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.
$15 preferreds would be equivalent rate of return as 3 cents commons if 75/25 split is all the way through. If you believe in efficient market theory, it should be 75/25 all the way through.
how much were preferreds and commons trading for right before the POR 7 announcement? Does anyone remember?
Thanks, but Employee Claims are part of WMI bankrupcty claims and not FDIC-R. I suspect they will magically resolve that once the FDIC-R releases the assets behind safe harbor. For that to happen, the receivership must settle all the lawsuits against it.
Is DB really the last lawsuit against the receivership?
Thank you Royal. I've seen that post. That was why I was cautiously optimistic that the probate hearing on the June 16th is the final gavel...but I want to be sure.
Are there any other cases against FDIC-R that this DB settlement would not address? I dont remember any other cases. I just want to be sure.
Is DB really the last case to settle all cases?
Any major lawsuits left beyond DB against FDIC-R?
Anyone know? Links?
Are there any other lawsuits against FDIC-R other than DB lawsuit?
ItsMyOption, I see the 1.95% could also be intrepreted two ways. One is that whatever cash that is in safe harbor, will be reinvested in treasury notes to generate additional 1.95% for us. Hence the 75/25 straight througb theory stays intact.
The other intrepretation is that there is a face value on the preferreds and the 1.95% is on top of face value.
Like you, I'm still confused. Good thing probate is ending soon. I dont know if I can wait another year.
why is there 1.9% interest on the preferreds if it is 75/25 all the way through? I dont understand why there will still be an interest number associated with the preferreds if the distribution is split 75/25 all the way through. 1.9% would suggest that there is a face value.
DISCLAIMER: I see valid points in both sides of the argument. I'm not c100% convinced of either side of the argument. I just have this 1.9% i terest question that I cant find a logical answer for.
I think the reason it is non-operating for JPM is because that deposit base was used to fund the Wamu portfolio in safe harbor. That safe harbor portfolio is servicing that deposit base interest. JPM cant use that deposit base to fund their own loans. I think thats why it is "non-operating"
Doc, the number is from 30 years amortization. The interest accrual is non linear - more interest payment and less principle paid in the first 10 years and vice versa as time goes on. 2.9 % interest margin on 300 billion amortization returns over 80 billion in the first 9 years.
Of course, not all loans in the portfolio will last 30 years and also some loans will be paid back early. But also, there should be some put back clause for these loans with the originating bank,l - WMB and now JPM. I believe these put back clauses were the reason behind the DB lawsuit of 13 billion in the beginning. Now thay has been settled for much less, we can assume that the portfolio is performing much better than originally anticipated.
The $140 billion over 30 years is just my theoretical 30 years payout estimation. True value lies somewhere between 80 and 140 billion.
Ofcourse, this is assuming Wamu did not own any principle from the 300 billion portfolio and FDIC truly sold all other Wamu assets to JPM for 2.7 billion. If you count for these other hidden value, you are probably looking at another 20 to 30 billion.
LG, thanks for keeping the hope alive all these years. For many years, I was just lurking on this board reading posts by you, az, tanj, and others. It brought me much comfort to see intelligent posts on a board for "bankrupt" company for 9 years.
I agree with you. When I see Greywolf Capital, a hedge fund specializing in "event driven" speculation hold wmih as its 3rd biggest single stock holding, I have comfort in the knowledge that if I'm wrong about all this, and there really is zero, at least I'm in the company of the big boys.
This is my hero or a zero moment. Even, if it turns out to be zero, I know I've made a very educated bet and would do the same if I had to do it again. Cant control everything in life.
LG, I've contemplated on Azcowboy's interpretation of the 75/25 split and I've also read through the document with straight through the end interpretation. To be honest, both sides have valid points and I just dont know. I'd be happy with either outcome. At this point, after 9 years, I just want to see whats behind the curtain. Hopefully, the end of the DB probate case is the final trigger. If I see zero, I would be very disappointed in our country. I grew up in a third world country and have witnessed socialists confiscate private property. I love America and I would fight for her with my life but to see zero behind the curtain would break my heart. It would mean all of this is a farce.
Yup! Also 2.9% interest margin on a $300 billion portfolio is no unicorn. Its all right there to see in the 2007 wamu 10k report.
If you amortize that $300 billion portfolio over 30 years, you get about $80 billion profit after 9 years and $140 billion after 30 years.
