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.
Probably FDIC........I did some DD on FDIC Structured Transaction sales for securitised mortgages last week. The FDIC creates an LLC to store the securities for the acquiror to M/A. The FDIC usually picks an LLC name representative of the holdings and type of sale.
For example, (my 8-ball hypothetical hunch) some of WMI's mortgage security subs WAAC and WMMSC, did use 3 WMI affiliates Thackeray Holdings, Thackeray Funding Corp, and Thackeray Funding Partners somewhere in the transaction......maybe to hold the actual notes...
In DE, there is a newly formed sub (2010?) called Thackeray III Bridge LLC. Could this be our SPV for an FDIC Structured Transaction?
I paid for the annual report history from DE. Of course Thackeray III Bridge LLC is still a current and an active corporation in Good Standing for 2015. By law, every corporation must file an annual report, to remain both Active and in Good Standing with the state of Delaware, however, the documents state ZERO Annual Reports on file ever since its inception? How is that possible???? Additionally there are ZERO Managing Members listed. It is literally a legal shell, somehow able to remain Active and in Good Standing with the State of Delaware, year after year since 2010..................who else could do that except........?
Remember WMIH is shortly going to do X,Y,Z in Delaware next month......maybe start with a Thackeray III Bridge LLC M/A?
Any connection or pure coincidence? My interest is incredibly piqued about this. And if there is one, there is probably a couple more somewhere.
Excellent Breakdown! I've been mulling over the FDIC's $151B claim also this month and it's significance. Just hadn't broken it down. Wow! Again!
I sure do! Right on my desk. I got a bottle ready to open with it when the first escrow dollar comes in!
Yes!
"Does the bold sentence "Assets owned by Subsidiares of the Failed Bank are not "Assets" within the meaning of this definition." in connection with chapter 3.1 mean, that mortgages owned by WMBfsb or other subsidiaries of WMI have never been sold to JPM, only the subsidiary itself (but without its assets)??? The assets of subsidiares are still with the FDIC-R?"
Liquid vs Illiquid assets.
If you need cash quick to satisfy regulators who are threatening to shut you down, you don't have time to liquidate the $240 BILLION in mortgages held in portfolio in 2007.
And WMI wasn't sold to TPG......clean up your details. TPG got shares in WMI and a board seat so Bonderman the consummate BK professional could orchestrate the 'perfect bankruptcy' with some last minute blending and mixing up WMI subsidiaries in 2005 and 2006.
It was a brilliant plan, knowing mortgage securities are not up for grabs in bankruptcy, rather the FDIC's mandate is too keep mortgage securities in safe harbour as part of an orderly wind down.
Where Bonderman is brilliant is these $240B in mortgages held in portfolio on WMI books, were mostly the collateral upon which the massive REMIC Trust pools were built ---THE KEY HERE, is that the offering circulars for the Wamu REMICs specifically state that the collateral is NOT part of the sale to investors, rather the property and the note, is held by WMB and WMBfsb. The REMIC investors were KNOWINGLY buying UN-collatorized securities. They were only buying a portion of the income stream generated form the $240B mortgages held in portfolio.
Facts and Links from an earlier post:
Quote from: boarddork on March 06, 2015, 09:29:51 PM
Its not that hard to find this stuff, despite a lot of 'opinion' to the contrary. Again this is $4 Billion in first lein senior notes only, retained by WaMu despite being 'sold'.
"Custodial Agreement
Pursuant to a custodial agreement, dated as of August 22, 2005, among Washington Mutual Bank fsb (the ""Custodian''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Servicer, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, (the ""Custodial Agreement''), the Custodian will retain possession of and review the Mortgage notes and files for the Trust."
FACT: JPM only got servicing rights.
Either:
1) In this group of mortgages, totaling $4B, clearly they are held by WMBfsb, and belong to the estate after WMB bills are paid to FDIC admn and bondholders. Or
2) Upon reading the PA&A, "a"ssets within the "A"ssets of WMI were not part of the whole bank purchase, unless JPM wants to pay for them later. IMO, mortgage assets are not Assets, they are assets of the Assets.
Below is just a $4Billion example of a REMIC Trust - Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit. $100s of Billions of DB and LaSalle securities were also REMIC trusts (remember what REMIC Trust is? empty! naked! no collatoral mortgage assets to back the investors investment - as disclosed when sold).
http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/data/05s001oc.pdf The Seller is WMB/ WMBfsb and the Custodian holding the note, undelivered (empty trust), is WMBfsb. This $4B never made it to the investors. It stayed with the bank, JPM only got servicing rights.
"Possession by a Subsequent Purchaser of the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages Could Defeat the Interests of the Trust in the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages.
