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.
1099' from our broker shows a sale of escrows in Feb 22. I didn't sell anything to TDA.G
When we received shares for our escrows, it was for the value of $150M cash loan and a hint of an NOL. All derived from a Ch 11 bankruptcy and only using the liquidated assets chosen for the LT to repay creditors. Then those shares suffered a 12:1 reverse split and ~50% dilution in the merger. Those shares represent between 0-5% of the merged company today. Then both preferred and common markers get disappeared with the same stroke of the pen even before the bonds are paid off. F&R...not yet.G
The "worthless"condition of escrows and their immediate and forced removal from our accounts (I've got "worthless" CUSIP's that have languished for years since their corporate event, waiting for the authorization from the owner to remove them) goes hand-in-hand with announcement of the LT being "without value". Part of legally assuring the creditors there's "nothing left"...maybe?G
Interesting...preferred and common getting identical treatment in a Chptr 11 bk.G
Page 3 of 7
"Liquidating Trust Interests
On March 19, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), the Debtors’ Seventh Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, as modified by the Modification of Seventh Amended Plan dated January 9, 2012, the Second Modification of Seventh Amended Plan dated January 12, 2012, and the Third Modification of Seventh Amended Plan dated February 16, 2012 (collectively, the “Plan”) became effective and, pursuant to the Plan, certain of the Debtors' assets were transferred to the WMI Liquidating Trust for the benefit of certain holders of claims against, or equity interests in, the Debtors."
You had to have seen that. Why isn't the section in bold not present in your statement? There's a big difference between "everything" and "a piece of everything".G
I want to add that I think both Joe and Murray have enough skin in this game to allow us shareholders to conclude that abandonment is so off the table. IMO the silence and share price are not supported by the trade volumes as of late.G
Craig Hemke interviewed Mr Carrabba concerning this and other delays. I'm just guessing but I think Murray's efforts to go lower in the mine unleashed some water permitting risk that, acc to Joe, is resolving in September. But...DEQ like any other state environmental dept will be running according to their "Covid crippled" schedule. Real tough to make promises to others when your business is held hostage by regulators, in spite of a touted business-friendly handshake. When Joe started talking the small miner's exclusion on a 1940's mine, a piece of me said "the 70's changed all of that".G
Mary Kay mine happenings...
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/94127/Bond-Resources-Gains-Access-to-Historical-Mary-K-Mine
I thought that newco, at the time equity got shares, was worth maybe $150 mil. They didn't leverage that to buy Nationstar. The judge never stated that Justin's facts were wrong, just inadmissible. IMHO everyone in equity got a big Ch 11 haircut and moved forward, unless the equity was exclusively tied to the siezed/liquidated institutions. IMHO BOD would be obligated to preserve the share structure and reunite equity with their assets at some point after the bankruptcy...and that may be wishful thinking.G
Thank you, AZ for clearing up the sourcing for the dividend opinion.
Do you consider "WMI and its Subsidiaries" and "WMI and ALL OF ITS Subsidiaries" to be equal terms?G
AZ, Given the WAMU pre-bk dividend history of ~0.25-0.5 per qtr, how are the remote assets of the parent coming anywhere near your 0.38 figure. Is it the reduced overhead or is it that the 95% of the company that the receiver still retains was never productive anyway? TIA for breaking that down for us.G
It's not the quarterly count that is a concern. In the years before 2008, the bank's quarterly dividends were in the 0.30-0.50 range. The talk was that FDIC ripped 95% of the holding company's $300B valuation when they took over WMB. AZ, can you explain how it is that the remote assets are pulling down dividends equivalent to the those of the whole institution prior to 2008?G
Have we seen anything in the past 10 days that sets these reports in motion? Just askin.G
"Form SC 13D and Form SC 13G must be filed within 10 days of a transaction that affects an investor’s beneficial ownership in a company. If a transaction occurs that would increase a 13G filer’s ownership over the 20% threshold or if a passive investor decides to exert control over the company, then a 13D filing must be made within 10 days of that event. The 10 day period starts on the date of the trade rather than the settlement date."
Interesting case name in a public foreclosure auction sale statement published locally just this week:
"US Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America NA Successor Trustee to Lasalle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Pass-through certificates, WMALT Series 2005-3 vs..."
Happy New Year!G
Thank you for that clarification HM.G
Well there it is...all trades prior to the petition date(PD)not the Effective Date (ED). The language in the trusts also applies to the PD. So my inference is that all acquisitions (classes 19/22) between the PD and ED are null and void outside the POR. How is every security acquired after the PD able to participate in distribution of the remote assets? Is there a different language somewhere that clears that up?
The trusts have their own rules outside of the bankruptcy as we've heard again and again and yet the POR7 cusip's are the only viable and traceable participants to any remote assets.
AZ there's a wall that you repeatedly breach to match remote assets with eligible recipients (whatever that definition is). If one uses the POR7's cusip's for traceability then must they not abide by the environment of the POR?G
DB had a $10B claim whittled down to $3B+. What assurance do we have that any of the participation interest survived the Long Beach fiasco?...or carried over into the other MBS classes. Could the originator sacrifice (liquidate) their position in these trusts to offset put-back requirements. There was a confidential agreement between JMPC Group and DB as part of the Globic settlement. Is there any way to ascertain that WMI's participation interest remains intact?G
Thanks for the follow-up MB. There are quite a few of them out there. I stand corrected.G
This is interesting...I think it's related.G
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2018/01/wall-streets-top-cop-cant-shake-money-ties-to-mysterious-firm/
I agree with DB's fiduciary responsibilities and rights on the issue for that matter. Long Beach's paper was crap IMO and there were performance guarantees as with any other MBS of the day. DB was entrusted to deliver to terms. They had a good claim.
