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.
Are you kidding? I'm sorry but the writer of those posts completely misunderstands the requirement to report and/or not report assets.
But back to my question. What are those assets and where are they if they do exist, but are not showing on the wmi-lt documents?
Correct. So where are those assets that might be distributed to escrows?
Where exactly is this escrow money right now? It's not showing in the most recent WMI-LT 10-K's or Quarterly Summary Reports. Does this mean some other entity is holding this for us?
I am still trying to come up to speed on this escrow thing.
Your calculation seems to indicate there are assets somewhere out there with a net worth of something around $126-133 billion.
That's a lot of money. It seems that there should be some record of it somewhere. Somebody should be in control of it, and responsible for keeping it safe and distributing it.
Who exactly is that? Do they ever file any quarterly or annual reports/documents accounting for it?
Sorry for all the questions, but I missed those parts.
Thanks!!!!
5 years old video!! and wrong.
I'm pretty sure fannie and freddie have not been allowed to pay back the senior preferred for the last 5 years. I'm not sure what that guy was talking about...
I hate these delays. I want my $.008 per escrow NOW! For me this could add up to several TENS of DOLLARS!
I predict that in a few months this stock will be ten times - no make that TWELVE TIMES it's current price!
Just keeps going up!
Waiting for Godot.
No - I meant ALL the NWS money. Principal and interest. $167 Billion for Fannie, $112 Billion for Freddie. That would be a nice start towards recap.
They could pull any number out of the air, but those numbers are big enough to make a difference and have some level of justification.
Whatever amount they gave to Fannie and Freddie - it would all come back to the Treasury via the warrants and taxes. Plus even more as the market cap valuation of Fannie and Freddie approach that of stable, profitable companies.
This is why it makes sense for the gov't to refund all the net worth sweep money to fannie and freddie.
If they did - the cash returned would add to the market cap of fannie and freddie. The feds own 80% so they would get back 80% of what they gave.
Odds are that having fannie and freddie properly capitalized would allow their market cap to go up to a market multiple of say 10. This would multiply the market cap increase. Odds are the feds would see a net return of double what they gave back from the sweeps.
The rest of that market cap would show up as profit for fannie and freddie share owners. As they sold - a big chunk of the remaining 20% would come back in capital gains taxes.
So we have the gov't doubling their money, fannie and freddie restored to a safe capitalization reducing risk to the taxpayers, and the housing mortgage market made safe.
Win, win, win. You will be tired of winning so much. (Who said that?)
I voted yes - not that it matters.
I look forward to the reverse split making my shares marginable in my brokerage account, and the expected stock price increase from new buyers coming in that are currently forbidden by their policies from buying stocks priced below $5.00.
We've seen lots of selling since the merger by former Mr Cooper investors because big investors can't margin the current shares, or their investing rules don't allow holding stocks under $5.00. The reverse split should stop and hopefully reverse the price decline caused by those things.
What is the history of the 75/25% split?
Why did they decide to split the funds 75/25? Normally it's 100% to creditors, then 100% to Preferred, and anything left 100% to common stockholders. There must have been a reason to divert from this established norm.
Was the feeling that the preferred wouldn't get fully paid, but they didn't want to see the commons get nothing?
Or was the feeling that there would be massive amounts left for the commons, and they felt that since so many preferred owners invested their money at a difficult time they should get to share in the huge gains the commons were in line to get?
Was this article dated today?
I remember a year or so an article with almost identical wording was published prompting a discussion about why a move of the HQ would or would not be in the best interest of taxpayers. Or why it matters.
Fannie and Freddie are public companies and the only thing that they can do that should affect tax payers is to earn profits - which can be taxed. Other than that its none of the taxpayers' business what fannie or freddie do.
Oh, wait. That would have been the case prior to them being nationalized. Now that they are owned by the taxpayers I guess it does matter to them.
Many speculate there is hidden treasure at FDIC, or in various other liquidation trusts.
I can find no record showing FDIC still has any assets belonging to or earmarked for former shareholders. If other trusts or entities have their hands on cash owed to former stockholders I can find no record showing they are obligated to pay us.
At this point you should consider those assets STOLEN and that the thieves have made a clean getaway. I very much doubt they will suddenly be overcome with guilt and decide to unilaterally hand over money to us former share holders.
But you never know!
I think WMIH will be worth $30 long before the WAMUQ escrows are worth $30 which is why I have both.
You think $1 is too high or too low?
My best estimate is that they are worth $.008 each. Some think they are worth up to $80. I figure a buck is somewhere above the middle of the range.
I just saw $1.75 printed!
I printed it on a piece of scrap paper I had on my desk.
That said I think $1.75 won't print until they change the company name to the catchy "Mr Cooper".
But I worry that out there somewhere is some guy named Cooper who committed some terrible crime that will besmear the name "Mr Cooper". Imagine if they had called the company "Mr Weinstein".
I sure wish the escrows could be sold! I think some on this board are so optimistic they would be happy to buy my WAMUQ escrows for say $1.00 each. And I would be very happy to sell them at that price.
