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.
And the WMILT hasn't released FDIC-Receiver.........Fits like a glove, don't it?
BlueeFoxx
"FDIC-R is holding a huge chunk of Mortgages in a trust somewhere. They have to be, it all makes sense when you put it in a timeline, like the detectives on TV do.. There are no true coincidences...FDIC-R will need to release ownership of the pool/trust to close the P&A"
I think everyone knew - and knew that everyone else knew, but officially played along silently and each made their distressed creditor bets in hopes they'd be the sole standing winner of the estate.
FSSHN, Here's something for you - credit to AZcowboy for this excellent find.
http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/17733/68131/166224e_ExhibitxFxtoxSurxReplyxDeclaration.pdf
Notice that US Bank as Trustee (FDIC bridge bank for some securitization trusts?) and JPM as Servicer only.
Scroll down alphabetically to W in the end pages listing the RMBS pools. Thats a lot of Washington Mutuals........
Even though this isn't the only list, we now just need to decipher which pools were originated and paid for by whom.
This is exactly the line I've been pursuing, I just wasn't ready to 8-ball yet, but I can absolutely see this.
BlueFox:
"If KKR was expecting WMIH to acquire the mortgages back after P&A closure, it would definitely give them cause to take back KFN and sell it to WMIH in the future. I know this is way out there, but Wall Street is a finicky/insiders place/biz. WMB bondholders had a point in their opposition briefs."
See my latest posts................WMI and all banks since year 2000, got to keep all securitization assets off the books to avoid higher capitalization requirements.
New rules in 2010 changed this among other things, although the FDIC document states that pre-2010 securitizations under old rule are grandfathered in, as-is.
So if WMI wasn't legally required to report in on their books, then why would debtor report it - maybe debtor didn't officially know (sarcasm).
If debtor 'didn't know', then it stands to reason the judge didn't officially (sarcasm) know.
All legal, all procedural, totally unethical neanderthals.
Ultimately it boils down to every party knew full well the elephant in the room, and every party hoped the others didn't or couldn't leverage their way into it. The SNH's attempted to strong-arm control of the debtors as they've done since the time of the dinosaurs. Fortunately for us, these knuckle dragging retreads shot themselves in the foot.
Here another puzzle piece. It raises a lot of questions and points to new areas of DD. No wonder there is no BK court record of Mortgage Pool balances for WMB or WMI - receivership safe harbor allows the bank to keep it off the books for 'protection' from bankruptcy or receivership.
1) Apparently the FDIC Resolution Trust Corp (RTC) or its affiliates has had the authority to securitize pools of mortgages from receiverships. History here: fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history1-16.pdf
2) Even more peculiar is that the FDIC isolates securitized loan pools from a receivership for 'safe harbor' to protect it from bankruptcy/receivership and the Insured Deposit Institution (IDI) is allowed to keep it off
the books. http://fdic.gov/news/board/10Sept27no4.pdf
"Treatment by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Conservator or Receiver of Financial Assets Transferred by an Insured Depository Institution in Connection With a Securitization or Participation After September 30, 2010.............
The Rule continues the safe harbor for financial assets transferred in connection with securitizations and participations in which the financial assets were transferred in compliance with the existing section 360.6. The Rule also imposes further conditions for a safe harbor for securitizations or participations issued after a [receivership] transition period......
The Rule defines the conditions for safe harbor protection for securitizations and participations for which transfers of financial assets are made after the transition period; and clarifies the application of the safe harbor to transactions that comply with the new accounting standards for off balance sheet treatment as well as those that do not comply with those accounting standards. .........
The Securitization Rule provided a “safe harbor” by confirming “legal isolation” if all other standards for off balance sheet accounting treatment, along with some additional conditions focusing on the enforceability of the transaction, were met by the transfer in connection with a securitization or a participation. Satisfaction of “legal isolation” was vital to securitization transactions because of the risk that the pool of financial assets transferred into the securitization trust could be recovered in bankruptcy or in a bank receivership. If the transfer satisfied this condition, the Securitization Rule confirmed that the transferred assets were “legally isolated” from the IDI in an FDIC conservatorship or receivership. The Securitization Rule, thus, addressed only purported sales which met the conditions for off balance sheet accounting treatment under GAAP........
