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.
Yes, what you say is true. But remember, the stock was deemed worthless, to WMI, because of the TAKING of WMB. Now that has nothing to do with the damages caused by the FDIC that was outlined in that footnote. It was termed a "TAKING", and CONVERTED, meaning effectively, STOLEN. Also, violated the 5th amendment I believe. This is the point that seems ambiguous to me.
REmember, WMI had already downstreamed big money to WMB, and they never got it back, so that alone makes WMI a creditor, no?
Rockie, I may not like what BKshadow has to say, but I do respect his opinion very highly, and I want to hear it. I'm not out to argue with him or anyone else on this escrow issue, I just want the real facts to emerge. OK?
BKshadow, thanks for responding, the quote is from BK court in Delaware. I hope this link copies through:
https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229101112000000000029
It is the footnote on page 3, from the paragraph 7, that describes WMI as being a creditor. Now I know that there were releases granted in the GSA POR 7, but I don't think releases apply where there is something so egregious as the violation of the constitutional rights of shareholders, and in past history, the supreme court has upheld rights of corporations same as individuals,(I think),some law scholars may know different.
Bkshadow, would this make WMI a creditor of the FDIC receivership;
In its capacity as a creditor WMI claimed, among other things, that (i) the FDIC dissipated WMB’s assets by selling substantially all the assets of WMB to JPMC rather than liquidating WMB’s assets, and thus the FDIC breached its statutory duty to maximize the net present value return of such assets, and therefore owes damages to WMI; (ii) the FDIC’s wasting of WMB’s assets constitutes a taking for property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution; (iii) the FDIC’s refusal to compensate WMI for the property taken in the receivership constitutes a conversion of WMI’s property, actionable under federal law; and (iv) the FDIC’s refusal to compensate WMI of property taken in the Receivership constitutes a conversion of WMI’s property"
Waiting, please respond, thanks.
PS, the FDIC nor anyone else can EVER be released for violating our constitutional rights, eh?
Yes Bob, they are in fact a creditor, I'm just asking someone to explain how as a creditor, there would NOT be billions coming back since the FDIC themselves says that general creditors get filled BEFORE the bonds.
Bob, I have flip-flopped on the escrow issue more than once, and I could flip again unless someone can explain how that FDIC rule of payout would NOT put billions back to the WMILT.
BKshadow, please do address the issue of if WMILT is a general creditor of the FDIC receivership.
BKshadow, please weigh in on my previous post. Thanks
There was a post from another board that found the links to this theory. It is established that WMI is a general creditor of WMB, and therefore becomes a general creditor of the FDIC as receiver of WMB, and from the fdic website, this is mentioned;
"Please note that under federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11), claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution."
IF that holds water, escrows would be paid ahead of bond holders, but that sounds really too good to be true, yes?
There is one outrageous theory that WMI,(WMILT), is a general creditor and therefore will be ahead of the bondholders in any payout.
Once that money left the house, it was forever gone after the bk filing, that's according to the judge and everyone signed off on it, so that's going to stay in effect, it's over.
I see it as quite the opposite Bob, WMI was never hiding assets, but rather claiming assets that were, according to the court, not theirs.
True Bob, only WMI was in BK court. But, it was I think shown that the $32B number wasn't in WMI's possession, as the judge pointed out.
Bob can you remember just how that $32B was assigned? I mean, was it money belonging to WMI ONLY, or was it a sum total of money in both WMB and WMI? Therein lies the "rub".
ok wamuvoodoo, then since you mean "the wmb bank" when you say wamu, you would be correct, jpm gets the dough.
Oh I'll answer that, JPM.
When you say wamu, that's not correct. It's WMB, and jmp owns that, with all it's subs. and assets.
Hey jest, I know very well that the biggest and only really valuable asset of wamu, was in fact WMB! And jpm got it ALL. What little that was left was settled in bk court, and wmih is what WE got from that. So YOU get yourself straight please.
Quote from az:
"So, could someone make some sense to me of these daily postings, of just this one guy' ... which are continuously, controversial to the stated facts at hand ?"
Well az, his posts are backed up with actual filings.
Your posts are only your of interpretation said filings, and I have found your interpretation to be in error on so many items.
So maybe, that poster just wants the straight truth told, even if it is just a message board.
You should be more careful with your so called facts;
quote from az:
"... the Fact' that JPM DID NOT receive all of WaMu's assets, ... The fact that JPM is the servicing agent ONLY' for the extensive WMI Loan File' ... and On & On & On & On'"
First, JPM did buy all off WMB's assets, And WMI had NO loan file, it was WMB's.
hey bob, I used to agree with you that we don't know for a fact; now I am sure we do,... it looks, it walks, it quacks like a duck.
Now that's laughable, like SIX YEARS isn't long enough??? LOL
It's pretty much going to be a big fat ZERO.
OK, large green, you have out done yourself on this one. You been saying tricadia got $50 million to shut up and go away, now you say there is NO way to prove it. So , just how the heck do you know just what the heck happened?????????
BKshadow is right, you are wrong. Pretty simple.
Large, just how does creditors not having escrows mean anything?
BKshadow, that was a pretty good summation. I can't find any holes in it, I doubt that anyone else can either. Do you mind it I quote you in another forum? Thanks.
I think only about $10million will be left, if anything, for equity escrows, that works out to be $1 for P escrows.
W3, most likely the P escrows will possibly be worth $1.00 per unit. So I would only be willing to make you an offer somewhat less than that, you still interested?
Bkshadow, on the point that jpmc did purchase all of the loans owned by wmb, has jpm paid for them yet? that $1.88B may not be the final purchase price, no? And if there is more money to come, who gets it?
Well, AZ, ok then, what's your best "guestimate" on when money comes to equity escrows?
So Large Green, when would be the due date on all of this cash that you prognosticate coming to the equity escrows?
Bob, I ain't trying to rub salt into a wound, just wanted the LG crowd to EXPLAIN how those bonds could be overlooked as being a steal at current prices.
Those bonds at the current price would be a great bargain if there were to be ANY recovery for the escrows, because they would get filled AHEAD of them. So why aren't they trading higher????
LG, want to take a stab?
Can someone here explain this;
If wmb bonds held by the fdic must be paid before equity escrows, why are they trading at .01 on the dollar?
Names of hedge funds and a link showing their ESCROW holdings please.
Thanks a bunch.
Ehh, what specific BIG MONEY players are we following exactaly?
you said, " none of us would be surprised with either zero payout or billions,(large green)." That's not quite true, I would be very surprised at any payout since all of the actual facts point in the direction of zero. None of what large green posts is IMO accurate, it is more like mis reading of the facts. No, all of the real evidence says escrows get zero. But I really hope I am wrong big time, but that is just hope.
bkshadow, that's a lot of supposing. and by the way, can I repost it?
Im sure it was or else jpm wouldn't have wanted it. But how much more ? The $1.9B was somehow arrived at as being fair.?
Net worth is the important figure, in wamu's case the assets minus the liabilities were much, MUCH, less than $300B.