and we legally do not know what is in remote bankruptcy assets. I simply awarded underwriters, the max possible return they can receive under class 19 - which is about 100% of whats owed to them if class 19 eventually gets face value from remote bankruptcy assets"
The above is the only defense I can think of that Rosen can give to the judge without acknowledging remote bankruptcy assets.
LG, I think Bopfans objection is a checkmate move for disclosure. There is only one justifiable excuse for Rosen with 1% class 19 award to underwriters:
75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets...class 19 face value plus 1.95% fjr will simply pay back underwriters their claim in full plus interest.
However, if 75/25 applies to remote bankruptcy assets, then Bopfans checkmate move may back fire on us as Rosen will try to delay as much as possible to avoid having to justify the award to the judge.
Thanks SplitT. I dont think it will go to litigation either....Unless 75/25 applies to bankruptcy remote assets. Then, the LT may have a hard time explaining the 1% class 19 award to underwriters. Then this could potentially drag out.
I personally think AZ is right. LT does not control distribution schedule of remote bankruptcy assets. Lets hope underwriters will push the powers to be to distribute before April 12th. As they say, possession is 99% of winning any potential suit.
I have a funny feeling we will see distribution before the court date on the 12th. The distribution will show that 75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets. LT can then go before the judge and claim that 1% stake in class 19 did not provide undue enrichment for underwriters....
Otherwise, someone has got some explaining to do...how was the 1% stake justified in 2013
Lets not fight over Bopfans objection. I dont think her filing will hurt us.
1) If AZ is correct, we will see an escrow distribution early April regardless of Bopfan's court date on the 12th.
2) If AZ is wrong, Bopfans appearance on the 12th will answer 2 questions:
a) Are there any significant ABS assets sitting in remote bankruptcy trusts...otherwise who cares...no one is getting paid including the underwriters.
b) If there are plenty of assets in remote bankruptcy trusts, then the LT better explain their justification for awarding about 1% class 19 stake to the underwriters. this will finally answer the 75/25 to the end question. if 75/25 does not apply to bankruptcy remote assets, then the LT can simply say, 1% of face value return to class 19 simply pays back underwriters in full -- no undue enrichment. if 75/25 applies to remote bankruptcy assets, then Bopfans objection would expose the corruption of BR in court..because underwriters return would be uncapped.
So the way I see it. Bopfan's objection is a net positive at this time.
AZ, that is still about $39B with 4% servicing fee.
Now the tax question...Will the earnings be taxed at the corporate rate and then passed onto us as qualified dividend? or is this the pass through amount and we will be taxed at ordinary income rate? Do you know?
AZ, do you know if the returns will come as qualified dividend that qualifies for capital gain tax or ordinary income?
AZ, this is the first time I've seen you post estimate of amount and timing. Wow! I'm excited. Thanks for your show of confidence. We really must be close to seeing distribution.
So according to your estimate...
$40.87B = AZ estimate
I look forward to seeing your estimate as minimum. I personally think there's a good chance we'll see a little over $50B
The flip side of that argument is maybe 75/25 to the end is not valid and its why they were awarded about 1% of class 19 and none of 22. If they end up receiving a lot more than what they are owed under class 22, then the LT will be liable to explain why they awarded them that much in 2013 when they were likely aware of how much money will be returning to escrow.
AZ, Bopfan's objection only makes sense if 75/25 applied to remote bankruptcy assets. Otherwise, the underwriter's 1% stake in class 19 should cap them out at about what they are owed.
So dont you think the LT can quickly strike down her objection by filing a clarification on whether 75/25 applied to any assets outside of LT control?
Crap! Do you see JPM listed on her page as repressentative client? Bopfan is a JPM mole???
mad, take a look at the previous poster's link that I was replying to. Apparently there has been a meeting today with Judge Walrath and Hochberg regarding Washington Mutual..Hmmm...
So...
1) We had an odd downgrade on Coop 2 days ago. and another one today. Price drops 20% with less than 5% of shares traded.
2) We find out on Pacer that the last 3 Employee Cases that were oddly held open by the LT, after PIERS payoff last month, just happen to close today.
3)We then also find out that Hochberg mysteriously shows up in court today.. without any pre announcement on the court calender. I thought EC cases were closed. Why does he need to show up in court?
4) We know that Coop is suppose to buy some huge asset by the end of 1st quater. Still no news. See LG posts. We have 1 week left.
5) We know from AZ that the ABS trusts distributes monthly on the 25th. Monday
6) We also know from AZ that escrow can potentially receive money from the remote bankruptcy trusts, without any LT involvement, and without any preannouncement. This has happened before for class 21
So put 2+2+2.... together and :)
=HHHHHLCE
WOW!
Judge: "Is that everything?"