It seems the escrows will be cancelled after the WMI-LT distributes that last $40M or so. After that - how would any funds get distributed to former share holders?
Surprised nobody mentioned Kerry Killinger speaking on CNBC this morning. But then again other than saying he took steps to protect the company long before the bankruptcy and that the feds just hated the big banks, he didn't say much of interest to shareholders.
CNBC Interview with former Washington Mutual CEO
Watch your 6 most likely originated with military aviators. To this day air traffic control and pilots still refer to other traffic using the clock directions.
And just to keep this on topic - it can now refer to watching WMIH slowly climb to $6. Or 6 cents. Most likely somewhere in between.
You are both right.
The prospectus for these securities was "deemed" cancelled by the court. They did not bother to actually cancel them through the SEC.
So yes - those prospectus' (prospecti?) are still recorded. However any attempt to enforce them will fail due to the court deeming them to be effectively cancelled.
If you can get that judgement overturned - yes those will instantly go into effect again.
So the good news is you are both right!
Discussions about which series of junior preferred is better, questions about which series has which interest rate, and the like would be considered by me to be off topic.
Discussions about junior preferred as it relates to the net worth of the company, methods to recapitalize, how junior preferred and their owners might impact the future of the company and the like would be considered by me to be on topic.
In a similar way any discussion of senior preferred would be considered by me to be on topic.
I also consider discussions of Freddie to be on topic even though this is considered to be a Fannie discussion board.
Looked at fdic site. It said as of June 30, 2017 there was $2.76B to be distributed. It said that after recent payments, on September 26, 2017 - 5% of that amount ($138M) remained to be used to pay expected upcoming expenses. If none of that was actually spent this could add several pennies per share for the WAMUQ escrows!!!!!!!!!
The other link you provided referred to a 10 year old document that has no relationship to the current post-bankruptcy liquidation.
So I'll assume it's possible the amount available for distribution could be as high as $138M, but I'm pretty sure that $40M number is what's left of that number from last year. So I think we can be confident the final distribution for the Q's will be between a fraction of a cent and 4 cents per share.
Thanks for clearing it up!
I must have missed it - can you point me to a message with a link to show which securities are held by the liquidation trust or held by FDIC to be handed over to the liquidation trust?
I thought that FDIC had closed the books on this years ago, but maybe missed something.
Thanks again!
From the research I've done - it looks like this $40M is it. Maybe another 500k, but basically that $40M.
Is there any evidence or documentation or reporting that suggests there will be any more after this?
Thanks!
Did you receive new WMIH shares back on 3/23/2012? If not maybe you didn't sign the release?
I researched this over the last few days and here is what I had for comparison:
3/1/2012 - held 10,000 WAMUQ shares previously purchased
3/5/2012 - 10,000 shares of "WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC BANKRUPTCY ELECTION EXP 3/7/2012" appeared in my account.
3/23/2012 - 10,000 shares of WAMUQ disappeared from my account
3/23/2012 - Those "ELECTION" shares disappeared
3/23/2012 - 347 shares of WMIH appeared in my account
3/23/2012 - 10,000 shares of CUSIP 939ESC968 "ESCROW FOR FUTURE PAYMENT" appeared in my account
You can still pull your statements and trade confirmations from Schwab since they let you go back 10 years. I'd suggest you do this.
If you didn't get those things around March, 2012 I can only assume you didn't have any WAMUQ at the time or you didn't sign and return the release.
In my Schwab account I see 939ESC968 that I got for my WAMUQ.
The description on these is "WA FUNDING TR III XXXESCROW POSITION FOR FUTURE PAYMENT"
Is TR III related to tranche three?
Still waiting for that future payment...
I'm skeptical about my escrow value too. I've seen predictions of between $10 and $80 per escrow in expected return. But the only thing I can seem to actually confirm is just a few cents per escrow.
I remember this is where we were back in 2013 or so when I quit worrying about these escrows the first time. Likely just pennies but some speculating hundreds of dollars per.
For a while last week I was upset that prior to the release I sold 15,000 shares of WAMUQ for an average price around $.30 per share thinking I'd sold off a potential fortune. Upon further review those sales may have been the smart move.
I only got 10,000 WAMUQ escrows - we'll see if I get $300.00 or $800,000.00 for them. I'm pretty sure it will be between those numbers.
Time will tell whether the shares I got for signing the release were worth more than the ultimate cash return from the escrows.
You forgot we agreed to disagree about this?
I thought Martina Adams on TV show "Botched" this weekend may have been the cause of today's jump!
On the show they mentioned her using "Melanotan" but then corrected to say it was a related drug she had injected to turn so dark...
She could be a BIG promoter of the off-label use...
I think they repossessed Arnold/Along4's computer to cover his margin calls. We have not heard their predictions for fannie and freddie from either of them for a while...
Having Escrow CUSIPs does not necessarily mean I am in line to receive any cash distributions - is that what you are saying?
I often see it said you must have voted for the settlement and signed a timely release. Two separate actions done at different times?
As I see it then, voting for the settlement got me those CUSIP escrow shares in my brokerage account and the 347 shares of stock in the new company that I received, but this does NOT imply that I had signed and returned a release in a timely manner?