So even if FDIC took all other wamu assets and sold it to JPM for $2.7 billion with fancy accounting tricks, it wouldnt have been very easy to write down this 2.9% interest income stream from the $300 billion portfolio. Way too valuable to rob this legally.
The only reasonable guess I can make is that the portfolio is safe behind the safe harbor veil - collecting 2.9% interest for us all this time.
Remember, its called "safe harbor", not "pirates cove". The name would imply that its beneficial for assets entering it and not get raped and pillaged.
If Hillary Clinton could not hide a few emails, what makes any of us think that FDIC can blatently rob the crown jewels of Wamu (the interest income stream on its $300 billion portfolio) and get away with it. Afterall, Hillary was the favored candidate of the "establishment".
We live in the age of wikileaks. Any such conspiracy would have been challenged by now as such conspiracy would have involved tens of people and many parties losing billions. You can hardly hide a conspiracy when it involves 3 conspirators. Try hiding it when it involves 100 or more.
The only way this could have gone down is for FDIC to do it "legally". That means selling the bank to JPM so that depositors are calmed and while "protecting" the Wamu portfolio behind safe harbor veil so that it can not be liquidated prematurely, hence protecting its solvency against the deposot base which it owes liability.
The main reason Sussman never pursued any lawsuit against FDIC is because they have not broken any laws. You cannot sue someone of robbing you when they havent. Sussman is not an idiot nor was he "bought" off. Our crown jewel is still there - right behind the safe harbor veil like it was designed to be in case of FDIC takeover. Larve firms like Wamu has huge legal teams that constantly put in legal protections for armagedon scenarios. They were not sitting on their asses waiting for the day FDIC come knocking on their door to only respond with "duh now what?". Contingency plans have been put into place by Wamu legal teams years ago. Safe harbor negotiations were done years prior to 2008. You cant be the largest s&l in the nation and have mickey mouse as your legal team.
David, I think we own the interest margin on the $300 billion portfolio. We dont own the $300 billion principle but the interest spread between what that $300 billion portfolio generates and the interest and principle liability to the deposit base that went along with the bank.
The last available wamu 2007 10k filing showed that the interest margin on the portfolio was around 2.9%. I calculated about $80 billion in interest for the last 9 years with a theoretical $140 billion if carried through for 30 years.
So I'm expecting about $80 billion in cash and the rest in wmih shares for the remaining portfolio in a shares for value exchange.
This is all just my theory. I can accept the FDIC selling just the bank to JPM for $2.7 billion. But I cant accept it if the sale also included the main income stream of the $300 billion portfolio. That will leave a huge liability for fraudulant lawsuits for the FDIC. I dont believe such a conspiracy could have survived. There were so many hedge funds involved that would have slapped rico lawsuits to make hundreds of billions.
The FDIC didnt break any laws. They just cleverly tricked all the shareholders into thinking that they did. If we had sued them we would have never won. Thats why no law firm ever volunteered to sue on our behalf on contingency. If they really confiscated the $300 billion portfolio income stream, there would have been plenty of law firms doing class action lawsuits for 40% contingency fees.
My theory is the portfolio is under "protection" under safe harbor and DB will release it at the end of the probate.
I dont think safe harbor assets were ever under FDIC receivership control. Otherwise, there might be legal grounds for fraudulant hiding of assets when the assets re-emerges from safe harbor- whenever that might be. They have always been publically claiming that there is only 2.7 billion in the receivership. And I dont think there's statute of limitation for fraud.
In my opinion, the only way this is legal is if the assets were always under DB control as trustee. And the statute of limitation for hidden assets in bankruptcy just expired this February.
I have a feeling this probate case resolution will be the final trigger for safe harbor release - regardless of whether or not the receivership is finalized this summer. What I'm theorizing is that we may get the safe harbor assets back before we see the 2.7 billion back from the receivership.
Here's to "The Big Long"
Its Zero or a Hero!
Well, that's an interesting thought. Are escrow owners consider direct beneficiaries of the WMI loan portfolio trust. If so we should get a notice in the mail. Somehow I don't think that is the case. Otherwise, it would be a really crappy corporate veil. However, maybe WMILT might get a notice.
Does FDIC or DB control safe harbor distribution?
