?
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.
I believe what I see in my account. I agree that legal documents can be confusing and ambiguous, but I think what has happened and what has not happened offer all the proof I need. Theory after theory has not changed a thing. It is what it is and it is has played out just as agreed to in the POR. No, I don't believe in the secret "perfect plan" that will return undisclosed assets to us.
All means all. Clear enough for MOST readers.
BK you are absolutely correct. As you have posted time and again all the factual records support what has happened so far and nothing but pure speculation and confused interpretations of unrelated information is used to justify the hope of missing assets to be returned to escrows. The theories come and go one by one without anything showing up. My favorite is the cash from JPM deposit holders coming to us. Of course, the great mystery of the 30 Bil in apartment loans on JPM balance sheet is pretty ridiculous too. How can this type of desperate theorizing gain any traction? And they like to question your credibility. Keep posting the facts.
Read the article. It clearly states JPM had the 30 B in 2008 and they were surprised to see the loans to be performing, that is the borrowers were paying their payments in spite of the bad economy. This was a big contrast with most of the loans JPM got from WAMU. And remember, JPM took a 31 Billion write down to cover losses in the WAMU loan portfolio. So sure they were surprised to find some good assets back in 2008 when they were reviewing the portfolio. Still a good deal for JPM but you do have to add the 31 Billion to the 1.9 Bil purchase price to get their initial price. The point is the assets are not new, not hidden and not coming back to us for any reason.
Your well thought out response is typical. JPM assets purchased in the transaction seven years ago have absolutely no chance of magically coming back to us. It is a ridiculous conclusion.
Tanj Spin is speculating about results that never happen over and over again. To answer your sarcastic question, No I don't write spin for a living. My career is public knowledge and has been discussed on this forum.
Why not now. With all the negative PR JPM has gotten relative to all the fines and financial settlements associated with the WAMU purchase, it makes perfect sense to highlight a real positive outcome. Every time there is something written about JPM, it seems to be interpreted as something positive for us. At least the current speculation is not quite as ridiculous as the speculation that JPM deposits leaving JPM were coming back to us instead of the account owners.
JPM bought substantially all the Assets years ago. There are no claims being pursued by the Trust for missing Billions. POR 7 has been followed. The BK was ruled fair and reasonable. JPM as a public company has issued all required disclosures. These are just plain facts. The deal is over and done with. The latest speculation about the commercial loans is just another example of the unfounded hope that something big is coming back to our escrow accounts.
BBob Typically the securitization process starts with the origination of the loan which is closed and booked as a loan held for resale vs a loan held for investment, (portfolio) loan. Loans held for resale are subject to interest rate risk and are marked to market each month showing a gain or a loss. As loans are accumulated they are typically hedged by selling like kind securities in the forward market to minimize short term interest rate risk. Large blocks of loans are then securitized using FNMA or FHLMC programs for conforming conventional loans and GNMA programs for FHA/Va loans. Jumbo or nonconfrming credit loans are securitized using private security dicumentation. The resulting MBS securities are sold in the secondary market for a gain or a loss , and the forward sale hedge sales are covered/ or repurchased also with a gain or loss. The combination of the MBS sales and the forward hedging becomes the profit or loss. Of course the originating lender gets an origination fee to offset origination costs and usually some discount points to adjust the loan basis to current rates.
d17 the discussion was about specific assets shown on a JPM disclosure supporting repurchase liabilities in dispute between the regulator and JPM where both were being sued by the Trustee involved in the MBS. You are correct that JPM bought all the WAMU balance sheet items including the servicing rights on the loans collateralizing the MBS we are discussing. It is obvious these MBS were sold before BK. I understand some believe these are unaccounted for assets that will be returned to our escrow accounts. I wish it was true but it is not. Good luck to all of us here especially the pre BK holders.
LG the question has been answered and explained over and over. What has not been explained is any rational reasons based on the facts about these MBS, that would explain how these MBS have anything to do with our escrows.
DMC I can't ID the buyers but it makes no difference. WAMU securitized and sold billions of loans in the form of MBS, the point is the MBS were sold and WAMU was paid for the MBS and serviced the loans, collecting mortgage payments from the borrowers and remitting principal and interest to the investors who bought the MBS from WAMU. JPM became the servicer with the purchase of WAMU. There is nothing here to be returned to anyone.
The information has been supplied and discussed in previous posts. There were no off balance sheet assets. There was a schedule showing MBS serviced but not owned by JPM. The schedule was there to support potential repurchase obligations which have now been resolved in JPMs favor by the court. JPM never owned the MBS, only the associated servicing rights obtained from WAMU in the purchase transaction.The underlying loans collateralizing the MBS were originated by WAMU, securitized by WAMU and sold in the secondary market prior to the BK. Any cash from the sale of the MBS was booked by WAMU upon the MBS sale. There is nothing left except the MSR loan servicing asset on the JPM balance sheet relative to the remaing MBS serviced by JPM. There Is not 38B of assets on or off the JPM balance sheet to be returned period.
The 38B of MBS remaing and serviced by JPM belong to the investors who bought them. They were bought and paid for years ago. They were only an issue in the JPM statement footnote because of the lawsuit concerning the repurchase liability obligations. This has been discussed and explained here many times.
Large, no offense but you did say you " suspect WMILT is the target" today in an earlier post.
You are not confused, you are correct. These securitization contract obligations, and the Courts ruling in favor of JPM, will have zero monetary impact on us.
Making sure related entities are all subject to an agreement is common practice. It eliminates the opportunity to move assets between entities to avoid debt collection in the event of a default.
LG I meant the post as a factual clarification not an attack on anyone. The fact that I am a escrow holder and still have a different opinion than you is relevant because you keep saying only a non escrow holder could possibly disagree with you.
