?
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.
Catz Clear and Correct
MBS were sold and paid for, underlying loans held by a Trust, the MBS securities owned by the Investors who purchased them. The assets are gone and will not come back.
Scrivener Dodd Frank is a five year old law. The FED increased the Capital requirement for JPM on July 20, 2015 using their authority under the DF law. The increases were anticipated and have been discussed in numerous articles easily found on the net. The JPM reduction plans are directly related to the new regulatory rules and current interest rate yield curve environment.
The problem with unprofitable deposits combined with high capital requirements is it makes it harder to achieve an attractive return on capital. The reason Bank stock price multiples are low is the current yield curve does not have enough spread to allow Banks to make the normally high profits from lending so reducing unprofitable deposits helps. The narrow margins have also led to large personnel expense reductions at the large Banks.
Oh, you mean Secret rules
You believe in undisclosed rules as a cause rather than the actual published new FED requirement that JPM must hold 4.5% of risk rated assets, the highest required capital of any Bank. .???
Large Read the WSJ article that reports JPM and other large Banks are reducing deposits as a result of the new capital requirements and the low interest rate environment. It's fully reported there if you just read it. Do you really expect customer deposit money to come to us? No offense, but that is ridiculous.
Your allegation is incorrect about my escrows.
Yx Agreed, I would too
Simply Google Wall Street journal article on July, 20, 2015 on " Fed gives JPM new higher capital requirements" the new requirement is 4.5% of risk rated assets, the highest of any Bank.
Large I am not worried, but I think you should be based on the actions.
Sure.
First they determine the least profitable ones. Then they inform the customers they no longer want the deposits, and write them a check, or wire the funds to an account specified by the customer. These usually turn out to be commercial deposit accounts with lots of transactions with customers that don't have other profitable business activities with the Bank.
Look it up yourself. You will find that JPM has been given the highest capital requirement of any U.S. Bank.
Dodd Frank regulation led to new higher capital requirements for Banks. This plus the limited returns from Deposit liabilities because of the extended period of low rates make deposits less attractive to hold compared to the old regulatory and interest rate environment. JPM is taking these steps to manage their return on capital and comply with Dodd Frank. Similar market conditions in other countries, Japan for example led to Banks actually charging customers to hold their deposits. In any case, it's not JPM money, it belongs to their customers. Not related to our interests.
Escrows are for leftovers.
The question is, what will be left at the bottom of the waterfall? Some think there are hidden assets and secret arrangements. This thinking is hopefull and leads to the " life changing event". Others think the deal is done, the documentation, the legal agreements and disclosures, the agreed on POR, the lack of legal challenges by any LARGE money parties indicates the escrow returns will be limited. Take your pick: blind hope based on continuous predictions and theory's or plain logic based on what has happened and not happened after all this time. Time will tell.
Des90 the mortgages are assigned to a Trustee.
This has been explained more than once on this forum. This is routine for the process, and the servicer is contractually obligated to repurchase the defaulted loans back from the trustee. That is why the Trustee in this case was suing both JPM and the Regulator because there was a dispute about who was obligated for the repurchase liabilities. The case was decided in favor of JPM, so the Trustee and the Regulator are still in a legal dispute. The mortgages were sold by WAMU, the Trustee has title to them, and the MBS owners have the rights to collect the cash flows from the mortgages less the servicing fees.
BK you are correct.
The owner of MSR's are routinely responsible for repurchase obligations under the terms of standard MBS seller/servicing contracts. As you know, these particular MBS have been discussed over and over. JPM now owns the servicing rights, as successor to WAMU, the assets were previously securitized and sold by WAMU. In this case, JPM maintained the repurchase obligation liabilities were not assumed in this case, and the Judge agreed. So, the regulator is probably on the hook for the liabilities but the Judge will determine that. In any case,it seems clear the assets are long gone. Simple enough. IMO
There are no missing or hidden assets in any JPM statements and disclosures. There have been misguided assertions about JPM disclosed assets but all such have been proven wrong. No one has made any legal claim or complaint against JPM about hidden WAMU assets.
The WAMU story has been written in POR 7. Everything that has happened since has followed the documented and disclosed plan. No one has made any legal challenge to the plan. No alternate theories about missing or hidden assets have been proven true, and nothing unexpected and undisclosed has happened despite all the repeated predictions of "something " BIG happening soon. JPM took advantage of the opportunity caused by the regulators panic reaction in the financial crisis. We don't think it was fair but it happened, past tense, it's history, and for the most part it is over. We do have potentially valuable ownership in WMIH. I think a way to take advantage of the NOL's will be found at some point. That is the reasonable future win IMO
AZ Servicing rights are not at all comparable to deposits. They are assets owned, in this case by JPM. The assets are listed on the balance sheet and referred to as MSR's, mortgage servicing rights. They can be and often are bought and sold in the secondary market. The MSR's holder has the exclusive right to the servicing fee income stream along with all the obligations connected to collecting mortgage payments, holding escrow cash for payment of property tax and insurance premiums, remitting P and I to the investor owners, and guarantee fees to FNMA, FHLMC in the case of conventional conforming loans.