Statement FAS 166 provides that transfers of participation interests that do not qualify for sale treatment will be viewed as secured borrowings.....
An FDIC receiver generally makes a determination of what constitutes property of an IDI based on the books and records of the failed IDI. Given the 2009 GAAP Modifications, there may be circumstances in which a sale transaction will continue to be reflected on the books and records of the IDI because the IDI or one of its affiliates continues to exercise control over the assets either directly or indirectly. The Rule provides comfort that conforming securitizations which do not qualify for off balance sheet treatment will have access to the assets in a timely manner irrespective of whether a transaction is viewed as a legal sale.......
If a transfer of financial assets by an IDI to an issuing entity in connection with a securitization is not characterized as a sale and is properly perfected, the securitized assets will be viewed as subject to a perfected security interest. This is significant because the FDIC as conservator or receiver is prohibited by statute from avoiding a legally enforceable and perfected security interest, except where such an interest is taken in contemplation of insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution.....
The Rule also provides that in the event the FDIC repudiates the securitization asset transfer agreement, the FDIC shall have the right to discharge the lien on the financial assets included in the securitization by paying damages in an amount equal to the par value of the obligations in the securitization on the date of the appointment of the FDIC as conservator or receiver, less any principal payments received by the investors through the date of repudiation, plus unpaid, accrued interest through the date of repudiation......
lots more.
Stop muddling the issue, its not 'who wrote it' at the time, or 'who didn't pay their mortgage' that determines who owns/controls the notes presently or who will inherit the notes that are in FDIC 'purgatory' for the time being.
What matters to me is who holds currently or will hold the mortgage pool.
JPM tried to take the mortgages claiming 'successor in interest' with their 'whole bank' mantra.
Evidently that didn't work for the DOJ as evidenced in JPM's settlement of $13 Billion under disclaimer 13. which specifically clarifies that JPM was not granted successor in interest to right/title.
It won't hurt to open your eyes, just a little bit....I promise.
Then who is JPM Chase Custody Services? Does that sound like a servicer of mortgage?
https://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmorgan/is/products/custody
Why is JPM Chase Custody Services being substituted over JPM as successor-in-interest on a WMB loan?
Sure sounds like whether its WMI or WMB, that JPM got caught with its hands in the 'successor in interest' cookie jar, and had to amend their trustee filings. I see plenty of these in my business.
http://146.129.54.93:8193/imgcache/OPR20121116000499-1-1.pdf
And the DOJ settlement I posted earlier, shows that hand slap to JPM.
Looks like more than I thought........
I've read enough mortgage documents and out-of-state court proceedings to know escrows will not be worthless. I'm not an insider, I can only guess on the conclusion date, and there are big hands all over this. We are just dust in the cog.
It's an absolute nightmare to unscramble MERS and the RMBS clouded ownership, and I'd personally be surprised if this bankruptcy wrapped up in September 2014 - as the impression I get is nobody seems to have a reliable schedule of assets when it relates to the WMI mortgage portfolio - this has been testified in state courts many times in the last 24 months by former WMI and current JPM employees.
The FDIC or whichever bridge bank is 'holding' our pool of mortgage assets, can't put a number or schedule of ownership on it until it's all sifted, sorted, laundered, litigated.........paperwork nightmare and probably the worst job in America at the moment sorting it out.
By 2005, WMI serviced loans from their own portfolio and those of other banks to the tune of over $700 Billion, and by 2007 it was estimated to be over a Trillion, while less than 10% of their personal portfolio of mortgages was sub-prime, and even less than that was even in default.
But that is just talking about the mortgage pool......Think about the $10-12 Billion in ANNUAL income and interest for the last 7 years off of the mortgage pool shown in WMI's 10-k from 2007! We're talking over $100 Billion EASY!!
Remember all the blending and folding of certain retained WMI subs by A&M in the billing statements after mediation?