The Trustee will not have physical possession of the mortgage notes and mortgages related to the Mortgages in the Trust. In addition, the Trustee will not conduct any independent review or examination of the related mortgage Ñles. Instead, to facilitate servicing and reduce administrative costs, Washington Mutual Bank fsb, one of the Sellers of the Mortgages and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank, the servicer of the Mortgage Loans, will retain possession of and will review the mortgage notes and mortgages as custodian for the Trust and financing statements will be filed on behalf of Freddie Mac evidencing the Trust's interest in the Mortgage Loans. The mortgage notes will be endorsed in blank (and will not be endorsed to the Trust) and no assignment of the Mortgages to the Trust will be prepared. If a subsequent purchaser were able to take physical possession of the mortgage notes and mortgages without knowledge of the transfer of the Mortgages to the Trust, the interests of the Trust in the mortgage notes and mortgages could be defeated. In that event, distributions to Certificateholders may be adversely affected."
Cashmere Valley Bank vs. WA state dept of Revenue reaffirms in the Washington State Supreme Court, that REMIC securitizations, specifically ones WAMU generated and Cashmere Valley Bank bought, have no backing mortgage collateral. These trusts are empty.
The $240B mortgages held in portfolio by WMI, are the mortgages these naked uncollatorlized REMIC trusts were written for. DB (the lawsuit) purchased these, as did LaSalle.
Note that WMIs last filings show separate lines for MBS for sale and loans for sale, in which case the underlying collateral was sold to the investors (opposite of REMIC MBS). Less than $30B.
Further proof below, that the MBS loans stayed in WAMU's possession and were NEVER delivered to the Trusts when securitized.......the loans stayed with WAMU.....this ones $4Billion. All legal, fully disclosed to the investors - essentially only a mortgage 'trust' in name, not function.
Its not that hard to find this stuff, despite a lot of 'opinion' to the contrary. Again this is $4 Billion in notes retained by WaMu despite being 'sold'
"Custodial Agreement
Pursuant to a custodial agreement, dated as of August 22, 2005, among Washington Mutual Bank fsb (the ""Custodian''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Servicer, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, (the ""Custodial Agreement''), the Custodian will retain possession of and review the Mortgage notes and files for the Trust." BOOM!
FACT: We know JPM only got servicing rights.
In this group of mortgages, totaling $4B, clearly they are held by WMBfsb, and belong to the estate after WMB bills are paid to FDIC admn and bondholders.
http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/data/05s001oc.pdf The Seller is WMB/ WMBfsb and the Custodian holding the note, undelivered (empty trust), is WMBfsb. This $4B never made it to the investors. It stayed with the bank, JPM only got servicing rights.
"Possession by a Subsequent Purchaser of the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages Could Defeat the Interests of the Trust in the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages.
The Trustee will not have physical possession of the mortgage notes and mortgages related to the Mortgages in the Trust. In addition, the Trustee will not conduct any independent review or examination of the related mortgage files. Instead, to facilitate servicing and reduce administrative costs, Washington Mutual Bank fsb, one of the Sellers of the Mortgages and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank, the servicer of the Mortgage Loans, will retain possession of and will review the mortgage notes and mortgages as custodian for the Trust and financing statements will be filed on behalf of Freddie Mac evidencing the Trust's interest in the Mortgage Loans. The mortgage notes will be endorsed in blank (and will not be endorsed to the Trust) and no assignment of the Mortgages to the Trust will be prepared. If a subsequent purchaser were able to take physical possession of the mortgage notes and mortgages without knowledge of the transfer of the Mortgages to the Trust, the interests of the Trust in the mortgage notes and mortgages could be defeated. In that event, distributions to Certificateholders may be adversely affected."
There are plenty more examples of this out there. There were $222B mortgages held in portfolio in 2008. This example is $4B of them.
KABOOM! and I love my escrows!
For me at Schwab, since day 1, my escrows have always been placed and held in my Fixed Income page (with bonds, MBS), not in Cash, Money Market, or Equities.
Peculiar no?
I find it peculiar that escrow shares are held as Fixed Income (bonds, MBs,) rather than in my Cash or Equities accounts.
Quite peculiar indeed......
LMAO as well, each theory gone, is actually a step in how the FDIC winds down and reconciles the receivership and resolution of WMB.
He'll be a new shiny happy people person soon when he's not sold short.
I absolutely agree. The timing of the $100B shedding of 'deposits' media articles first, and then a couple days later, the JPM 10k OFF-BALANCE SHEET deposits.
JPM shareholders have been warned, cash is leaving the building....although it never was 'in the building' when it was off-balance sheet and most JPM shareholders won't even notice its gone, cause they never knew it was there.
misdirection and out of context per usual. Must be really sold short.
$78B Repaid means those who refinanced, paid back the portfolio loans WITH CASH. JPM had a captive audience to cherry pick the best loans, and offer refi's to.....
$49B Liquidated means foreclosed at a loss. What happens in a foreclosure sale? CASH
$38B are still mortgages being service by JPM. WMIH will be leveraging those assets in short time.
The PA&A ending September 2014. Things are really coming together nicely. Following the bread crumb trail all these years is going to pay off nicely for WMIH. Twice as good if one is holding escrow markers, and yes they are actually labeled 'escrow' for those who don't have any.