FDIC is not acting to protect investors out of their own funds. So that money is forseen to be available at some point coming from a place that continues to defy definition. To your question...I'm no specialist here but I thought WMIIC acted more like a trustee than an originator.
Why the trading of the WMIH shares after the initial distribution was allowed I'll never know. That should have never happened IMO.G
"Why would debtors have to distribute money to MBS, when the MBS is suppose to distribute money to the debtors?"
Put-back commitments first then distributions. DB has a $3 bil IOU from FDIC-R. Why would DB settle for this if they knew it wasn't there?
Why was DB even given a voice in the DC action? Why did the estate through FDIC have to dish out anything to the trustee? What gave any validity to the $10B claim brought by DB to the DC court?G
The originator/issuer makes good against poor performance but they can also be participating in that same security. So they are compensating themselves to the degree they are invested in the instrument IMHO.G
There are put-back guarantees that are contractual. The issuer/originator needs to reinforce the trust with performing assets. Why was DB screaming for $10B (but getting 3). It's wholly one-sided and protective of the investors including the risk capital of the originator. But, what better source of performance compensation than the risk capital of the originator IMHO.G
I agree. DB's MBS's from Long Beach were the worst of the worst and around $70B of them were created before WMI shut them down. "Dog sh-t" re-rated as AAA as a pooled instrument. The put-back charges have got to be monstrous.
There was talk (at the time) that the loan defaults had ripped more than 30% of the value out of these particular MBS's.
My question is "What condition existed such that the participation by the originator was sacrificed for the good of the Moms and Pops that stood to lose their principle in the trust? I'll bet a 25% participation went bye-bye in the first week after the takeover to protect those trusts.
The $3 billion IOU from the FDIC for DB is probably just the current deficit being experienced by these "dog sh-t" MBS's. Makes one wonder if there is any participation value left at all in these instruments. I'm sure that the footprint of WAMU was large enough to absorb the hit (solvent) but that was ~$70B out of a loan portfolio of what ~$200B? Bonanza gains are unrealistic expectations IMHO.G
1) The $30B windfall discovery by JPM acquired in the WAMU "garage sale".
2) Litigated $3B payment of $10B DB claim.
3) Balances of retained earnings over 9 years.
More I'm sure since Hochburg's blinded study.G
I would imagine that he instructed the judge to quit making a fool of him in court and don't ask him questions they won't let him answer. Now that the criminal statutes have limited out maybe they can ask him the same questions armed with a totally different set of facts.G
I wonder how many hedge funds made phone calls to their legal departments last night. This has the the smell of ripeness.G
How important is the WMILT pass-through function down stream?G
I would imagine the receiver is asking something like "Where is our release?" Moving quickly into the tip of the funnel. Lots of lawyers looking at this. IMHO of course.
"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave."G
One would imagine that to obtain a release the FDIC would have to arrive at a settlement with the debtors, the same way releases were obtained in the POR7 and the DB settlement recently. How can the final gavel go down without it?G
I stand corrected and surprised.G
My point is that listing rules as they apply to NASD securities is not the standard to go by given that WMIH's identity is a SPAC. As to the length of time given for a SPAC to get its job done I'll concede the 24 month upper limit as the general understanding however latitude is getting granted as referenced below:
"Since the late summer of 2010, the SPAC vehicle has reemerged with new features, including smaller sponsor promotes (reduced from 20-25% to 10-15%), much lower maximum redemption thresholds (reduced from 70-80% to 12% or less), and longer windows to get a deal done (extended from 18 to 36 months)."
https://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2011/03/spacs-2-0-new-spac-rules-changes-approved-by-nasdaq-and-nyse-amex-and-new-market-features-make-spacs-a-more-attractive-investment-vehicle-in-2011/
I've been seeing delisting notification beginning to creep into the conversation. WMIH uplisted to NASD as a SPAC. The rules are a little different. I reference this Seeking Alpha article below as some proof of what I'm saying. As a SPAC I think they have three years to acquire, starting Sept 2015 acc to article. IMHO I'm not expecting a delisting letter at all.G
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4034259-nothing-special-special-purpose-acquisition-company-wmih
So where is the point of diminishing returns? Based on my understanding of the relationship described, a 10% reduction in share price now would only be generating a derivative asset paper gain of 6.5-7% (am I getting that right?). I would imagine that robbing Peter to pay Paul is already long in the tooth.G
I thought the Anico claim of the Project West collusion was summarily thrown out as "all hat and no cattle". I didn't know that a settlement was reached that affected Anico's ability to move forward with this case.G
It may take more time as someone has to approach the bench tapping at their watch saying ...Your Honor...? That's two months... but we have to be very near ripeness with regard to release of any safe haven assets. Obviously, the only folks still in their seats are the representatives of the remaining classes dying to find out "what's in the box?". If the market corrects hard cash will be king. IMHO of course.G
As long as the FDIC-R remains un-released by equity there is a court and a judge watching. I had to sign something to get JPM and FDIC-C off the hook. Haven't seen anything in the mail lately. Even JPM has a vested interest in seeing Classes 19-22 receive something. Remember, all the WAMU/JPM employees that had securities in those classes (retirement funds) had to sell them at the bottom of the market for JPM securities. Now that's a class action lawsuit waiting to happen! IMHO of course!G