With all the delays on WMIH to make a merger, I agree it makes one think......is it simply just the taint of our BK not being wrapped up yet that is scaring potential partners away, or does WMIH and its NOLS still have a future scripted part to play with respect to these mortgage assets?
Not to JPM imo, they are just the servicer of the loans.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/51720131119202421482972.pdf
"13. No Acknowledgement or Admission. Nothing either in this Agreement or the DOJ Agreement shall constitute an admission or imply that JPM Chase Bank, NA or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates became successor-in-interest to Washington Mutual Bank, WaMu Capital Corp, Long Beach Securities Corp, and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp, or assumed any particular liability of Washington Mutual Bank, WaMu Capital Corp, Long Beach Securities Corp, and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp when JPM Chase Bank NA purchased the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank pursuant to the Purchase & Assumption Agreement dated September 25, 2008 between JPM Chase Bank NA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporate in its corporate capacity and its capacity as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank."
Its not about the sum-total of the mortgage as to what the value is, as IMO its all about the income that these mortgages produce that the SNH's were fighting to get. There is $10- 20 billion in annual mortgage income over the last 7 years, plus interest that has gone somewhere...........NOT to JPM who is just a servicer of these mortgages.
There is a lotta chump change coming to the WMILT, 75/25, when this whole P&A wraps up. Got Escrows?
And WGM and Rosey palms aren't bk ambulance chasers? Wow , lol Catz, JPM is losing all over the nation lately over mortgages it doesn't really own, $8 billion in Michigan alone.
One of the stipulations in the DOJ/JPM $13 Billion settlement was that the settlement in no way gave JPM any successor in interest rights to WAMU mortgages. That was an odd distinction......
The Great Chase WAMU $300 Billion Caper?
Posted on January 3, 2014 by Neil Garfield
Hiding in plain sight, Chase may indeed have taken control of the portfolio loans of Washington Mutual. The FDIC receiver clearly stated to me that there was no assignment of mortgages. He also said that he thought Washington Mutual was servicing about $1 Trillion in loans originated by WAMU or its originators (pretender lenders). And he said that it was estimated by him and the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee that about 1/3 of those loans were portfolio loans — I.e. Real loans paid for by WAMU. And of course, as previously reported here and elsewhere we now know that Chase acquired no loans as part of the merger with WAMU.
So the question is “What happened to the $300 Billion in loans that were real assets of WAMU?” Nobody has really asked and obviously no answer has been forthcoming — especially not from Chase who was going around the country foreclosing on loans that it said it acquired “by merger” from WAMU.
Here is my theory: the loans are technically in the WAMU “estate” from the Bankruptcy proceedings. The U.S. trustee disclaimed any interest in some WAMU subsidiaries that probably have an interest in those loans. Those subsidiaries still exist. why? Meanwhile, Chase DID acquire the servicing rights of WAMU.
As the Servicer it receives payments from Borrowers who have no idea about the status of their loan. If Chase receives a payment on a loan that is subject to claims of securitization, we assume that it makes payments to the trust beneficiaries of the REMIC trust claimed to own the loan. That is a whole other subject for forensic auditing. Our focus for today is what does Chase do with payments on loans that are still WAMU loans. I theorize that one likely possibility is that Chase keeps the money because there is nobody claiming a right to receive the payments now that the WAMU Bank has ceased to exist. That would give them an income of around $20 Billion+ per year on loans that WAMU funded and Chase never bought. But that is the tip of the iceberg.
The loans kept as WAMU portfolio loans were probably subject to underwriting that was more in line with industry standards and probably had a much lower default rate than the loans that investors funded. So those loans had a definite value on the secondary market. Hence I postulate that Chase as authorized Servicer is acting as the owner. Without anyone making a claim, they have nobody to pay. So if they sold the WAMU portfolio loans as successor Servicer for WAMU loans, the proceeds of sale went to Chase and Chase then created numerous such transactions wherein they “sold” the mortgages they didn’t own.