Thanks for playing Mr. O, its gonna get harder to spin each and every day now.
Not on BK's rug,...man. LMAO!
shot bru,
the dude.
Theres still $38B in private-label Washington Mutual mortgages left off-balance sheet per JPM 10k, that JPM is servicing. About $8B or less are delinquent. This is in excess of the $127B that Tanja is correctly identifying as cash to WMILT, imo.
WMILT has no mechanism to monetized or liquidate the $38B in assets. But if they sold them to WMIH via some cash or notes or etc?, then WMIH/KKR could potentially take these $38B in mortgage assets, manage and leverage them 5-10x or more..............
Then what is WMIH worth? $200-300B? They go out and buy some more mortgages asset pools? Who knows. Big bucks for sure, and if WMIH buys from WMILT in some form of notes, than escrow holders could receive residual income from that purchase for years to come, on top of any WMIH appreciation.
WMIH conveniently picked a mortgage reinsurance sub to rally and re-emerge with. WMIH still hasn't canceled many of WMI's existing PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) relationships with a few carriers - why? Cause we got mortgages, and not just a handfull!!
KKR is not here for some silly NOLs. They are here for something big. If they just needed NOLs, they don't need us piddly shareholders to split profits with.
I think the WMIH/KKR deal is going to be massive.
I've had multiple real estate ventures, each within a separate liability protected bubble, each with its own name, books, legals, and filings.
When the project is complete, sold, monies received, and value extracted, the empty shell is not needed, once the liability period has passed.
The business license isn't renewed, you post and file as closed, and it disappears and is no longer reported in your consolidated books.
Same as here, with WMI's old servicing subs that went with JPM. JPM extracted the servicing value sold to them, the FDIC/WMILT gets a return on any assets sold to JPM or any non-cash assets returned, and the empty shell becomes inactive and is no longer a part of the consolidated filings.
Because of this, we are REALLY CLOSE! imo
Fletch "Riddle me this: If JPMC bought the whole bank then all the cash on hand and the cash raised from mortgage liquidation would belong to to JPMC and would have been moved to their current balance sheet (Not the off balance sheet). Since JPMC carries these cash and remaining mortgages on their off balance sheet they must belong to someone else, but who. "
Exactly 1000%
REMEMBER MARCH 10th. Don't get caught selling out of all your WMIH when the gates close soon.
All aboard time, IMO. GLTE
Subject to the PAA, Section 3.1. and the whole "a"assets within the "A"ssets excluded and not sold.
Whole Bank was never, the whole bank.
HLCE
Do you think they'd really want to hear hundreds of shareholders bi$$ing and moaning at the shareholder meeting?
I'd release some info first before the shareholder meeting so I didn't have to hear the whining.
DOLLARTOWN USA !! imo. Congrats Unicorns! Another link in the chain complete. JPM had to reveal their OFF-BALANCE SHEET report now that the PAA wrapped up Sept. 2014.
Now watching for a WMILT 8k............................
There is court testimony from an FDIC analyst (Thorne testimony I think?) who saw and used in performing his job, a 118 page WAMU PAA. To enter this FDIC document into evidence, all parties had to sign a confidentiality agreement, AND all parties had to agree to sign. Naturally JPM refused as they already know what it contains, and the 118 page PAA remains sealed.
MB ostriches say the longer version mentioned in foreclosure defense court cases is simply the 'execution copy' you can read on Scribd. IMO that version appears longer because it is typewritten and double spaced and includes emails, blank pages, and lots of redactions.......IMO it was just the rough draft of the 45 page pretty version on the FDIC website.
I believe the 188 page document testified under oath in court, is the complete PAA, describing in more detail how and what JPM's servicing agreements, etc, and most everything we speculate about based on FDIC mandated procedure.......it's the missing link absolutely, IMO. Just as it was sealed and under gag order I this court, IMO it's partially what Susman marched into chambers that day.
Semantic games are transparent to everyone here who actual read the FDIC links I and others have posted.
'reconciliation' is just a description of an actual process the FDIC uses to 'balance the receivership checkbook' at the end of the day. Its not a 'gotcha' moment to cluck over.
You may refer to the FDIC crossing of i's and dotting of t's however you want...............For example, FDIC reconciliation is the process by which many found out that horrible decisions were made by not releasing as advised by SG/MW, in which no escrow markers were received into trading accounts and such regret causes continual consternation and gnashing of teeth on a daily basis.
It is simply accounting for assets and liabilities - reconciling the books.
no. The IDI is WMB. WMI entered BK.
Anything belonging to WMI, will be returned, as the FDIC has/had ZERO jurisdiction to sell or convey anything belonging to WMI, to JPM. Also including certain "a"ssets within the "A"sset subs of WMB that were NOT sold to JPM in the 'not so whole bank' PAA.