If we all believe that the portfolio under safe harbor protection really belonged to WMI and not WMB, then technically it is not part of the FDIC receivership -- which has control of the bank sale related assets, not WMI assets.
Maybe, this is why the Wamu loan portfolio assets were always listed as "off-balance" on the receivership ledger.
It is possible that WMI loan portfolio is simply being shielded by safe harbor for solvency risk issue and the timing of its distribution is solely controlled by its trustee, DB.
Then it makes sense to reason, that once DB gets final distribution approval from the judge, it will be the entity in charge directing FDIC to distribute the assets under safe harbor.
So who really has control for release? FDIC or DB?
Yeah, I think its going to be July 1st or Aug 1st. The flow chart clearly shows 4-6 weeks between "Mail notice to interested persons..." and final court date for Judge sign off.
June 16 is 6 weeks from May 1st -- the date of "PROOF OF SERVICE" filing by DB. So I think that June 16 court date is highly likely that final sign off date.
No worries. Just doing my bit to help analyze this.
Like all of you, I have been playing this for a very long time - 9 years in the making.
I'm calling this "The Big Long". The other side of the "The Big Short" trade.
It's a Hero or a Zero!
Either way, I'm glad I've been able to speculate on this once in a lifetime bankruptcy opportunity.
I think we might get paid end of June. Here's a link to a flowchart of the probate process. The chart is from Santa Clara county court but it should be similar to the OC county.
http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/probate/property/process.shtml
I believe we are in the 4-6 weeks. According to the court filings, DB already filed "PROOF OF SERVICE" on May 1st. I believe this filing corresponds to the "Mail notice to interested persons at least 15 days prior to hearing".
The next step on the flow chart is the hearing date where the Judge signs off on Final Distribution plan. I believe this is the scheduled June 16 Petition Date.
Then distribution of Assets. Which I believe FDIC is on the hook to distribute that $600 million to JPM within 10 business days of the "effective date" -- which I would assume to be the probate court Judge sign off date. So we are probably looking at end of June for payout -- or at least FDIC receivership starting the releasing the assets from safe harbor.
Here's the link to the Probate Case:
https://ocapps.occourts.org/ProbPubv2NS/DisplayCase.do?caseNbr=30-2016-00892014-PR-TR-CXC&src=case_src_dtl#top_page
If you click on the various pages to the list of actions, you can see that the petition date was filed and moved according:
1) May 9, 2017 (initial petition date filed 12/13/2016)
2) Aug 8, 2017 (delayed on 03/27/2017)
3) June 16, 2017 (moved back ahead on 04/24/2017)
Something must have gone right between 03/27 and 04/24 for the petition date to move back ahead by almost 2 months.
Then there is this:
PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, SOLELY AS TRUSTEE ON 05/01/2017
Is this the proof of trustee having "completed" its duties to the court? Could this mean that we can potentially see payment returned before June 16? June 16 being the date when trustee provides proof of assets returned?
Link to probate court date delay announcement? I can't seem to find anything on the court date move from the 9th. Does anyone have the link to the announcement? Can you please post it? Thanks
Has probate court hearing on the 9th moved?
Doesnt probate court approval of discharging DB of trustee obligations require all trust assets to be returned to the trust beneficiaries (escrow holders)? Isnt that the purpose of probate court approval? Is anyone here familiar with the probate court procedures? Can DB be discharged next week with the FDIC receiver still in possession of the wamu loan portfolio?
Thanks! If that's the case then PIERs will have to be fully paid on May 1st distribution, and escrows will have to be issued LTIs, so that we get paid on June 1st?
I don't think the assets can remain in safe harbor after DB is discharged as the trustee. Otherwise, they will not be fulfilling their duty as trustee. I think assets must be distributed before DB is discharged as trustee. So May 31st/June 1st payment?
Escrow payment by May 31?
According to the DB-JPM-FDIC settlement, finaly payment by FDIC to JPM is required within 10 business days of "effective date" - which I assume will be May 17 when the probate court in california approves the settlement.
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu_dbntc_jpmc_fdic_settlement.pdf
I assume, once the probate court approves the settlement, DB will be discharged as the trustee, and the trust will have to be dissolved, and hence, the assets will have to be distributed.
Does anyone know if the assets of the trusts need to be distributed before the probate court date?
or does the probate court need to approve the distribution first and then it happens?
I assume that DB cannot be discharged as trustee by the probate court until the trust assets are fully distributed.
