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 dont think FDIC-R has control over these assets but its possible that these remote bk entities have "all rrue ups" release condition that may require FDIC-R closure.
RD, I hope you are right! If things dont appear by end of November, it will start to look bleak for us for resolution anytime soon. I just hope this is not waiting for FDIC-R closure...
Thanks for the clarification LG. So the 6 months is based on precedence.
What are your thoughts on the potential timing of escrow payment? I doubt they will wait until December. My thought are that if we dont get paid in November then this may not happen until after FDIC-R closes down.
That is vorrect! WMI issued our escrow markers. ai believe markers can only be deleted when WMI is gone.
LG, are you pretty confident that the LT will finally die in March 2021 since therd has been no extension as of today? or is that 6 months not really a deadline but more like a guideline?
I dont think we, as the escrow markers, are not the direct beneficiaries of those REITs. There are intermediary remote bk trusts that are holding those dividends for us as they are the direct beneficiaries of those REITs However, we indirectly are the final beneficiaries because at some point those remote bk entities must repatriate those retained earnings back to escrow. I dont know anybody here knows when that is. We are all guessing that it should be within a year of the bk closing....which would mean we should get paid by end of year...but so far crickets.
I hope this really gets resolved this year. March 2021 by the latest. If we dont get paid by March 2021, there is a likely chance that they can hold onto the money until 2041...until every REIT/ABS penny has been collected.
Lodas, I agree. That easy low interest bridge loan to WMIH, a company with no revenue, to purchase Nationstar was very suspicious. If I had no income, and walked into a bank, and ask them for a bridge loan to purchase an apartment building, with no money down, other than the prospect of having future rental income from that apartment building, I dont think I would every get approved for $2.7M...So how did WMIH get approved for $2.7B? Its very suspicious because if WMIH was entitled to any potential future income from those remote BK assets, it would need to disclose that as a public company.
IMO, I dont think the release terms are dictated by the bk court...hence they are "bk remote". They are totally isolated from the bk court. As CBA09 stated these bk remote entities, SPVs, were setup long before the bk as separate entities with their own predetermined trust release conditions in case of bk. I dont think anyone here knows what those conditions are other than the insiders like Mike Willingham.
There are other investors to these REITs like the Gates Foundation and they have been showing to collect payments all these years. I remember someone on this board posting a link to one of their previous filings showing the income from old Wamu entities.
However, the portion of payment from these REITs that belongs to escrow holders (retained interest) has most likely been collecting in an intermediary bk remote entity all these years.
The question that no one can answer is what js the releasing condition of that bk remote entity? within a year after bk closure? or after both bk and FDIC-R closure? or after the last REIT penny has been collected? 2041???
I agree that IRS wants their pound of flesh but the 90% rule applies to REITs. All those REITs may have been paying out all these years, but our retained interest has been collecting in some remote bk entity...just as CBA09 told us
The question now is what is the required release condition to repatriate those collected retained interest back to escrow markers? With in a year of bk closing? after both bk closing and FDIC-R closing? or it can withold until the last penny is collected from the REITs? 2041???
Boarddork, you have done a great service to all old Wamu investors here by sharing your research and it has certainly struck a nerve with some, who are trying to refute the evidence here by sowing doubt. Bottom line is, you can have many sec filings under different entity names based on where you are trading but there is only 1 ISIN identifying the actual legal financial entity that is recognized globally...the end.
So evidence shows all these legacy legal entities have continually operated independently and have been collecting money all these years as the loans have run down.
Only an idiot would believe that the old WMI entity had zero retained interests in any of these entities.
An honest critic may argue that the retained interest is small...but an honest critic would also admit that nobody knows what the retained interest percentage is.
We know its somewhere between $24B(stock holder equity at time of bk filing) and $86B (according to Dr. A testimony).
We also know that REITs are required to distribute most of its earnings as dividend every year per Sec regulations.
So any retained interest belonging to escrow markers must have been collecting in some remote bk trust all these years.
The billion dollar question is, when must the remote bk entity distribute that collected funds back to escrow?
Within a year of bk ending? By end of this year?
Or after both bk ending and FDIC closing the receivership? End of this year? March 2021? Who knows?
Or it doesnt need to distribute until it collects the last penny from the last operating security? 2041? This would suck!!! If this is the case then we need someone to admit this as it would definitely cause lifetime emotional trauma for everyone involved with this fiasco.
There have been other banks that could also benefit from the Libor suit and their receiverships have closed. Also, have you seen any significant settlement from any of the banks? This was all done to delay closing the Wamu receivership.
Also, if Coop is set to gain anything from these legacy assets, they are required by sec rugulations to disclose this as a public company. Imagine all the shareholder lawsuits that will be going on for those who bought and sold Coop prior to them receiving legacy assets. I highly doubt it.
Yeah, I saw that but I'm not sure if that settlement covers all the banks...any banks left? Also, there seems to be a "fairness hearing" assigned for the 5th.
Again, it would be nice if we can get an email response from FDIC regarding the latest ruling...a simple yes or no on whether the Libor cases have ended.
RD, I really hope this is related to our case. We can see the money just sitting there as Boarddork has shown us this week. There are only 2 more roadblocks that I can see. 1) extension of the bk shutdown by March 2021 (which I believe the deadline is next week) and 2) FDIC receivership close out - which I am worried about since they can use that Libor lawsuits as an excuse for further delays...for years to come.
Why hasnt FDIC closed out Wamu receivership? Why cant they give the public a straight answer? They've stated on record that Libor lawsuit will likely not produce significant gains for Wamu receivership. So why cant they close out the receivership after 12 years and just issue a tracking marker for the estate for "potential future payout from Libor lawsuit"?
