Democracy starts with you, tag your it! ...Thom Hartman
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.
Think about it this way: There are 2 separate bankruptcies still, jointly administered for 'efficiency'. FACT
1) BK filed in Delaware first. #1. WMI INVESTMENT (WMIIC)
2) BK filed in Delaware second. #2. WMI Washington Mutual Inc. (now WMIH) The 'public face' of WaMu.
What if 75/25, and the historical removal of APR to include equity, really is just results of POR7 for debtor WMI in BK#2.
As a separate debtor in BK#1, what if WMI Investment's (WMIIC) POR followed traditional APR. And as BK#1 for WMIIC listed no debts or creditors, the only one to collect the spoils would be commons.
Think about this. Remember the MB push to switch your investment to H's (piers). Then last minute, the MB push was to switch to Preferreds, and sell your Commons - which some did in the last seconds before the re-org.......but what you saw was millions of Commons being bought, antithetically to the MB piper's push to do the opposite. WHY? because the dirty inside trading secret at the time, might've been due to WMIIC having its own POR in BK#1, than WMI did in BK#2 which was pushed and pumped as the public face for trading.
Further, why would MW who only held commons, shaft his own investment with 75/25 throughout, if he had any inkling something was coming back, versus nothing. He had the AAOC over the barrel on inside trading back then - and I never took MW, to be a noodle. Preet Bharra was on a rampage during this time, and probably would've loved some higher profile scalps.
Ultimate bait-n-switch....again.
Thanks to Tanj and Mattchew for rooting this out. Brilliant.
To me, this is a new quantum leap in the right direction of our understanding. I've been struggling with MW and all the leverage he should've had in mediation, to let his initial investment in commons be subjugated to 75/25 as a whole. Not to mention the millions of commons shares trading in the last days before re-ord confirmation. Something just hasn't jived in my mind.
What your suggesting actually makes sense to me! A view that would explain MW getting properly rewarded for his initial investment, and explain the heavy trading in Uq commons the day before re-org.......2 things that never made sense to me, considering the leverage I think we had in mediation.
Since there were 2 bankruptcies....... Any chance the WMI BK#2 residue ONLY, is addressed by WMILT, the 75/25, and tracking markers for cash and/or shares. And WMIIC bk#1 residue just comes straight from dissolving WMIIC to holders as cash, skipping WMILT, not 75/25. Preferreds at their limit, and remainder to commons?
Could be!
In the WMILT billing, Also paid 3rd quarter is Beacon Law Advisors. http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229161025000000000002
Beacon Law Advisors Christopher Bifone,[size=12pt] worked for Washington Mutual Bank 2004-2009 as an FVP, Mortgage Compliance Attorney.
Until you provide the 'Post to Close', the 2 bankruptcies, jointly administered, are not over. I have not seen either with a request to close from Walrath.
Exactly. "Jointly Administered" is plastered throughout the bankruptcy filings.
No it didn't, you're getting soft lately. There's been ZERO filings to terminate the TWO bankruptcy filings of WMI INVESTMENT and WMI. Walrath just signed a document today for crying out loud. What is this board coming too?
yep. I've been here a looooong time. And corresponded and strategized with them privately many times. I find it nice to revisit. OLD does not equal IRELLEVANT.
Thanks for the laugh. "Administratively consolidated" isnt what you think it means.
The WMI INVESTMENT (WMIIC) lobbying documents state this is specifically for bankruptcy #1 WMI Investment (WMIIC).
Newco/Oldco/WMI bankruptcy #2 which became re-orged into WMIH was not listed. Rosen did everything he could to spend or give away WMI's money in bk#2, so He wouldn't of minded WMI being billed.
But that's not what happened. WMI Investment bk#2 paid it on behalf of itself. Alvarez & Marsal paid this bill as they manage WMIIC separately since 2008, 'nuns pro tunc.'