I know this seems like something I should obviously know but at the time I thought these shares were worth pennies and may or may not have bothered to sign and return a release. I had a lot of bankrupt companies around that time.
I'd like to know before I get too excited about any possible return.
Warrants are evil and should be exorcised.
We're half way there!
The warrants only had a 20 year life and I'm pretty sure Treasury will do SOMETHING before those expire, so we probably have less than 10 years more to wait!
And you gotta like that Hensarling told the new FHFA director that if GSE reform does not happen by early next year he/she should institute GSE reform administratively. I'd bet that anything the new director did would be better than anything congress came up with.
I'm up to speed now. I do have the 939ESC992 shares. Unfortunately I only seem to have 10,000 of them - I had a lot more WAMUQ back in the day but I'm afraid I may have had my broker wipe out the ones in my taxable account so I could take the capital losses. I only see the ones in my IRA.
Would be a bummer if those turned out to be worth something now.
I appreciate the patience of everyone on this board for not flaming me for my dumb posts.
If the number of 939ESC968 things in my account represents the number of WAMUQ shares I held, how many WAMUQ shares converted to one escrow marker? I'm trying to figure out exactly how many escrows I have.
I'm starting to get a bit more interested in this discussion about escrows... especially if I could potentially get a buck per former share or more. These bankruptcy things usually distribute pennies per share.
So that's what that thing in my account is:
939ESC968 WA FUNDING TR III XXX ESCROW POSITION FOR FUTURE PAYMENT
Now I'll pay more attention to the discussions here to try and figure out if this has any value at all.
Somebody said maybe $49 each? Ha - if that was the case I'd be setting up my retirement party.
Hopefully this info helps other WAMU owners too - I'm not looking for personal investment advice in a public forum. (yes I am)
I greatly appreciate any help for us WAMU shareholders to come up to speed.
I bought WAMU back in 2003. Bought again in 2007. Bought tens of thousands more shares in 2009/10. May have been WAMUQ or at least changed names to that for a while. I mainly bought thinking there was a lot of book value that others were ignoring.
After that things in my records get murky. I had a bunch of shares titled "Washington Mutual Inc Bankruptcy Election Exp 3/7/2012" which I think were some sort of marker that disappeared around the time that WMIH appeared. I assume those were converted to the WMIH shares or maybe cash?
So as a pre-seizure holder does it matter if I did or did not sign a release?
Sorry but I track this in Quicken which sucks and I may have recorded some of the share conversions as splits and sales.
I assume that any benefit us old shareholders might see will be a fraction of our original investment... but if it seems like it might be worth the research I can pull my old statements out of the basement. Unfortunately Schwab seems to have deleted all of that transaction history and is merely dragging along my original investment amount for capital gain recording purposes, and much of that got erased as I did some buying and selling over the last 5 years due to FIFO accounting.
I had WMI common shares that were cancelled way back. But I don't recall if I signed a release and don't know about escrows. I did get new shares.
So - would any of this affect shareholders like me? Part of the reason I monitor this board is on the off chance that I'll get to recover more of my losses, but I was out of the loop for a while so never got back to speed on the whole situation. I guess mattchoo and I have that in common.
I believe the cash to pay off the Liquidation Preference is sitting on the fannie and freddie books. Others have argued it is not and so far I have agreed to disagree.
As I see it back in 08/09 the cash came in, and an offsetting liability was placed on the balance sheet so it left net worth the same. However I have not confirmed exactly where that number is and which line of the balance sheet it is on. One day I'll pull those balance sheets from back in 08/09 and try to identify it.
However - the Liquidation Preference was not counted when deciding if fannie and freddie were at risk of being insolvent, so it "fixed" the non-existent problem with the mark-to-market valuation of their portfolios. The same thing happened with the draws earlier this year. No change in net worth on the balance sheet. They had to wait a few quarters to retain enough earnings to get their net worth back above $4B before the sweeps could continue.
In my opinion that cash is still there - although it has most likely been used to buy more mortgages, so isn't seen in an obvious place as cash. That negative number is still there too.
Technically they probably earned a profit from using that cash, so it's not a true rip-off for them to pay 10% for it.
SO - if they were allowed to pay off the Liquidation Preference it would not affect their net worth. However their net worth would still be close to zero, so they still need to recap.
I think all the discussions about raising capital are to recap, not to pay off the seniors. However they would have to unwind that money from their current mortgage portfolio to write that check to Treasury. Either by selling some mortgages, or not buying some as others come due - or by issuing more junior preferred.
Remember that simply issuing new preferred stock does not change the net worth of the companies. Cash in, liability logged.
When people talk about dilution they forget that issuing new stock also increases the net worth of the company, so the shareholder value and thus share price should be largely unaffected. The cash comes in, but shares they sold are not a liability. It's not dilutive of "value" (stockholder's equity) but it will dilute per share earnings, and that can reduce a stock's price a bit. The same way stock buybacks increase share price due to increased per share earnings keeping shareholder's equity the same per share.
Nevermind - found the restriction on issuing stock in the Covenants section.
More hopes dashed.