They shouldn't, because they will have a symbiotic relationship soon. One will enrich the other.
Court documents and the EC commentary can only reflect the 'rifle scope' view of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. The Equity Committee can only comment on the parameters before them, as stated in DE BK law.
And in this BK, equity not getting wiped out, was fair and reasonable. SG and the EC kindly gave us a huge clue, when Hotchberg the examiner disclaimered that the mortgage portfolio assets could NOT be valued for the purposes of the Bankruptcy.
SG knew the Examiner report would fail in that it only followed DE BK allowances. All SG needed was 'proof' as stated in Hotchberg's disclaimer.
It's amazing what is written in the footnotes......all throughout this case.
Agree. the court docs provide a rifle scope view to ONLY what is in the range of the bk courts jurisdiction.
Court documents will never speculate or rule on what it doesn't have the power or authority to rule on.
MBS are only about $18B out of $240B in mortgage value.
AGAIN, A very small quantity of the mortgages were securitized - from the FDIC's own website. Only 18.9b. $222b were held in excess, unsecuritized, unsold to investors, held in portfolio.
Everything wasn't sold as MBS. VERY FEW mortgages held in portfolio were actually sold to others.....Quarter ending 6/30/2008
https://www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/06302008/tfr/tfrsc.asp
1) MBS mortgages sold = $18.9 Billion
2) Mortgages in Portfolio $222.6 Billion lent with their own money, not guaranteed to others.
3) FHLB loans 58 billion, a liability
Said another way.......
all $18.9B of them.......unless they are REMIC trusts that WMI designed to intentionally sell income interests on uncollatorallized securities.
The other $222 Billion of mortgages were held in portfolio.
Again, What is 'Mortgages held in Portfolio'? http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/28593.htm
"Portfolio Loans
Portfolio loans are mortgages that are held as an investment by the lender. Usually they hold on to the loan because it doesn't fit the underwriting guidelines for investors on the secondary market. (i.e. securitized, packaged and sold for secondary market)
There really is no advantage to having your mortgage held by a portfolio lender. The rates are usually the same the only difference is that the mortgage usually will not be sold off many times over the life of the loan.
Many times a portfolio lender will have programs or different guidelines that are not typical of loans that are sold on the secondary market which follow FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. Therefore you may be able to sometimes obtain a certain home loan program that you may not normally be able to obtain due to your certain situation, by going with a lender that offers a portfolio loan.
Portfolio loans are mortgage loans in which a lender will loan their own money and have minimal plans of selling the loan or transferring servicing to another bank or lender. Often times, portfolio loans will have something different to them that makes it unique to another bank such as the mortgage note being based on a different index.
Lenders that are portfolio lenders often have very conservative guidelines. This is because they plan on holding the loan for the long term.
Portfolio lenders are usually more flexible in their underwriting guidelines. When lenders hold and service their own loans, they have the ability to work outside the box and approve exceptions that typical lenders may not.
While portfolio lenders may be more flexible with their lending guidelines, they can be more conservative on things like: the types of properties they lend on, the Loan to Value (LTV) ratios, the appraisal and review. Since they intend to keep the loan, in the event they have to foreclose they want to make sure that the property will resell, quickly, and for at least what they lent on the property.
Using a broker is a big plus here because they can look at portfolio loans and non portfolio loans to find you the best deal along with the product you are looking for.
Portfolio loans are often kept in a banks "portfolio" because they are not readily marketable to Wall Street investors for one reason or another. Because banks take longer to recoup they capital with Portfolio Loans, this type of loans often carry higher interest rates than "cookie cutter" loans.
The FDIC link above shows what was securitized, and what was held in portfolio (unsold to others, loaned with WMI's own money), not sold to JPM in the P&A ("A"assets versus "a"assets in Section 3.1), and lastly the JPM DOJ settlement agreement Line 13 - JPM only sold the loan servicing rights.
WHERE Purchase and Assumption Agreement section 3.1 - "a"ssets within "A"assets (certain assets of WMI subsidiaries not sold with the "whole bank")
It's been right there in the P&A for 6 years. Section 3.1. "Assets" sold versus "assets" not included in the sale.
The assets WITHIN EACH of the Asset subsidiaries of WMB were not part of the sale price. One of a few valuable things this includes is mortgages held in portfolio throughout various WMB subs such as WAAC, WMMSC, WMBfa, WMBfsb, etc.
This is not including and on top of any assets WMI holds, because we all know that holding company assets can't be illegally seized, but can be held in safe harbor by the FDIC per it's mandate, to protect those assets from creditors in bankruptcy.
also.....
WMBfsb is missing about $40B of money that wasn't retail customer deposits.....is that a "A" or "a"
Etc. etc.
JPM only purchased the servicing rights of WMI,WMB, WMBFA, WMBfsb, Long Beach, WAAC, WMMSC, etc per the WMB P&A and further confirmed in the DOJ settlement agreement Line 13. of http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/51720131119202421482972.pdf Whereas certain mortgages held in portfolio were not sold to JPM.