None of the insiders have sold any shares
I believe most of them have large escrow interests also. So if WMIH is getting nothing, and escrow everything, why would the insiders have not sold anything in the last few months when the stock tanked?
Also, if I recall I think Tepper just re-balanced his holding amongst his various funds. I think he might have just sold the shares from Appaloosa LP to his other funds. I also believe he now has a few million shares under his personal holdings. I can't remember where I saw the filing.
I don't think we need to start panicking until we see one of the directors starts selling their "free shares". The shares may be "free" but even a crook would want top dollars for it. Why wait if this thing is tanking below a buck?
Has Mike Willingham sold any shares of WMIH?
I dont think fair and reasonable should have been based on the speculatir prices of each class post bankruptcy. I think fair and reasonable should be based on the aggrieved value of each class from lre bankruptcy.
Normally creditors are not investing to get equity. Creditors only expect minimal interest return with a promise that they are protected to recover their principal first in case of shit happening.
Common shareholders are buying into a business with potential inlimited returns. However, they agree to wait last in line after creditors in case of shit happening.
I am 100% sure the judge knew what was hidden in safe harbor. Unfortunately, due to legal shielding, it could not be addressed during bankruptcy. Had it been addressed all of this 75/25 would not have happened in the first place. That being said, no logical person with the knowledge of potential $60 to $80 billion coming back, would say 75/25 split all the way is fair and reasonable. especially when the preferred were only aggrieved for about 10% of that amount. If the split is meant to be all the way through, and would need to be considered fair and reasonable, the judge would have split it 25/75 instead or even 50/50. i dont think it would have been logical for the 75/25 split to be called fair and reasonable if the judge knew about what was in safe harbor
I want to first apologize to AZcowboy for misquoting him by loosely using the word "capped" for the preferreds.
Azcowboy, I think the exact intrpretation of your claim is:
1)75/25 split on what assets were originally available to wmi at confirmation plus wmih
2) all assets coming back from safe harbor through wmiic at some point will first satisfy face plus interest to date for the preferreds. any leftover after that, goes to commons.
Is this correct?
Second, I must admit that if I make any money off of this bankruptcy it is truly out of luck. I always had a speculative hunch from the beginning that wamu was a victim of paper losses from the mark to market fiasco of 2008. I knew their portfilio had a healthy interest profit margin and their subprime holdings were only around 5% of the portfolio. however, when the whole market started panicking, there was no longer efficient pricing for any of the MBS, the credit agencies like Moody's decided to cover their asses and started downgrading everthing across the board. throw the baby out with the water. unfortunately for wamu, as a savings and loan, most of its income comes from holding its own portfolio...this meant a potential but improbably large paper losses for its portfolio. these credit downgrades, then causes panic in its deposit base that started a bank run. so when the last bank run resulted in $16 billion withdrawn in about a week, FDIC also started to panic...because wamu only had about $20 billion dollar liquidity on hand. Any further bank runs may cause wanu to recapitalize by liquidating parts of its portfolio which could further exacerbate the panic in the market and further drop the MBS prices across the board...in short the whole MBS market may become worthless with fictitious paper losses. These fictitious MBS paper losses would then turn temporary liquidity problems like bank run to permanently dangerous insolvency disasters for the banks. If Wamu started liquidating to meet the cash crunch from its bank run, it will soon find itself selling its portfolio at a big discount to the point that its asset value (loan portfolio) will become less that its liability (deposit base)...from liquidity problem to insolvency disaster. Now this will truly wipe out FDIC because its number one priority is to protect the deposit base. That is why it quickly sold off the bank to JPM and placed the portfolio under safe harbor protection to stop thay nuclear chain reaction from liquidation.
All these years, I thought of project west, and sheila bair sleeping with dimon, and giving him throat cancer....was just misplaced anger. I want to believe in a conspiracy but the truth of the matter is that sheila might really end up being the unintended hero. Looking back now, I think she might have saved the whole banking system and ultimately wamu shareholders.
I am now 99.9% confident that JPM did not get Wamu portfolio because of safe harbor protection that was critical from keeping the whole 2008 panic from going nuclear.
I dont know what part of that portfilio is shareholder equity in 2008. My guess is 0 to 30 billion. But that does not matter. The lion share of our value is guranteed by the interest spread between the portfolio and its liability, the deposit base that JPM acquired.