It is interesting that WMI Investment (=> WMIIC) paid Mark Kadesh and Christian Kiereg (Kadesh & Associates) $162k to lobby Sen. Moynihan, Rep. Harmon, and Diane Feistein in California for a couple years (2009-2010) during bankruptcy, such as:
"8/26/09 Kadesh & Assoc WMI Investment Corp. Issue: Bankruptcy View registration"
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/firm/kadesh-assoc?order=-registrant
3 here totaling $100k in one year. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client_reports.php?id=D000058680&year=2010
"Mr. Kadesh has extensive legislative and political experience and insights gained from his public policy career, including sixteen years working on Capitol Hill. For seven years he served as Chief of Staff to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)."
"Mr. Kierig is highly knowledgeable of the internal workings of the appropriations process and with issues unique to California and Western States. For eight years, he served as Legislative Assistant for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) where he was responsible for handling the Senator's membership on the Senate Appropriations Committee."
http://www.kadeshdc.com/mark_kadesh.cfm
Must have been something more than nothing to be worth lobbying Congress. Why Diane Feinstein specifically? What is the connection between WaMu Investments, California, Feinstein, and Kadesh & Kierig who knew this powerful senator and had her ear.....WaMu Investments obviously hired Kadesh & Kierig for a specific reason.
Not saying you're wrong, BUT there were 2 bankruptcies filed and re-organized. There were.....2 separate and distinct debtors - who Walrath allowed to run concurrently for 'effficiency'.
WMI Investment (now WMIIC) filed bankruptcy #1, FIRST. No creditors or debts. Completely protected from its parent's subsequent bk filing. Protected from its parents BK creditors and debts.
then,
WMI (now WMIH) filed bankruptcy #2 afterwards. $32B in Assets and $8B in liabilities. This is the BK some wish we'd ONLY talk about. This BK #2 resulted in WMIH shares, tracking markers, and any residue from not only the WMI estate, but for its subsidiary WMI Investment, who filed for BK first - ONLY for those who released.
IRS Quoted: "The Plan consists of distinct Chapter 11 plans that apply separately to each Debtor..." can also be true in our case.
only Q2 tho right?
Not much clearer after Live Chat. She seems confused by end of it. I will follow up later with Fixed Equities dept..
my question:
"12:08:07 PM : XxxxXxx: Initial Question: Fixed Income page on my account - re:
939ESC992
WA FUNDING TR III XXX D05/24/07 6.895% MS99 ESCROW POSITION
I'm curious why above shows up as a clickable bond investment in Fixed Income, versus showing up in the Equities, like my other escrows?"
12:12:34 PM : Her.: Hello from Denver and welcome to chat! I'm happy to help you.
12:12:39 PM : Her.: One moment while I bring up and review your account please.
12:12:45 PM : ME: thx
12:14:25 PM : Her.: That's a great question. I'm not exactly sure. Let me call my fixed income team
12:19:38 PM : Her: Thank you so much for your patience! I was told one was a preferred stock and one was not, so that's the reason for the separation.
12:21:05 PM : ME: Thanks. I understand where they came from, but is its placement within a category like fixed income indicative of what return could is/could come back to it?
12:24:41 PM : Her.: Ok, as being different issues of bonds, the one listed under equities went bankrupt, so they're leaving the position there as a bookmark for future possible payments
12:26:09 PM : ME: in other words, if the original shares in bonds received interest distributions, does its escrow replacement placement in bonds signify it will only receive future income reflective of its past history and current placement right now?
12:27:19 PM : Her.: potentially yes. With bonds, are higher in the hierarchy when receiving funds during bankruptcy. One of them was originally a stock or a preferred share, not a bond, which is why its showing up under the equities
12:27:38 PM : ME: to clarify, The ones in my equities reflected common shares in a Bankrupt company. The ones in my bonds/fixed income reflect preferred shares in the same bankrupt company.
12:28:09 PM : Her: Yes, its the same company, but different issues
12:29:40 PM : ME: so tracking markers reflect what they were, not necessarily what they may become? So upon any future directive from the liquidating trust - changes would then be made and the preferred markers could end up somewhere else like equities?