Hochberg: "Yes your honor, thats everything transferring to escrow via DTC on Monday"
Judge: "Thank you for playing along. You have neen a wonderful actor"
HHHHLCE
Dont you find it odd we had that downgrade two days ago and another one today? Price drops 20% on less than 5% of float traded. Then we see the last 3 EC cases officially closing today. And Monday is a nominal trust distribution day as AZ says....So I'm thinking this is it. HLCE
The quicker the market maker drops this, the closer we are to HLCE news. Especially with todays filing of the official closing of the last 3 EC cases....Yeah, cant wait to see what happens Monday.
Come on market maker! Drop this to $5.
I want to first thank you sir for your service to our country. Its unfortunate that your generation of servicemen did not receive the proper honor you deserved. Again, thank you for your service and continuing to uphold your oath. I just wish our politicians could do the same.
So do you think MW was in bed with the hedgies? I must admit I only held commons because he only had commons and I was quick to release because he recommended that we release. I figured he would be liable as head of EC if the release was a bad choice.
So I'm just curious..what caused you to change your opinion of him? I wasnt following the board as closely back then.
AZ, you dont seem to have a good opinion of Mike Willingham, even though he is a fellow Marine like yourself. Do you know him personally?
Johnny, if that happens, you can bet I will keep quiet and never leak this to the media. I will just keep quiet and be on my way to HLCE.
Are you hearing this Brian Rosen/FDIC/JPM? I will keep my mouth shut and walk away with my money.
Wow! This makes sense. This will also allow them to distribute the large sums under the radar, without any announcement.
And the LT can avoid legal liability by saying "see, we never distributed more than what we disclosed in 2012!"...perfect quiet ending
Now, do you think we might see something by end of the month? since as you say, the 25th is the nominal distribution date for accredited investors...
Thanks AZ! So are you saying we could potentially see payments in our brokerage accounts one morning without any announcement from the LT?
AZ, if the LT is irrelevant now, who is going to direct the money from the remote bankruptcy trusts to our escrow accounts?
Who are you waiting on to make the next announcement with regards to our remote bankruptcy assets if not the LT?
Thats what I'm suspecting. The $144B differnce in missing equity matches awfully close to that 2014 R-203 off balance Wamu assets reported in JPM 10k
Here's an interesting analysis fron 10,000 ft. If you look at JPM balance sheet you'll see about net $374B in cash.
Total Cash = $973B
Total Debt = $599B
Net Cash = $973B - $599B = $374B
But.. JPM shareholder equity = $230B
So who owns the difference between Net cash and shareholder equity?
$144B = $374B - $230B
Who owns $144B?
Where have we seen that $144B figure? R-203??
Who owns the $144B? :)
Also, can you guys take a look at Wells Fargo balance sheet in comparison? Are they carring anything close to net $374B in cash? Banks dont make money by carrying that much idle cash on hand.
Again, who owns the difference between JPM shareholder equity ($230B) and JPM net cash ($374B).
Who owns the $144B difference in cash? Lost and Found?
Hero or zero! Come on LT! Give us an answer!
They must be trying to scare old NSM retailers into selling...certainly not WMIH retailers. Who are they trying to fool?? Any WMIH retailer who has stuck through the last 7 years will hold onto this stock even if it drops another $10.
Lodas, I agree sir! Why the downgrade now? Az is right. Coop is the tell. From the past 7 years of trading history ow WMIH, everytime there is an unsual drop in price like this, it is right before a major news announcement and the price pops after. The timing of this downgrade is very suspicious. Especially on a stock where close to 90% is owned by institutions.
IMO, start loading up on shares!
HM, I've just combed through 2007 10k for Wachovia. It seems to me that Wells Fargo bought them out in 2008 at 80% discount during the turmoil. Bank was probably worth $75B.
This is really interesting because earlier in 2008, JPM tried to buy out WMI in its entirety for $8/share. This was also about 80% dsicount on Wamu's true worth had JPM succeeded.
Fortunately for us, I believe the forced FDIC sale to JPM in sep 2008 essetially separated Wamu from its crown jewel (interest on ots loans) from the operational machine of its bank WMB.
So on a first order estimate, if you assume that the last 10 years, allowed the continual operation of interest collection on those loans, we should at least be at 100% value around $40/share, which would put the returning value to the common escrow of around $50B.
HM, Wachovia was not a s&l. A significant portion of its business was wealth/asset management and investment bank..in short they were just the middle man for most of those assets..whereas Wamu's lion share of income as s&l came from the interest profit margin of their $300B in assets. Since I suspect most of the income from the $300B assets were in the form of securities that were protected from the bank seizure in bankruptcy remote trusts, Wamu's main income generating business essentially survived 2008 WMB takeover and has been operating in safe harbor since...
Unlike Wachovia, which was forced to sell itself entirely to Wells Fargo at a discount in 2008
My estimation for final return to escrow:
$50B to $80B
no, i meant the tax deadline for the pass trogh entities.
Anyone suspecting this delay is timed with the tax filing deadline?
