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.
It will also be good to have Dr. Ancharya calculations on how he derived the $86B posted here. If we have it on record of his accounting, we can at least question FDIC line item by line item of missing value.
Reality is you are still here after all these years to save our souls...convince us of "zero for escrow".
Reality is you are a "saint" for spending all your precious time all these years to save us!
KeyKey, you are right about FDIC also. As CBA09 suggested a few years ago, we likely need FDIC-R to close the receivership first before remote bk assets release. He mentioned "all true ups" release condition that would also require R to close first.
However, I still think 9/19 is still key. If FDIC cannot close by 3/19, Rosen will be forced to extend LT closure... otherwise how will he explain away if LT closes out by 3/19 but escrow markers remain thereafter.
He specifically mentioned in court that he would delete escrow markers by 3/19.
LG, you are right. 9/19/2020 will be the tell. If no extension by then, we will likely get paid before year end. If extended, then we have 100% proof of remote bk assets existence.
Either way, I look forward to 9/19. Only 6 more weeks!
I wont argue 75/25. It is what it is. My point is the existence of assets in remote bankruptcy. If there is nothing in remote bankruptcy, UW could simply concede to AG and move back into class 18 and take the leftover that is destined for "charity".
And just how much is currently left in LT for "charity"?
Understood AZ. I was simply pointing out to hotmeat, who likes to claim nothing left outside of LT, that it makes absolutely zero sense for UW to defend against AG if there really was nothing outside of LT. In fact it will make more logical sense for them to concede to AG and move back into class 18 where there are still some scraps left over for "charity".
Why are UW's still defending their class 19 position if there is nothing in remote bk?
There is still a few mil left over in the LT that is earmarked for charity.
If there really is nothing in remote bk, why dont the UW simply concede to Alice Griffin's demand, give up their position in class 19, and claim whatever is left over in the LT that is earmarked for charity?
I would assume a few mil is better than zero and more attorney fees??
FDIC-R closure is the last missing step for release of our remote bk assets as suggested by CBA09 years ago.
We need to all pressure FDIC to give us a clear answer on why the receivership has not closed.
If they are simply waiting on Libor settlement, then ask them why have other bank receiverships thag could benefit from Libor settlement closed and not ours.
If there really was "no money for class 17, 19, 22", FDIC would have closed the receivership at the end of 2018 after the DB lawsuit ended.
There are other banks that can benefit from the FDIC Libor lawsuit but have already closed their receiverships.
This whole "we are waiting on Libor settlement to close Wamu receiver" is a bullshit excuse to delay closing the receivership.
Believe me, if there was no money left for escrow, this would have closed down years ago.
Also, FDIC will not be avoiding answering questions from ItsMyOption. They would have simply told him there's nothing in remote bankruptcy and the only possible recovery is from Libor lawsuit.
Maybe we can recruit one of the big hedge funds to lead an inquiry with the FDIC. They must be anxious about ending this as much as retailers here.
Is that Billions or Millions??
I agree with your assessment. I think FDIC is the last road block holding back the release of our assets in remote bankruptcy. CBA09 went over this a few years ago...where it is possible that the remote trusts were set up to release the assets in an "all true ups" scenario where it requires the FDIC to close down the receivership.
We need FDIC to explain why the receivership hasnt closed....and how long can they use LIBOR lawsuits as an excuse in keeping the receivership open.
If their excuse is "we dont know how much Libor lawsuits would yield", can they not simply close down the receivership now and issue us new escrow markers tied to potential future payout from Libor lawsuits?
LG, I agree with the "Possession is 9/10". The question is who has control of the possession. Is it really FDIC or the remote bk trustee? Is FDIC simply "blocking" the remote bk trustee by refusing to resolve the receivership?
In a way, I'm actually hoping that Rosen tries to delete the escrow markers so that it will force an "action" from the big boys.
Just want to see the fireworks finale!! Either boom or bust.
AZ, understood. I wasn't asking for a "when" but rather what your thoughts on the next possible "tell" event is with regards to bk remote assets.
You previously stated that you thought Coop will be the next "tell"...Do you still believe that is the case after today's earnings? or do you think FDIC will be the next "tell"?
LG, understood. That is still my best guess right now with respect to "escrow timing". I was just hoping that there might still be some loose ends with regards to WMIH/Coop and bk remote assets. Hence, I was hoping we might get a glimpse during today's earning release. I don't think that will happen now.
I'm hoping we might get a response from FDIC to ItsMyOption email request with regards to when the receivership might close.
This is ridiculous that FDIC can't give an estimate to when the receivership might close 12 years after the takeover, and after WMI bk closure this year.
Hi AZ, what are your thoughts now on the next possible event to reveal our remote bk assets? It doesn't look like Coop will be the first indication. I'm starting to believe we need to see FDIC close the receivership first.
What is your latest expectation now with regards to next possible trigger to reveal the remote bk assets?