12:30:59 PM : Her.: Yes, any preferred are going to be under equities and bonds under fixed income. So even if it weren't bankrupt, if it were a preferred, it would be listed under equities
12:31:50 PM : ME ok thanks for your help in understanding what the heck these things are. Just wondering when and if.....
12:32:29 PM : Her.: I agree. It was somewhat confusing. If you'd like any further clarification, you're welcome to chat in with us at any time.
Thanks Bru!.... and I do understand what has been researched and why,.......but I can't reconcile just this one little thing, lol, in my mind, based on what I see in my account. Schwab is no fly-by-night operator. Steady, conservative, been around for a while......I don't see them so easily screwing up escrow placement within wrong web trading pages....if they change it, then I'll change my mind.
This is completely 8-ball imo, but something doesnt fit......and I'm trying to make sense of it.
It makes ZERO sense to me 'STRUCTURALLY', to put P Preferreds escrows in Bonds page if there is a 75/25 split....I mean look at the cusip description on the bonds page:
"939ESC992
WA FUNDING TR III XXX D05/24/07 6.895% MS99 ESCROW POSITION
Its a description of the P's original security description, but its living in my Schwab bonds trading page. How can it get a smorgasbord of potential cash/assets values blended into these bonds, that appear to be tradeable at some point in the future?
It makes me think structurally, that either:
1) what Tanj is saying is true - 75/25 was only for initial WMIH distributions, and then any subsequent LT distributions follow original prospectus and APR...(would MW really have shafted his own Uq only position? - as we believe he/Esopus/Owl Creek knew from the get-go where the loot was....)
OR
2) the only way to explain P escrows in bonds trading page with a 75/25 split, (other than a stupid Schwab mistake), is there must be some future hybrid security taking the 75% and reducing it into a bond-like tradeable security?
BWTFDIK....
QUOTE: "Wouldn't that mean maximum of par ($1000 per P, and $25 per K, and U's unlimited) for distribution?
Was the 75/25 split only for the amount of WMIH shares? "
What's interesting about your question, is it's something I've wondered about for some time.........Why do my P escrows show up on my bonds trading page, yet my U escrows show up in Stocks/Equities, where my WMIH share distributions went?
I can click on my P Escrow cusip and it pops open a new window in Bonds to start trading it. Of course the value now is zero, so there is nothing to trade, yet, but why structurally are the P escrows in bonds trading.
I can't support it yet, but my instincts have lead me to wonder for a while now, if your quote above is indeed true. Because that's the only thing that makes sense with what I observe at Schwab and where the different escrows live.
haha, machine gun approach. just splattering lead around. I'll hit something here and there.
Interesting point.....if you knew ahead of time NOLSs weren't going to be used, because something was coming back soon large enough to void the NOLs, maybe you just say, F.it, and jump the line of scrimmage early cause who cares.
In other words, if you knew it wasn't really an organic growth (lol) NOL play, and a big event was near, why care about the NOLs?
Killer! thanks for putting the other half together.
Yes Pre-Trial Conference appears and now gone. Same as claims on kccllc yesterday. Scrivenors Error 'glitches'.
Original Mattchew post 464948
"Document Name: Transcript regarding Hearing Held 10/12/2016 RE: Pretrial Conference. Remote electronic access to the transcript is restricted until 1/12/2017. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office. [For information about how to contact the transcriber, call the Clerk's Office] or [Contact the Court Reporter/Transcriber Veritext, Telephone number (888)706-4576.] . Notice of Intent to Request Redaction Deadline Due By 10/21/2016. Redaction Request Due By 11/4/2016. Redacted Transcript Submission Due By 11/14/2016. Transcript access will be restricted through 1/12/2017. (BJM)"
highly selective memory. curious indeed which parts.
I bet the hearing was regarding the only remaining adversary claims....the remaining employee claims being settled..redacted because the terms of settlement amounts are private.
.....the sole remaining adversary case involving Youkelston, Bozzuti, Bach, Mileur, Berens, Fukui, Zarro, Sharma, Malone, Morgan, Browning, Tierney, Darakhoviskiy, and Bjorklund.