KKR is going to supersize our BigMac, any day now.
I think Bondsman, the experienced BK professional, who got a seat on the WMI board, planned out this whole BK.
Using the FDIC-R to legally screen the mortgages till the game is over, like a fullback uses a referee to juke the defense and break away.
He has been too quiet.......wouldnt want his hands caught in that cookie jar. He wouldn't have been IT trading at some point either in this mix if trading records were pulled, lol.
JPM didn't buy the mortgages. The FDIC has them temporarily. JPM didn't buy the 'whole bank'. They bought the brick and mortar branch/atm, deposits within, and the loan servicing rights to empty uncollaterallized security trusts and loan servicing of WAMU's massive mortgages held in portfolio.
They "made a payment" (Sept 25, 2008 press release) about 1% of the WAMU deposit liability, the going rate.
Per the PAA, JPM could still make another "payment" for these other assets, but their broke @$$ can't afford what me and my friends are asking for it, lol.
Turns out KKR's got a much sweeter deal.......than that Bankster Jaimie could ever pay.
Its a consolidated filing. All subs upstream data to the parent. The data isn't pulled outta there @$$.
Between Iron Mountain, AT&T, all subs books, forensic accounting, and all the 3rd party professionals the FDIC uses to reconcile and resolve a receivership, etc.
Our future unreleased claims against FDIC-R as a 5th Amendment Taking of Property will be filed, if every dollar isn't accounted for!
Here is an interesting list of every sub-contractor hired by the FDIC to handle all receivership assets such retirement plans, mortgage securities, loan servicing, overseers of loan servicers, REO, financial advisory of portfolio assets, FDIC financial compliance review contractors, etc..... read these descriptions if you think nothing is going on.
https://www.fdic.gov/buying/goods/ListofAwardsandContractorContactInformation.html
To MB posters who say the FDIC isn't on top of reconciling receivership assets.....A LOT of eyes and big names and professional liabilities are on it. It's not like Red Green and duct tape are running cleanup.
all $18.9B of them.......unless they are REMIC trusts that WMI designed to intentionally sell income interests on uncollatorallized securities.
The other $222 Billion of mortgages were held in portfolio.
Again, What is 'Mortgages held in Portfolio'? http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/28593.htm
"Portfolio Loans
Portfolio loans are mortgages that are held as an investment by the lender. Usually they hold on to the loan because it doesn't fit the underwriting guidelines for investors on the secondary market. (i.e. securitized, packaged and sold for secondary market)
There really is no advantage to having your mortgage held by a portfolio lender. The rates are usually the same the only difference is that the mortgage usually will not be sold off many times over the life of the loan.
Many times a portfolio lender will have programs or different guidelines that are not typical of loans that are sold on the secondary market which follow FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. Therefore you may be able to sometimes obtain a certain home loan program that you may not normally be able to obtain due to your certain situation, by going with a lender that offers a portfolio loan.
Portfolio loans are mortgage loans in which a lender will loan their own money and have minimal plans of selling the loan or transferring servicing to another bank or lender. Often times, portfolio loans will have something different to them that makes it unique to another bank such as the mortgage note being based on a different index.
Lenders that are portfolio lenders often have very conservative guidelines. This is because they plan on holding the loan for the long term.
Portfolio lenders are usually more flexible in their underwriting guidelines. When lenders hold and service their own loans, they have the ability to work outside the box and approve exceptions that typical lenders may not.
While portfolio lenders may be more flexible with their lending guidelines, they can be more conservative on things like: the types of properties they lend on, the Loan to Value (LTV) ratios, the appraisal and review. Since they intend to keep the loan, in the event they have to foreclose they want to make sure that the property will resell, quickly, and for at least what they lent on the property.
Using a broker is a big plus here because they can look at portfolio loans and non portfolio loans to find you the best deal along with the product you are looking for.
Portfolio loans are often kept in a banks "portfolio" because they are not readily marketable to Wall Street investors for one reason or another. Because banks take longer to recoup they capital with Portfolio Loans, this type of loans often carry higher interest rates than "cookie cutter" loans.
The FDIC link above shows what was securitized, and what was held in portfolio (unsold to others, loaned with WMI's own money), not sold to JPM in the P&A ("A"assets versus "a"assets in Section 3.1), and lastly the JPM DOJ settlement agreement Line 13 - JPM only sold the loan servicing rights.
WHERE Purchase and Assumption Agreement section 3.1 - "a"ssets within "A"assets (certain assets of WMI subsidiaries not sold with the "whole bank")
It's been right there in the P&A for 6 years. Section 3.1. "Assets" sold versus "assets" not included in the sale.
The assets WITHIN EACH of the Asset subsidiaries of WMB were not part of the sale price. One of a few valuable things this includes is mortgages held in portfolio throughout various WMB subs such as WAAC, WMMSC, WMBfa, WMBfsb, etc.