The sale proceeds are completely controlled by Chase. They no doubt did sell most of the loans by now and many of them were probably “assigned” to new REMIC trusts. Thus Chase, based upon estimates from those close to the WAMU estate and the Chase WAMU merger, generated more than $300 Billion in sales of loans it never owned or paid for, plus principal and interest payments received on those loans, probably totaling around $400 Billion between the merger and now. No wonder they are so eager to pay fines measured in the tens of billions, when they illegally obtained loans worth in the hundreds of Billions of dollars.
Who is the injured party? It would appear that the Bankruptcy Estate of WAMU, or the Trustee for the estate, is the injured party. They should have the $400 Billion. Why this was not apparent to the U.S. Trustee and the FDIC receiver I don’t know. But isn’t it peculiar that there is a $400 Billion hole in the deal that went entirely to Chase?
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-great-chase-wamu-300-billion-caper/
A 363 sale for $241 Billion in mortgages could come in handy.
Excellent Summary! 1000% spot on!
Quote:
"It's not complex at all:
SNH's got everything listed under 3.2 in PAA in POR 6
SNH: Oops insider trading! Gotta undo this.
EC: Let's negotiate!
Equity's got everything listed under 3.2 in PAA in POR 7 and 95% stake in WMIH's as a nice bonus (most of equity is AAOC property anyway)
Simple cause and effect ;) No mediation needed with FDIC and JPM."
Great Idea! I wonder though if this is for pre or post 'fresh-start accounting? My guess is post fresh start....There's no way they'd let anybody see what really went where.
"something like, here's everything you asked for, all 100 pages. See how it lines up perfectly with our skillfully crafted POR, everything 'is what it is'."
And we all go round and round the circle, by design, chasing our tails.
KKR attorneys, Simpson Thacher, has an interesting lineup in their WMIH representation. You see the expected specialists in Tax, Credit, and Capital Markets, BUT I was extremely excited to see 3 Mergers & Acquisitions specialists as well.
Looks like we are headed in a sustainable and maybe explosive direction.
http://www.stblaw.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=231&itemType=4&focusID=4615&varSectionContentID=1
Flip the coin over: another way of looking at the GS lawsuit dropped by SG, is you can't sue for damages any more, if the damaged party (resulting in our escrow shares) are no longer damaged and made whole.
Think about that one. :)
Great day again for WMIH
Wow, never seen this document. Source?
Thx
This guy reported to the SEC and Congress. FFGO mentioned a couple pages down, as having evidence of naked shorts by the KOCH brothers.
"My Canadian counterpart has evidence this was done to other pink sheet stocks as well. He has documents on QBID and FFGO specifically. He will provide upon request. "
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/06/416465.shtml
That's a great way to put it. I hadnt thought of it that way. Cheers!
no prob, bru. I did the same thing this morning, I thought it was just the AT&T stuff, but I had to be pointed out to it by someone else also - so I had the spot notated.
Cheers.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229121220000000000002.pdf
top of page 9, number 9. postponed toFeb 21, 2013 11:30 am
"Objections/Responses Received: None to date"
as of the submission deadline, yet they got an extension to postpone, without making a request to the court. Must be some dialogue going on behind the scenes.
You have to scroll down a few pages to get to it - one of the last pages.
I'll dredge it up in a few.
Lawyers never ask questions they dont know the answers to.......SG is top litigating firm in country....GS and Blankenstein have already settled some NSS claims in the last couple years.....
I'm going with..........SG got the goods. AIMVHO
Correct. What's interesting is that no GS objection was submitted to the judge by the deadline, yet SG agreed to not force the issue with JMW having her hand down a ruling on jurisdiction issues and document fishing inside GS.
Tells me, there is some REAL talking going on behind the scenes with Golden Sacks.
IMO
I think those OR tax claims were worth $27 - 29 million, so dissallowing them is more for us down the road. Yay!
* note footnote 1: Here's the actual filing referencing the whereabouts of $20b plus cash - referenced as being "held in accounts at WMBfsb and WMB".........."held in accounts"...