Judge Walrath was ordering status reports in May and June of this year regarding the other open adversarial cases, which are now all closed, except the above.
The BK is wrapping up finally.
I just messaged Ilene, if she's not under court order Kirsten Grind style, maybe she can respond.
Ilene from Delaware Shareholder services around today?
I hear elevator music, when I read that the 'image will be availble soon'
"Quote:
Prior to 2010, a common practice was to transfer financial assets to a related entity (a securitization trust, typically) that would qualify as a QSPE, which under then-extant GAAP would always be excluded from consolidation by the sponsoring entity."
I like the quote in the context of WMI's 2008 10-k listing $240B in "Mortgages Held In Portfolio".
If financial assets transferred (I say pledged) to a QSPE are "excluded from consolidation by the sponsoring entity", then that $240B held in portfolio, really is 'Held In Portfolio' - otherwise its "excluded from consolidation by the sponsoring entity".
Something weird is going on. Ever since this afternoon, I've cycled through the same names and get different randomn results. Sometimes FDIC shows, and rhen it doesn't. Same with the others.
I got home tonight, cleared browser history, went to KCCLLC again in a new tab, and now no FDIC nor WMB claims.
Total scriveners error stuff. It all went wonky after BK asked people to click on his KCCLLC link. All day prior to BK's link, it was consistently void of all FDIC, JPM, WMB claims together in the search function.
I now wonder if his POA extension is for real now........gonna have to look into that when I got some time.
Could be. And that list is from a post of mine two years ago on how the Claims appeared before they disappeared
It's the new scriveners error !!
and every FDIC claim.
and every WMB note holder claim.
hmmmmmm, its like all those old castle doors to prevent the appearance of any money in BK, are now wide open
and by the way, every single JPMC claim has disappeared:
Claimant Claim No. Debtor Claim Amount
JPMC 2343 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2369 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2370 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2373 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2376 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2377 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2382 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2384 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2395 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2507 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2551 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2553 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2559 WMI Unliquidated
JPMorgan Securities Inc. 2583 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2609 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2611 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2786 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2787 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2788 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2790 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2791 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2958 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2994 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2997 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 2999 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3001 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3008 WMI Unliquidated
Second and Union LLC 3010 WMI Unliquidated
WaMu Capital Corp. 3021 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3023 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3121 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3168 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3259 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3260 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3261 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3262 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3263 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3264 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3265 WMI Unliquidated
JPMorgan Securities Inc. 3268 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC 3361 WMI Unliquidated
Second and Union LLC 3389 WMI Unliquidated
JPMC Wind Investment LLC 2535 WMIIC Unliquidated
JPMC Wind Investment Portfolio LLC 2541 WMIIC Unliquidated
JPMC 3267 WMIIC Unliquidated
Not to mention Alvarez & Marsal's quarterly billings in the hundreds of thousands........for nothing?
LMAO. There is something there. Question is how long can they keep playing the shell game? Seems to me the clock is nearly ran out finally.
no there were never any facts to back up JPM and FDIC $54B claims. Obvious to me is they are mortgage related.
FDIC says the bank receivership didn't cost them anything. JPM only cost was $1.9B. So what could the rest of the $50 ish billion claim come from? fear of liability from mortgage asset unwinding and servicing/ swaps/ CDOs.
However the receivership and seizure of BOTH bank and holding company mortgage related assets, left a big question mark on how far this mess would unwind and who would get burnt, and by how much.
I believe JPM and FDIC put these $54B claims to 1) hijack control of the holding co BK, through a GSA and 2) should mortgage armageddon meltdown fears ring true, they wanted to have senior priority over any potential residue from the BK in order to cover whatever claims actually came to roost.
Everyone knew the $54B claims were paper tigers, as was MARTA, etc. Kerry Killenger himself stated that losses were less than 10% in senate hearings. When you understand how mortgage assets are pledged to different pools at the same time vs. put-back liability, all you need to do is sub in a new 'player' (mortgage loan) from the bench.