This is not including and on top of any assets WMI holds, because we all know that holding company assets can't be illegally seized, but can be held in safe harbor by the FDIC per it's mandate, to protect those assets from creditors in bankruptcy.
also.....
WMBfsb is missing about $40B of money that wasn't retail customer deposits.....is that a "A" or "a"
Etc. etc.
JPM only purchased the servicing rights of WMI,WMB, WMBFA, WMBfsb, Long Beach, WAAC, WMMSC, etc per the WMB P&A and further confirmed in the DOJ settlement agreement Line 13. of http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/51720131119202421482972.pdf Whereas certain mortgages held in portfolio were not sold to JPM.
KKR is going to supersize our BigMac, any day now.
Yes, read Section 3.1 of the PAA. Decide for yourself the meaning of "a"sset versus "A"sset.
Purchase and Assumption Agreement section 3.1 - "a"ssets within "A"assets (certain assets of WMI subsidiaries not sold with the "whole bank")
It's been right there in the P&A for 6 years. Section 3.1. "Assets" sold versus "assets" not included in the sale.
The assets WITHIN EACH of the Asset subsidiaries of WMB were not part of the sale price. One of a few valuable things this includes is mortgages held in portfolio throughout various WMB subs such as WAAC, WMMSC, WMBfa, WMBfsb, etc.
This is not including and on top of any assets WMI holds, because we all know that holding company assets can't be illegally seized, but can be held in safe harbor by the FDIC per it's mandate, to protect those assets from creditors in bankruptcy.
also.....
WMBfsb is missing about $40B of money that wasn't retail customer deposits.....is that a "A" or "a"
Etc. etc.
JPM only purchased the servicing rights of WMI,WMB, WMBFA, WMBfsb, Long Beach, WAAC, WMMSC, etc per the WMB P&A and further confirmed in the DOJ settlement agreement Line 13. of http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/51720131119202421482972.pdf Whereas certain mortgages held in portfolio were not sold to JPM.
IMO, these and other WMI/WMB assets come back to the WMILT from FDIC-R who can't monetize non-liquid assets.
But WMILT can sell them (proceeds to escrow holders) to our buddies WMIH/KKR/CITI who will have the capability, funds, and experience to monetize and leverage these assets for years to come. WMIH has a great future, and its now and coming fast.
LMAO! the FDIC already killed it. Too funny. I'll see if I can find it another way.
I saved the document either way.
Further more, 5 years have past, many distressed properties are at par or greater. Its gonna be awfully hard for DB to prove much damage by this time.
This will be settled any day now for peanuts, imo.
from JPM's own filing??? hahahahahahah LMAO. A beacon of truth.
AGAIN, A very small quantity of the mortgages were securitized - from the FDIC's own website. Only 18.9b. $222b were held in excess, unsecuritized, unsold to investors, held in portfolio.
Everything wasn't sold as MBS. VERY FEW mortgages held in portfolio were actually sold to others.....Quarter ending 6/30/2008
https://www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/06302008/tfr/tfrsc.asp
1) MBS mortgages sold = $18.9 Billion
2) Mortgages in Portfolio $222.6 Billion lent with their own money, not guaranteed to others.
3) FHLB loans 58 billion, a liability
My personal favorite is the mortgages held in portfolio, and the constant downplay on the MB's that there is nothing to see here.
LMAO.
FDIC's own numbers, the last quarter ending before receivership.
Everything wasn't sold as MBS. VERY FEW mortgages held in portfolio were actually sold to others.....Quarter ending 6/30/2008
https://www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/06302008/tfr/tfrsc.asp
1) MBS mortgages sold = $18.9 Billion
2) Mortgages in Portfolio $222.6 Billion lent with their own money, not guaranteed to others.
3) FHLB loans 58 billion, a liability
Again, What is 'Mortgages held in Portfolio'? http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/28593.htm
"Portfolio Loans
Portfolio loans are mortgages that are held as an investment by the lender. Usually they hold on to the loan because it doesn't fit the underwriting guidelines for investors on the secondary market. (i.e. securitized, packaged and sold for secondary market)
There really is no advantage to having your mortgage held by a portfolio lender. The rates are usually the same the only difference is that the mortgage usually will not be sold off many times over the life of the loan.
Many times a portfolio lender will have programs or different guidelines that are not typical of loans that are sold on the secondary market which follow FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. Therefore you may be able to sometimes obtain a certain home loan program that you may not normally be able to obtain due to your certain situation, by going with a lender that offers a portfolio loan.
Portfolio loans are mortgage loans in which a lender will loan their own money and have minimal plans of selling the loan or transferring servicing to another bank or lender. Often times, portfolio loans will have something different to them that makes it unique to another bank such as the mortgage note being based on a different index.
Lenders that are portfolio lenders often have very conservative guidelines. This is because they plan on holding the loan for the long term.
Portfolio lenders are usually more flexible in their underwriting guidelines. When lenders hold and service their own loans, they have the ability to work outside the box and approve exceptions that typical lenders may not.