RD, what is your expectation for this regulation change event? How will it affect the remote bk assets? Can you share your insight on how this may speed up our escrow payout event? TIA
What is your opinion on the delay? I recall the responses to your prior emails were immediate negatives.. Is the delay this time unusual or is it because you asked more probing questions?
IMO, still no response from FDIC?? If the answer really was simply "no, nothing for escrow", I believe the reply should have been immediate...
I want to be cautiously optimistic on the delay. TIA
Very sad news for Steve Sussman. It would have been great to have him a little longer to witness the end of Wamu saga. The windfall return to escrow could have been his crowning achievement for his illustrious career.
Maybe its 90% of released shares were by the institutions?!?
However, I dont know about 90%. I recall a number of around 800 millions of commons released were held by the big boys. Thats more like 66%
Please! Let's not argue about 75/25. It is what it is. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Lets get those remote bk assets released and get FDIC to close the receivership. 12 years is too long!!
FDIC wouldnt have the funds to pay off class 17 if those funds were locked up in remote bk SPEs just like foe escrow markers. So maybe the receivership is waiting to close just like escrow... nothing happens until remote bk SPEs releases the funds
It would be interesting to see what the end results was for that 20 year receivership case.
75 percent of receiverships close within 3 years. What percentage takes 12 years?? Does Wamu receivership hold the record?
RD, thank you. I was referring to that dismissal. Do you know if the banks on that dismissal is everyone being sued for Libor? Are there any Libor cases left?
If this is everyone then why hasnt the receivership closed yet? I believe we were told before that receivership closure was dependent on Libor.
Do you know if all the Libor cases are closed
now?
Yes, technically they were unsecured...but in reality they are because the bank was solvent and because assets were much greater than liability. Otherwise, the investors would have simply bought the bank stock. Bond investors would not have invested bonds if the underlying net assets over liability did not comfortably exceed the amount of bond offered.
You just provided the greatest evidence of assets in remote bk SPEs. Do you think the institutions who invested in class 17 bank BONDS would have done so without any sort of collateral assets? Would there be a $14B investment in bonds without any collateral assets??
So if FDIC said they dont have the $14B, and class 17 has not sued for 5th amendment illegal taking, and DB actually ended up paying JPM over $600M for putback claims lawsuit.....
then the only logical conclusion is there must exist at least $14B in remote bankruptcy...otherwise
1) DB could not have paid JPM $600M for putback claims on non existent assets
2) class 17 would be suing FDIC for illegal taking...
Anyone in contact with CBA09? Board would greatly appreciate an update from him at this time. Turning on the Bat Signal!
LG, I'm starting to believe this is going to be all True-Ups scenario...so we are going to need the receivership to close before we see those retained assets from the remote bk SPEs. What do you think? before or after receivership close?
I agree. I dont think we need to wait until March 2021. I think we will either hear something in early August or late Oct/early Nov.
As CBA09 said a few years back, it is standard practice for those remote bankruptcy SPE's to be overfunded to build confidence in the MBS sold to investors. I cannot believe that Wamu loans went all bad (remember they were 95% A rated) and there are no residual value left in those remote bankruptcy SPEs.
If the loans were so bad, I dont think Bonderman would have lead those preferred shares taking a multi billion dollar position in the summer of 2008 - months before the FDIC fiasco takeover.
Between class 17 and 19, the institutionalS have $20B to loose if nothing exists in remote bankruptcy.
I would think that for $20B loss, the big boys would be suing the government right now for 5rh amendment illegal taking....but they are NOT!
I'm 99% confident now that we will see north of $20B in remote bankruptcy! Just a matter of time between now and March 2021!
That's right! Its only over if FDIC-R closes and our escrow markers have been deleted...until then I'm still very optimistic that we are close to our payday or final disappointment (markers get deleted). I'm just excited that either event will be happening by March 2021 at the latest so only about 9 more months of waiting at the most!
That makes absolutely zero sense. Why wouldnt you be happy to see FDIC close the Wamu receivership and see zero remote bk assets return to escrow...and see escrow markers get deleted shortly thereafter..
You would be proven right if that scenario occurs and everyone can turn off the lights on this board.
I just want to see the receivership close now and see you proven right about zero remote bk assets! I'm cheering for you!
Pick, the last time someone on this board contacted FDIC, we were told that the Wamu receivership remained open until Libor cases are settled. Someone posted a link on here about a week ago showing those cases being dismissed. Did I miss something?
Pick, I'm not expecting anything from the Libor suits. I just want it over so that FDIC-R can close the Wamu receivership.
Any updates on FDIC-R closing receivership? Aren't Libor cases closed?
Izzru, would you be able to cut and paste your info into a public message for us all? I think most of us here on the board would really appreciate that. Thanks!
Technically, BR is not deceiving if the escrow payment is coming from remote bk. He is technically right that LT has nothing for escrow if the money flows to escrow directly from outside of LT...via DTC
Btw, what are you expecting to see filed this Friday?