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229080926000000000001.pdf
then 4 days later - whoops, we gotta hide dat money and thus the ammendment to footnote 1. let's call it now worthless 'common stock', which has to be backed by something/cash to be worth $20b in retained earnings.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229080930000000000001.pdf
I think good days are ahead for those that ignored the noise to switch to H's and dimes and other blabber, and voted to release their commons and preferreds.
If you voted to release - as far as your escrow accounts go - are safe from WMIH's possible shenanigans, you have nothing to fear of WMIH pump n dumps, BOD stealing everything conspiracies, is MW corrupt, etc. Two different animals.
Wrong! Read Delaware's bankruptcy rules (prior to Feb 2012) about the only time a "sealed envelope" is presented to a judge AND what and why it is required to be done that way. Very enlightening! Coincidence? I doubt it. Happy DD'ing.
SG majorly C-blocked Rosen from looting debtor registry accounts that day in court - wonder which company's EIN or who's personal SSN was listed in the sealed envelope as required per Delaware BK code; no wonder Rosey snapped at SS, lol, both hands were deep in the cookie jar ATM.
Then we see the twisting contortions that Rosen went on to "hide the sausage" funds from 'shareholders who are out of the money'. Maybe in the $20.55 billlion in GUC recovery claims that were dropped?
Glad I'm a shareholder who granted releases.
I get the same thing......must be temporary problem.
Thanks for checking that, please let me know. I'd love to see Thompson Reuters analysis. Maybe they'll be gag ordered asap. LOL
If its not solely WMIH value, that is still $3billion more than the reported $7billion getting distributed to creditors. Proceeds trickle down LT. That leaves WMIH with a lot more value than the handful spoken about in the POR.
Washington Mutual is the #2 top restructuring value at $10.3 billion plus, second only to Greeces debt. This is completely new news to me............as of Q3/2012.
page 2 http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/Files/Q32012_Restructuring_Review_Rest_Advisors.pdf
NOW, the big question is.....They dont specify if this is WMI or WMIH (pre vs. post emergence) - just washington mutual....is this $10.3 billion restructured value in pre BK (value of debtor being restructered) or post BK newco (value of the restructure post BK after Blackstone advised them?
for example: we are told WMI had about $7b distributed to creditors in BK, so $3billion is left to trickle down?
OR is this the value of Washington Mutual (WMIH) the NEWCO freshly out of BK, worth $10 billion.
Lots of good affirmations today. My millions of FFGO shares still show up as FFGO in my Schwab trading account; as opposed to some others like Air Water International, whose ticker is now just a numberfor the last year since being revoked.
Yes. Sick of it. Let's get this started........
Nice find Uz. Be worth clicking that link soon I hope.
Not sure where you been all my life, but thanks for chipping in! Interesting.
If Flow is close to correct in all he is dredging up, and taking this article into account, it's starting to look good.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=951006&mid=951006&tof=18&frt=4#951006
LG, check out this more recent article from last Friday March 2, that makes it sound she is going into banking.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/02/23/deanna-oppenheimer-its-good-to-be.html
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=951030&mid=951030&tof=31&frt=4#951030
totally, The article had such an innocuous title I almost didnt read it, about glad to be back in SEattle, and then the more you read the more eerie the timing appears. Coincidence? We shall see.
She would be more than capable with 1700 Barclay branches under her belt during one of the worst global credit/financial disasters.
NDTrader, Oddly, the article has been changed since I posted it on Y Friday March 2.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=951030&mid=951030&tof=31&frt=4#951030
The first version more than implies she WILL be in the banking industry. My favorite quote below:
"The former Washington Mutual executive has returned to the Pacific Northwest and is looking for opportunities to bring her in-depth knowledge of the European debt crisis and the U.K. banking model to the Seattle area." among other nice tidbits....
I wonder why the change of statement, must be coming true!
EDIT: Actually two different articles, but read the one I saw, pretty interesting and much different spin.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/02/23/deanna-oppenheimer-its-good-to-be.html
"pending payout from FDIC"...............what's that about? pg 3 of LTW letter
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229120217000000000005.pdf
reposting from last night - got lost in the MB avalanche. this is indicative of something greater than what we think NEWCO is worth IMO.