Email FDIC and ask what is the hold up for Wamu receivership close out if there is "nothing left"?
No, I dont think FDIC controls the assets but the remote bk trusts may have a provision to not to distribute until FDIC close out the receivership...I think the "all true ups" condition that CBA09 referred to is that potential provision. I'm not too familiar with how these remote bk SPVs rules work but CBA09 was very knowledgeable about them as an industry veteran.
I've come to suspect this year that this whole Libor lawsuit against the big banks is a fraudulant delaying tactic to avoid closing down the receivership. We will likely never see a cent from these lawsuits but they have been going on for years without any result.
So my biggest worry now is that FDIC will continue these Libor suits for another 10 years and preventing the remote bk assets from releasing.
I dont want to jinx our chances of payout by year end yet but there is still a possibility that they could hold up the payment until FDIC close out the receivership...as CBA09 stated a few years ago regarding the bk remote assets payout in an "all true up" scenario - which requires FDIC to close out the receivership.
Thank you Ref. I thought it was the 22nd but lets wait. until end of the month. We should be clear by Thursday morning right?
Are we clear of the extension deadline for the bk shutdown March 2021? No extension right?
RD, I hope Jamie gets political and start criticizing Trump going into the election. Then we can feed all the Wamu dirt on Jamie to Trump's camp....maybe bring a spotlight back to our cause.
I will accept nothing if that is the case. So have FDIC close the receivership now and declare nothing have the escrow markers deleted. Let's see the fireworks. Let's see how the hedgies respond.
I rather have FDIC attempt to do us in now than wait another 10 years in limbo.
FDIC Libor litigation is a fraud. We'll see nothing from it. It was simply put in place as a delay tactic so FDIC can use it as an excuse to delay the receivership closure.
Big boys didnt release Billions in liability for POR7 in the hope of winning FDIC Libor case.
Eithwr there is big money in remote bk or there is not.
Let FDIC close ths receivership now and declare there is nothing. I want to see the sparks fly when the big boys are told there is nothing in remote bk.
Raj, that is really the point! FDIC likes to keep stating nothing left...and refuse to disclose what's in remote bankruptcy.
They have been stating "nothing left" for years. I wish we could ask someone directly at FDIC, why they cant close it if there is nothing left!
Yes, I know. They'll use the excuse "Oh but there might be more with Libor litigation..."
Then I would want that person to answer, "if Libor is the only thing left, then why cant they simply close the receivership now and just issue escrow markers for class 17 like we have for class 19 and 22."
That way, if anything comes back from Libor in the future, they can simply distribute via escrow markers
Another potential route is to shine some media light on FDIC. Maybe we can get someone from Fox News to do a 12 year anniversary bit on the largest bank take down of 2008....and then have them ask FDIC why it still hasn't closed after all these years if there is no money left for the old estate.
Dmc, the FDIC responses Raj posted were from 2017 and 2019. But you are right to be cautious. We need FDIC closure before seeing anything in remote bk. They have indicated that they plan to drag this out until Libor litigation is done....
Thank you Raj. It seems like FDIC should be able to give us a straight answer today.
Wamu bankruptcy is done. If FDIC is only waiting on Libor lawsuits, then why can't they simply issue escrow markers to class 17 tied to future Libor lawsuits payout and close down the receivership now. This should be a straight forward answer if Libor is the only thing they are waiting on now -- especially with the Wamu bk now closed.
I think that's the $86B question. Why hasn't FDIC closed the receivership? Especially when it has been saying for years that it only has a few hundred millions left...not enough to even satisfy class 17. It keeps using Libor lawsuit as an excuse to not close down the receivership. But there have been banks that would also benefit from Libor lawsuit wins that have already closed. So why hasn't Wamu receivership closed?
Why can't the FDIC give us a clear answer.
Everyone should email FDIC with this question:
If only a few millions left in the receivership, then why can't they distribute the crumbs to class 17 now and simply issue them escrow markers tied to potential future Libor wins? Close the receivership now!
LG, do you think LT needs to stick around until FDIC closes the receivership? Is there some final action required by the LT regarding the FDIC receivership closure?...like perhaps signing off on releases?
I'm just wondering if AG case has been planted purposely as another placeholder like the employee claims case, so they can wait on the FDIC to close the receivership.
Raj, can you please post that FDIC email here for reference? This is a big confirmation of what CBA09 postulated back in 2017 before he left the board. According to CBA09 there are two possible release mechanism for the remote bk assets....one of which he described as "all true ups" condition -- which requires the FDIC receivership to close.
If FDIC stated that our markers will be around until they close. This is a big confirmation of the "all true ups" release condition that CBA09 postulated.
Now we just need FDIC to shut the receivership down before year end...hopefully. I think taxes can only go up after the pandemic settles. California is already going nuts proposing 18% income tax rate and 0.4% wealth tax on top of that.
LG, could BR use AG case as an excuse to file an extension for the LT in Sep? I believe AG's last response is due 9/25 and since BR needs to file extension by 9/19, couldn't he use AG as an excuse to file the extension?
Thank you sir. I know her case is not suppose to affect the release of remote bk assets but I think it doesnt hurt to wrap up her case along with FDIC receivership closure.
Timing on Alice Griffin? Anyone know what's the latest date for the case?
AZ, I understand your position on why Rosen cannot delete our markers. However, he did state in court that he would delete them March 2021. So I'm very interested in seeing what he says when its time to delete them.
Thank you. I couldnt access the file as I do not have an account on the pro-prosterity.com site. However, my blood is boiling once again after reading what you've copied and pasted!
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".