JB. Agree completely! Predictions without any Credibility! Total misrepresentation of the stock distribution and the 3.5 Bil authorized for M&A contrary to all the documented facts.
LOL TestExpected!
Meat, Absolutely good question.
Why after all this time? It does look like desperation. Even, regretful to say, pathetic unfounded hope. IMO
Yes we do Crey.
There are large parties who have substantial interests in the outcome. No claims have been made. Apparently, they have all moved on!
JPM got all the deposits, substantially all the other Liabilities, the assumed, adjusted book value of all the assets,(remember JPM took 30 billion of write downs for expected loses associated with the WAMU assets), the assumed franchise value of the WAMU customer base, all for the "Premium" of 1.88 Bil. Yes all the assumed book values were JPM assumptions, but the deal was made. Reading the contract semantics in such a way as to support yet another theory about money for escrows after all this time has passed is not Credible to me. The deal was done. It is what it is, what has been agreed to by all the parties in interest, as documented and without any challenge by anyone, after all this time. Again, ask yourself what has actually happened, what has been predicted by theorist that has not happened. IMO
No assets are missing. No assets are hidden. JPM bought everything. The POR 7 was agreed to by all. No claims have been made for missing assets by anyone. The JPM purchase is complete and fully paid for. All the theories have come and gone without any of them coming true. Theories about LARGE BILLIONS coming back to our escrows are not CREDIBLE. Ask yourself what has happened and what has not happened and you will know the truth. It's been a long time without a change. I don't expect much to change going forward. Theories will continue but not the results. Just my opinion based on the facts and the results.
I hub, the portfolio mortgages were all purchased by JPM. The loans that were securitized in MBS were sold to investors and all cash flows including monthly mortgage payments, the P& I,less the servicing fee to the servicer, now JPM, refinances, payoffs etc go to the investors who purchased the MBS securities. That's it. All explained here before. There are no missing mortgage assets.
LG I do know of it but thanks for the link
I owned large WAMU position prior to BK. The good news is I sold half between 2001 and 2006. The BAD news is I kept the other half. I really never imagined WAMU going down to BK. So, like everyone else I have my WMIH and the escrows. Still think we will get some value from our equity but I don't see much left in the waterfall to reach our escrows.
The documents have been linked before multiple times. Your theory needs to be supported with something, anything indicating hidden or secret assets to be returned. What is happening is explained by POR 7. What is speculated to happen and what has not happened yet is what you cannot support. Your conclusion is not credible but I don't need to change your mind. Time as they say will tell.
Again, the reason the servicing was reported has been discussed several times. The off balance sheet schedule showing the servicing purchased from WAMU was there to support estimates of repurchase obligations that were the subject of a lawsuit which the court has judged are not obligations that JPM is responsible for. All public records already cited and discussed. Credible facts.
You need to catch up on all the prior discussions about the MBS securities sold prior, serviced originally by WAMU and now by JPM as successor and owner of the servicing rights, the MSR,s. The mortgages were securitized and sold in the form of MBS securities. Nothing there for escrows. This is a credible fact discussed time and again.
Assets on JPM balance sheet belong to JPM period. That's credible.
Lippy no worries it's all good.
Sorry, I don't remember your question and the post is gone. It happens. I am still positive about WMIH prospects but obviously I don't expect much from my escrows.
So, you are saying the JPM 10-Q leads you to that conclusion about the FDICR. I notice you don't explain why. Seems like a conclusion looking for reasons when unrelated documents are posted over and over. Anyway, I was asking LG as he made the post.
The MBS related trusts and the actual and potential repurchase obligations JPM has as the successor and owner of the loan servicing, MSR,s on WAMU sponsored MBS securities, and the recent court ruling in favor of JPM have all been discussed here over and over. There is nothing about all of this stuff to indicate any money for our escrows.
Neat Stuff! this is all public information, much of it already discussed. It is interesting info if you are a JPM shareholder, or thinking of being one, but I don't see any relevance to us as WMIH shareholders or as escrow holders. If you have a conclusion concerning what this info means to us, please tell us what it is and explain why. Thanks
Scrivener please check your second,third and fourth links. They don't appear to be linking to anything.
Correction. Links two thru four don't work.
Outstanding? First three links don't work!
Fred you know it never happened don't you
Fred your post is well written and I understand your questions regarding some of the BK process. I only used the word secret because the so called "perfect plan" has never been mentioned in any Court ruling, disclosure, the POR agreement or anywhere to my knowledge outside of this forum. Again, what has happened is supported by the reorganization plan and all the documentation. What has not happened is any payment or statements from any legal entity, regulator, or Court supporting the theories and predictions regarding Large payments to our escrow accounts. Actions are speaking louder than theories hatched on the forum. I respect everyone's right to their opinion, but it has been a long time period since the JPM purchase, and the POR. Although some of the theories have been ridiculous, a few have been interesting and thought provoking, but one by one they all fall by the wayside without coming true.