With WMI's 2008 10-k listing $240 Billion loans "Held in Portfolio", < 10% losses are easily covered.
The fact that only these $54B JPM and FDIC claims have now disappeared off the KCCLLC claims register as if they never were ever there, tells me that that particular embarrassing and culpable line in the sand, needed to be removed. They dont need to look like the boy who cried wolf and then seized the oldest banking thrift in America, in proper 5th Amendment Taking fashion, would they?
Tracks are being covered! Ultimately I think its a good sign things are winding down. Just pay me already so I can move on from here, LOL.
Nothing else is removed from the bankruptcy file. Only the foundational $54B claims by JPM and FDIC that was the basis for the GSA ruled as reasonable by WAlrath, setting the direction of the BK.
Hundreds of other expunged claims remain. Major tracks being covered.
Not sure what it means, but JPMorgan, FDIC, and WMB claims that were shown as "expunged" on KCCLLC claims register for more than a year, are now all wiped clean off the face of the claims register as if they never existed..?!? Completely disappeared as if they never were filed.....
The JPM and FDIC $54B claims were the basis for the Global Settlement Agreement and why WAlrath deemed it reasonable.
Hundreds of other expunged claims remain like multiple 6 IRS and 2 FHLB.
Why have JPM, FDIC, and WMB disappeared into thin air, when others like IRS, and FHLB have not? Wiping tracks....
Not sure what it means, but JPMorgan, FDIC, and WMB claims that were shown as "expunged" on KCCLLC claims register for more than a year, are now all wiped clean off the face of the claims register as if they never existed..?!? Completely disappeared as if they never were filed.....
Other expunged claims remain like multiple IRS and 2 FHLB.
Why have JPM, FDIC, and WMB disappeared into thin air, when others like IRS, and FHLB have not? Wiping tracks....
He's hoping you will request your broker to remove your escrows from your account. You can't sell them or trade them, but you can get them removed.
Remember, escrow markers receive 1) cash and/or 2) WMIH shares.
Hopefully nobody has or will give up and request escrow removal, as a result of daily proclamations of zero value to come.
Its not about who wrote, (let the bank take that liability), but who 'purchased' or retained a tranche interest.
Wouldnt you as a holding company, push the liability downstream, and hold the cream? corporate veil protected...in WMI Investment.
WMI Investment files BK first.......its future securities interests and current assets became protected from WMI and its creditors, and the WMB sub receivership simultaneously. Bankruptcy Remote.
Piers returns has nothing to do with WMIIC income. Piers collects from run-off notes, taxes, etc. Per the plan, different series collect from different sources.
Great posts today, BTW. At a minimum, there is the value of the underlying mortgage portfolio left over, when each security investments time is up. I recall many are coming due in the next few years or so.
But I know, WMI consolidated kept a senior tranche interest as was required to even write up the deal. Heck, I just posted an article from 2016 where JPM is keeping 90% of the senior tranche.
I find it hard to believe WMI consolidated would pass up the same opportunity, being they were the ones who pretty much wrote the playbook.
Since 2007, Escrow positions became PREM eligible.............meaning the holder can request 'worthless' escrows be removed from their trading accounts. Further, after 6 years from establishment, there will be a $7 monthly charge to hold escrow cusips (for us, March 2018)
"Effective January 2, 2007, DTC will enable all existing Escrow CUSIPs, created as a result of a Mandatory Corporate Action, to become PREM eligible."
Meaning "eligible for the PREM function on PTS/PBS; thereby allowing participants to take those positions off their books and records."
There has been relentless "nothing for escrows" harpings here since day 1 of emergence. Have these POS been doing this to improve and up their potential ultimate ROI? or revenge?
How many have given up, or taken the PREM position in disgust over the last 5 years? Hopefully not many. Of course you can't sell them or trade them, BUT apparently you can have them removed.
Who comes on MBs daily to discourage hope for any returns? Could this be the motivation? If this drags on beyond March 2018, how many more longs will take advantage of PREM escrow removal to avoid paying over $50 annually, while waiting......
http://www.dtcc.com/search?q=escrow