While portfolio lenders may be more flexible with their lending guidelines, they can be more conservative on things like: the types of properties they lend on, the Loan to Value (LTV) ratios, the appraisal and review. Since they intend to keep the loan, in the event they have to foreclose they want to make sure that the property will resell, quickly, and for at least what they lent on the property.
Using a broker is a big plus here because they can look at portfolio loans and non portfolio loans to find you the best deal along with the product you are looking for.
Portfolio loans are often kept in a banks "portfolio" because they are not readily marketable to Wall Street investors for one reason or another. Because banks take longer to recoup they capital with Portfolio Loans, this type of loans often carry higher interest rates than "cookie cutter" loans.
[[color=red]b]KKR is going to supersize our BigMac, any day now.[/color]
Wrong again. You clearly didn't read.
Everything wasn't sold as MBS. VERY FEW mortgages held in portfolio were actually sold to others.....Quarter ending 6/30/2008
https://www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/06302008/tfr/tfrsc.asp
1) MBS mortgages sold = $18.9 Billion
2) Mortgages in Portfolio $222.6 Billion lent with their own money, not guaranteed to others.
3) FHLB loans 58 billion, a liability
Again, What is 'Mortgages held in Portfolio'? http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/28593.htm
"Portfolio Loans
Portfolio loans are mortgages that are held as an investment by the lender. Usually they hold on to the loan because it doesn't fit the underwriting guidelines for investors on the secondary market. (i.e. securitized, packaged and sold for secondary market)
There really is no advantage to having your mortgage held by a portfolio lender. The rates are usually the same the only difference is that the mortgage usually will not be sold off many times over the life of the loan.
Many times a portfolio lender will have programs or different guidelines that are not typical of loans that are sold on the secondary market which follow FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. Therefore you may be able to sometimes obtain a certain home loan program that you may not normally be able to obtain due to your certain situation, by going with a lender that offers a portfolio loan.
Portfolio loans are mortgage loans in which a lender will loan their own money and have minimal plans of selling the loan or transferring servicing to another bank or lender. Often times, portfolio loans will have something different to them that makes it unique to another bank such as the mortgage note being based on a different index.
Lenders that are portfolio lenders often have very conservative guidelines. This is because they plan on holding the loan for the long term.
Portfolio lenders are usually more flexible in their underwriting guidelines. When lenders hold and service their own loans, they have the ability to work outside the box and approve exceptions that typical lenders may not.
While portfolio lenders may be more flexible with their lending guidelines, they can be more conservative on things like: the types of properties they lend on, the Loan to Value (LTV) ratios, the appraisal and review. Since they intend to keep the loan, in the event they have to foreclose they want to make sure that the property will resell, quickly, and for at least what they lent on the property.
Using a broker is a big plus here because they can look at portfolio loans and non portfolio loans to find you the best deal along with the product you are looking for.
Portfolio loans are often kept in a banks "portfolio" because they are not readily marketable to Wall Street investors for one reason or another. Because banks take longer to recoup they capital with Portfolio Loans, this type of loans often carry higher interest rates than "cookie cutter" loans.
The FDIC link above shows what was securitized, and what was held in portfolio (unsold to others, loaned with WMI's own money), not sold to JPM in the P&A ("A"assets versus "a"assets in Section 3.1), and lastly the JPM DOJ settlement agreement Line 13 - JPM only sold the loan servicing rights.
WHERE Purchase and Assumption Agreement section 3.1 - "a"ssets within "A"assets (certain assets of WMI subsidiaries not sold with the "whole bank")
It's been right there in the P&A for 6 years. Section 3.1. "Assets" sold versus "assets" not included in the sale.
The assets WITHIN EACH of the Asset subsidiaries of WMB were not part of the sale price. One of a few valuable things this includes is mortgages held in portfolio throughout various WMB subs such as WAAC, WMMSC, WMBfa, WMBfsb, etc.
This is not including and on top of any assets WMI holds, because we all know that holding company assets can't be illegally seized, but can be held in safe harbor by the FDIC per it's mandate, to protect those assets from creditors in bankruptcy.
also.....
WMBfsb is missing about $40B of money that wasn't retail customer deposits.....is that a "A" or "a"
Etc. etc.
JPM only purchased the servicing rights of WMI,WMB, WMBFA, WMBfsb, Long Beach, WAAC, WMMSC, etc per the WMB P&A and further confirmed in the DOJ settlement agreement Line 13. of http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/51720131119202421482972.pdf Whereas certain mortgages held in portfolio were not sold to JPM.
KKR is going to supersize our BigMac, any day now.
There is much more than $27 Billion in mortgages.
Everything wasn't sold as MBS. VERY FEW mortgages held in portfolio were actually sold to others.....Quarter ending 6/30/2008
https://www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/06302008/tfr/tfrsc.asp
1) MBS mortgages sold = $18.9 Billion
2) Mortgages in Portfolio $222.6 Billion lent with their own money, not guaranteed to others.