The portfolio must pay back the deposit base at JPM for principal plus its interest but it gets to keep the profit from the interest spread while its doing it. This interest spread was around 2.8% on 286 billion portfolio in 2007. Obviously, that margin may have changed (could be even better since deposit base interest have tanked since 200u), and some of the portfolio may have been bought back early but in the end I think its safe to assume around 50% of potential interest profit from that 2007 published spread...which comes out to around $60 to $80 billion.
I suspected this amount of potential hidden value from the size of the portfolio and the interest spread in 2008 but I had no idea whether commons would ever get it back. The blind faith speculation I made was based on Mike Willingham. He was confident enough to hold only commons. He didnt hold any preferreds to hedge his bet. After reading through all the passionate postings on the board, that I was going to bet on Mike. If this bet pays out like what AZcowboy is claiming, I am truly a Lucky Panda.
Yes, that explains it. But you can see the margin for yourself in the 2007 Wamu 10k.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000104746908006870/a2185889z10-ka.htm
Its right there on page 11. The total interest producing asset and the interest rate vs. the total interest burden on the liabilities.
I'm not sure about the uncapped 75/25 split either but I am 95% confident about the minimum $60-$80 billion returning from safe harbor by just conservatively accounting for the interest profit margin.
I have been a long time lurker on this board. I want to thank all the posters like Azcowboy that have kept my hope up all these years. Now that I think there is a high chance of payout this year, due to the 5 year statue of limitation expiration for hidden assets, and due to WMIH needing to complete merger by Jan 8th of 2018, I wanted to contribute a little bit of assurance to the board in how much is coming back at a minimum. That's why I posted the conservative analysis just based on profit margin on the portfolio. I do not claim anything on how much of the off balance assets that we own in principal. My analysis is purely based on the the last published wamu 10k from 2007 on the profit margin of that portfolio. I'm just paying back the board for all the hope I received over the years.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128921683
Its also interesting that my conservative profit margin math arrived closely to Dr. A's $86 billion claim back in 2010.
It is also very interesting that if you look at the FDIC receivership report, there is a subnote on the bottom of the sheet that says, all interest from the assets will not be reported until the receivership is finalized.
The only thing that I'm really curious about now is Azcowboy's logic on why the preferreds might be capped. I always thought 75/25 was uncapped until now. He really brings up a good point. The assets and the potential sources of 3rd party win were clearly defined for our 75/25 releases. There was never any mention of the portfolio returns from the safe harbor. I dont thinj they could have legally mentioned them as safe harbor assets are suppose to be legally hidden from the bankruotcy process to prevent large losses from untimely liquidation. Its my understanding that safe harbor does not care about share holders or creditors. Its sole purpose to protect the value of the portfolio so that large losses from untimely liquidation would not threaten its solvency against the depost liabilities. The portfolio must payback the deposit base (principal plus interest). As long as it is solvent, the portfolio will make a profit from the interest spread. Anyway, long story short, escrow holders will benefit from safe harbor, but its intention was not for our benefit but to protect the deposit base. For that reason, safe harbor assets coukd not be legally addressed during the bankruptcy.
So now, are the preferreds capped or uncapped? I'm starting to lean towards capped after Azcowboys explanation. I wish there is a lawyer in the house to determine if this intrepretation of the releases can possibly be legal.
Huh?? You need to re-read my post carefully.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128921683
My math is not wrong on the profit margin of the portfolio.
You can argue whether or not the portfolio was given to JPM by FDIC.
But if you believe, the portfolio is protected under safe harbor, then the profit margin on the interest is where the value is going to come from.
I do not make any wild claims on how much of the portfolio is owned free and clear. I'm making a conservative analysis by just looking at the interest profit margin between the portfolio (asset) vs the liability (deposit base). The numbers are clearly shown in the 2007 wamu 10k.
Again, you should read my original post again carefully and also look through the wamu 10k to see for yourself. I'll even attach the link to the 10k.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000104746908006870/a2185889z10-ka.htm
You should just look at the 2007 wamu 10k. It clearly states on there what the interest generating asset size is and what the interest bearing liability size is (deposit base). Wmi owns the entire portfolio but the portfolio also has a libility to the deposit base that funded it.