RD, it always amazed me how this $174B raise by JPM is not big news. I dont know if any of this is meant for Wamu escrow but it is highly suspicious how they are raising this privately in a combination of debt and stock. What do they need that much cash for?
LG, are you saying you no longer believe in 75/25 to the end?
JPM and FDIC did not and will not control bankruptcy remote assets. Those assets are controlled by various trustees of the spvs collecting interest. They are not under FDIC or JPM or the LT control.
We never released those trustees
I agree to a certain extent except FDIC is the government and they can break the law without anyone getting fired. The various banks acting as trustee for the ABS securities are private enterprise, and such there will be heads to roll scenario if such blatant robbery as not returning our bankruptcy remote assets were to occur.
Again, it is possible for robbery if there is only one trustee and a bunch of retail investors. but it is an impossible conspiracy, for multiple trustees to rob us and all the hedgies agreeing to such action. too many parties involved to make that conspiracy possible.
LG, that is a valid point I have been pondering. We may have to sign another release for bankruptcy remote assets when they are disclosed.
The LT did say in their Q/A that the escrow markers by themselves dont gurantee returns.
Maybe there will be a short release period like last time for signing releases for banruptcy remote assets in the near future.
Maybe that is the reason why we continue to see posters here claiming zero returns...to discourage old estate investors from paying anymore attention and hence miss the opportunity to sign releases again for the bankruptcy remote assets...afterall, it takes a lot of determination to keep following this for over 10 years.
LG, all I'm trying to point out is how can you sign for releases for assets that were not disclosed. Your signed release is for something in return. If that something included potential bankruptcy remote ABS assets then it should have been included in the release disclosure...just like they included language to include potential future lawsuit wins like the Libor lawsuit in the release disclosure.
No such disclosure language were included in the 2012 release document for potential bankruptcy remote assets.
You cannot legally sign for something that was not part of the legal consideration for "returns for release" consoderation.
Thats like you signing the 2012 release and then asking the judge today for JPM stock today. "Judge, I thought the releases inclided JPM stock?"
Judge's response: " No such return was mentioned for your release!"
I agree it is important for Walrath to be incorruptible but I also think we have a few more neutral parties in our favor...chiefly the various trustees in charge of the trusts collecting interests from the remote bankruptcy ABS. If those various trustees are also corruptible then the whole securities market is in jeopardy...because investors wont be able to trust anyone to invest in ABS.
LG, you cannot sign releases for remote bankruptcy assets that were not disclosed. In fact, this is sort of reinforced recently with the LT Q&A only addressing potential assets for 75/25 return as those that are currently left in the LT (37 mil) and those that could potentially return from the FDIC Libor lawsuit. They specifically odentifird those sources but did not address anything that could be bankruptcy remote. If 75/25 applies to everything, they would simply state "all future assets returning to the estate".
I asked ItsMyOption to follow up with an email asking to clarify this. He asked the LT if they had any "knowledge" of any potential returns other than what remains in LT plus potential Libor lawsuit win that would financially benefit escrow markers and there was no response.
Its a simple question that they cannot answer because our releases only applied to assets that were disclosed at the time of signing. That included all the LT had in 2012 plus potential future lawsuit wins such as the Libor suit.
You cannot release for assets that were not disclosed - bankruptcy remote assets. If such release did happe , then the release would state "all future returns to the estate including bankruptcy remote assets".
The only questions now are when the bankruptcy remote assets do return,
1) will they benefit those shareholders that did not release? or
2) will the estate require us to sign another release for the newly disclosed bankruptcy remote assets?
Jerry, do you believe WMB securatized a majority of its loans? Per sec regulation, the securitizing bank cannot retain any of the securities. The securitizing bank can only service. For Wamu, this meant any retained interests of its securitized loans would have to be held at the parent corp WMI or its subsidiaries -- cannot be held at WMB.
JPM stated they only purchased WMB assets, none of WMI...we know from the last 2007 10k that WMI filed, that it held loan interests of about 300B with 2.9% interest margin..so unless FDIC confiscated them..there should be plenty of interest collecting in remote bankruptcy trusts.
LG, I agree. I am still very hopeful that we hear about the end game within a month. Otherwise, the LT wouldnt have rushed to pay off Tranche 4, the day after the EC appeal ti.ed out. We must be very close to the end.
I'm just a little disappointed with the no announcement from COOP today. Maybe since so much time has passed for liquidation, there are not much assets left for Coop to do some sort of deal with the estate. So maybe Coop will not benefit from the end game.
AZ, LT may not be in control of the remote bankruptcy assets but they are likely aware of when those assets will be released...and they have been controlling the delay tactics accordingly to that schedule.
So EC conclusion and almost immediate payoff of Tranche 4 thereafter would mean, we are very close to the end game.
Maybe COOP will no longer be able to benefit feom that conclusion...perhaps all the ABS have been liquidated.