Finally the absolute truth written on this forum. We agreed, we signed the release, we were lucky to get POR 7 and we accepted it as FAIR and REASONABLE. The past has passed, and the future is outlined in the POR. And no, the WMLT is not an acquisition target.
Nurse I see what you mean. Completely true and relevant to the discussion post offering an informed and well articulated explanation of current Banking rules negatively impacting certain Bank Deposit accounts is now gone.
True enough for deposits up to 250,000. deposits are insured. The point is Deposits belong to the account holders not the Bank. The LARGE assertion linking the JPM announcement to our escrow accounts is not credible and is just another example of such.
Precisely correct and true explanation of the situation that is causing many Banks to shed unprofitable deposit accounts. Thank you Kirby96.
Many deposit account arrangements especially between two financial institutions are not currently profitable. Even if you don't think that is true, the point is that Deposits don't belong to JPM or any Bank the money belongs to the deposit account holder. Saying that deposit money will come from JPM to our escrows or anyone Other than the Deposit holder is completely absurd.
Ridiculous assertion about JPM deposits going in to our escrow accounts. These are DEPOSIT accounts, cash deposited by other individuals or Financial institutions in JPM accounts, just like your checking or savings account at your Bank. They are giving the money back to the depositors. They are doing it because the accounts are not profitable ie they can't make a positive spread on the deposits in the current interest rate environment.
The Custodian holds the documents forever until the servicer needs them in the event of a satisfaction of the mortgage or foreclosure. The custodial arrangement is part of the securitization process where the originator is paid for the assets held as collateral for the securities paid for by the investor buying the security interest. The loans originally on the balance sheet of the originator leave thei originators balance sheet replaced by cash from the security sale. Debit cash, credit loans, credit any difference above or below to gain on sale. It's complicated, but the result is the same as a simple whole loan sale. The asset is sold replaced by cash, with a gain or loss depending upon the loan basis compared to theprice paid for the loan. Either way, the asset is gone.
Key word is Custodian for the trust. The assets were securitized and sold to investors. The trust leaves the mortgage documents in the possession of the Custodian to reduce costs and facilitate loan servicing. The assets were not/are not on the balance sheet of the originating entity or JPM as successor. This is standard operating procedure in the mortgage securitization process. Nothing here for our escrows!
LG I assumed everyone had read it. And, it does not support any Large payout for our escrows.
This is not new. The letter has been public knowledge for six years as it was part of the JPM 2008 financial statement.
Good relevant question BB, the point is JPM has no hidden WAMU related assets on their books that will be returned to us.
Goodwill is common in purchase accounting and occurs when the purchase price exceeds the fair market value of the net assets of the company purchased. So, it doesn't indicate a surplus of assets over the purchase price rather a shortage.
Catz when did 3+3 officially start ?
All factual evidence points to the obvious conclusion that our escrows are worth very little, probably nothing. All the various scenarios put forth to fund escrows seem to be based on hope alone, without any supporting facts. It is amazing to see a new theory evolve as each old theory is debunked, each predicted important key date passes without anything happening. Hope and Change! I think I heard that somewhere else. LOL
Your best post Rocky!
This question has been answered. Again, disclosures of this type are made for a variety of reasons, including Legal, GAP accounting, and Regulatory requirements. I don't know the precise reason for this disclosure or the timing. The point is, the numbers used are clearly part of a spread sheet containing data to support an estimate of normal repurchase obligations that are assumed by the issuer of the MBS. These obligations may now be a liability of JPM as successor. The JPM position is they did not assume these liabilities with their purchase of WAMU assets. The point again is JPM is involved as the Loan Servicing agent, and may or may not be liable for repurchase obligations, but we are not involved with any of the cash flows between the mortgagors. the Servicer and the Mortgagees, in this case the MBS owners.
Thanks Large, I appreciate you saying that
Roach I was with JPM for sixteen years as CEO of the Mortgage Business, retired in 1998, got bored with retirement, and went back to work with the Dime Bank of New York, as CEO of Dime Mortgage later to become Dime North American Mortgage after we acquired North American Mortgage. I was there in the Board Room as a Director when Terry H of WAMU made his offer for Dime leading to there purchase of the Bank. After a short stay working for WAMU to fulfill my golden parachute contract, I retired again in late 2002. I got a good bit of WAMU stock as a result. The good news is I sold half of it. The bad news is I held the other half until near the end in 2008. Between the WAMU stock and the DIMEQ losses, it was an expensive lesson.
Large I have no desire to argue with you or others concerning the latest desperate theory about money coming back to our escrow shares. BK has effectively refuted the theory better than I can. The BK was documented and approved and has progressed per the plan. I am not your problem, reality is the problem for all of us in this mess. It is simply what it is,and as far as I can tell, none of the escrow theories and predictions have proven true. I only mentioned my prior life in the mortgage industry to say my opinions are based on my hands on experience with what I believe to be normal business practice in connection with the private mortgage backed securities sold by WAMU, and later serviced by JPM.
These private mortgage backed securities were common and billions were issued by WAMU and others. There is nothing indicating that any cash amounts due the investors owning the securities was not paid to them. The amounts noted were paid to the investors per the servicing contracts and securitization contracts. The figures noted in this instance are there only to establish a basis for estimating repurchase obligations stemming from the reps and warranties contained in the original security documents.
No claim was necessary because the security owners got their Cash.
SweetGB. Have not been following regularly. Just reading some of the recent posts and there seems to be a lot of confusion or misguided, hopeful speculation regarding JPM's recent filings and our escrow markers. I was checking the forum to see if there was any real news to explain recent positive movement in the share price.