The net equity is around $30 billion in principle value (asset-liability) but the hidden value is in the interest spread between the asset and liability ($142 billion theoretical, but $60-80 billion easily with discounted conservative assumptions)
Actually, my 100% payback value came out to $142 billion. I just assuned between $60 to $80 billion as a conservative assumption, based on all the uncertainties that I addressed in my post.
With regards to 75/25 split with no caps on preferreds, I agree with you on the language of the confirmation on everything that is liquidated by LT. The interesting question that AZcowboy brought up is that thay uncapped scope only applies to all the assets listed at the confirmation that the LT had access to plus potential wins from 3rd party lawsuits.
However, the hidden value being returned from the portfolio at FDIC safe harbor, was not in the scope of the confirmation assets, and those would just pass through the LT and be distributed with capped preferreds and uncapped common.
Again, I do not know if this interpretation is legal, but it does make some logical sense. I dont know. I'm hoping someone on the board has access to legal opinion and can shed some light on this intrepretatiin
The hidden value of Wamu is in the interest spread between its interest bearing asset portfolio (interest income) and its interest bearing deposit liabilities (interest expense).
You cannot simply look at the net shareholder equity of $25 billion at the time of bankruptcy filing. You should take a look at the 2007 Wamu 10K (last available look into Wamu finance before take over)
If you look at the 2007 Wamu 10K, you can approximate the true hidden value of the Wamu loan portfolio:
Total Interest Earning Assets: $ 287 Billion at 6.8%
Total Interest Bearing Liabilities: $255 Billion at 4.44%
Weighted Interest Margin on Assets: %287 Billion at 2.89%
If you amortize this portfolio, it generated about $60 billion profit in 8 years and it 'theoretical' generate $142 billion in 30 years. Obviously, there should be a discount on the theoretical value, but I think a conservative estimate should be between $60 and $80 billion.
It's a safe assumption that the portfolio was not seized by FDIC due to safe harbor protection and the obvious protective nature of a "holding company". However, its also safe to assume that there is an inter-company agreement between the portfolio and the bank that funded the portfolio with the deposit base. The portfolio needs to pay back the 4.44% cost of the deposit base plus an unknown amount of servicing fees. That 4.44% cost is much lower in the years following 4.44% as interest rates have fallen for deposits at most banks since 2007. Another question is, does that saving of lower deposit interest rates since 2007 get passed onto the portfolio earnings? Also, what percentage of the portfolio has been re-financed? paid off? or bought back? Don't know.
I think the big "IF" assumption here is, did FDIC sell the loan portfolio to JPM as part of the $1.8 billion deal. If the answer is no, and it is being protected by safe harbor, then my simple first order valuation above should be a safe assumption at the end of receivership resolution.
The other question I've been pondering is the 75%/25% split between preferred and common. I think AZCowboy may have a point. The 75/25 split only refers to all the assets declared in the final confirmation. I think the LT is supposed to act as a passed through entity for anything that comes back outside of what was declared. Does anybody else have any legality thoughts on that interpretation?
That is what I meant by small - 2 to 3 billion merger.
That should bring our share price around $8 to $10.
Then wmih can offer 3.5 billion shares to the trust in exchange for around 30 billion in illiquid assets. just a wild guess.
Thank you Bd. That is what I suspected..which then leads me to the following conclusion.
1) either the Oct, 2015 WMIH failed merger was a total hoax (because, FDIC couldnt have possibly released the assets under safe harbor protection during that time) or the merger was for a small asset management vehicle in anticipation of the safe harbor release in 2016/17.
2) since, the failed merger is likely not a hoax, then my prediction is a small merger before May, resulting in a higher WMIH share price post merger, then offering 3.5 billion shares to the trust at the higher share price for the remaining illiquid assets released from safe harbor. escrows receives returning cash plus 3.5 billion wmih stock
3) I also think they will delay the approval of the deutch/jpm/fdic settlement approval until after Feb 17 to ride out the 5 year statute of limitation for potential hidden asset lawsuit liabilities, for the chapter 11 exit... which means, we will likely have to wait until August distribution for our escrow money. They'll likely use the May payout to finish off PIER
FDIC safe harbor protection period
Does anyone know what is the maximum period allowed for assets under FDIC safe harbor protection?
Additionally, does the authority to exit safe harbor protection reside under WMILT or FDIC?
Thanks in advance to whoever can answer these questions.