3) FHLB loans 58 billion, a liability
Again, What is 'Mortgages held in Portfolio'? http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/28593.htm
"Portfolio Loans
Portfolio loans are mortgages that are held as an investment by the lender. Usually they hold on to the loan because it doesn't fit the underwriting guidelines for investors on the secondary market. (i.e. securitized, packaged and sold for secondary market)
There really is no advantage to having your mortgage held by a portfolio lender. The rates are usually the same the only difference is that the mortgage usually will not be sold off many times over the life of the loan.
Many times a portfolio lender will have programs or different guidelines that are not typical of loans that are sold on the secondary market which follow FNMA and FHLMC guidelines. Therefore you may be able to sometimes obtain a certain home loan program that you may not normally be able to obtain due to your certain situation, by going with a lender that offers a portfolio loan.
Portfolio loans are mortgage loans in which a lender will loan their own money and have minimal plans of selling the loan or transferring servicing to another bank or lender. Often times, portfolio loans will have something different to them that makes it unique to another bank such as the mortgage note being based on a different index.
Lenders that are portfolio lenders often have very conservative guidelines. This is because they plan on holding the loan for the long term.
Portfolio lenders are usually more flexible in their underwriting guidelines. When lenders hold and service their own loans, they have the ability to work outside the box and approve exceptions that typical lenders may not.
While portfolio lenders may be more flexible with their lending guidelines, they can be more conservative on things like: the types of properties they lend on, the Loan to Value (LTV) ratios, the appraisal and review. Since they intend to keep the loan, in the event they have to foreclose they want to make sure that the property will resell, quickly, and for at least what they lent on the property.
Using a broker is a big plus here because they can look at portfolio loans and non portfolio loans to find you the best deal along with the product you are looking for.
Portfolio loans are often kept in a banks "portfolio" because they are not readily marketable to Wall Street investors for one reason or another. Because banks take longer to recoup they capital with Portfolio Loans, this type of loans often carry higher interest rates than "cookie cutter" loans.
KKR is going to supersize our BigMac, any day now.
Any non liquid assets WMILT inherits from FDIC-R, such as portfolio mortgages, the WMILT doesn't have ability to monetize. They would need someone with the experience of monetizing these types of assets, like KKR.
WMILT could sell to WMIH/KKR any non cash assets to monetize and leverage for residual returns to shareholders.
Everybody is waiting for something to happen......I think the above scenario is in play, and the FDIC-R reconciliation of the WAMU receivership resolution is why.
Think about this.......
WMI had $240 Billion in "mortgages held in portfolio". An Ostrich (head in the sand) would say these were all sold to investors, nothing to see here. What if the underlying mortgage assets were never transferred to the investors trusts?
What if the all those WAMU mortgage trusts 'sold to others' per SEC filings, are actually empty......cause the WAMU originators never delivered them to the trusts, by design - pretty ingenious way to preemptively protect your assets in case you had to go BK eh?
What if the mortgages were never transferred by WMBfa within the year they were originated. No assets, no trusts. Could be sitting there with FDIC-R..... all $226 Billion of them
January 16, 2015
"This is what is called, or at least can be construed as, a tacit admission by Washington Mutual Bank that they never sold the loan to the trust; at least not in the year of the trust’s formation anyway. I began examining other 2007 WaMu trust loans which all appear the same within the HMDA reporting data. This is significant, because up until now, the “bankster” servicers have prevailed on the presumptions that these trusts actually exist, and that they hold secured assets in the form of real estate. Now I’m not an attorney, but I’ve done enough research to understand that if these so-called trusts were never funded with the assets, as the “banksters” represented to the SEC and warranted to the investors, the trusts were “naked.”
Trusts are created / formed to specifically hold assets. If no assets were put into the REMIC trusts, there is no trust. If there is no trust, any contrived agency authority stemming from the “phantom trusts” through the PSA’s (Pooling & Servicing Agreements) unto the servicers, master servicers, trustees, etc., cannot exist.
Up until now, foreclosure defense advocates and consumers have been the ones speculating that the trusts did not receive the assets, and thus have no standing to foreclose due to securitization failures – late transfers to the trusts. Most courts, outside of Glaski, have ruled that borrowers cannot challenge securitization fails, as they weren’t parties to the PSA, etc. All of these adverse rulings are steeped in the presumption that the trusts in fact are real, because there are SEC filings stating they exist.
But now we have the “banksters” having reported (ADMITTED) under federal HMDA law, that the loans were not sold after origination and to the trusts within the calendar year of the trust’s alleged formation. KABOOM!!"
http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/the-loans-never-made-the-trusts-its-all-in-the-hmda-data/
WAMU trial balance sheet. Great place to start looking at what wasn't sold to JPM.
http://reorgwmi.com/documents/misc/Govinsider_Trial_Balance_Sheets.pdf