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.
The “additional” 36m COOP treasury shares have nothing to do with former WMIH Escrows and they certainly won’t be distributed for former Escrow holders.
It would be very easy to confirm with the company or with any lawyer that the management of a listed company can’t just give away company property for free to former shareholders of a different company.
Of course they couldn’t do that - and also be happy about this one “favourite” recipient bragging about this to all and sundry on a msg board
Just ask FINRA if they vetting individual investors
Just ask COOP if they have a parent XXXX
Just ask a lawyer if a fiduciary could disclose vital information to only one recipient
Keep drinking the Koolaid if it tastes nice - the latest one around “registered” Escrows is particularly tasty
And said that Escrows couldn’t be deleted
And that he was a FINRA compliant investor
And that XXXX is the parent of COOP
Etc
Sure
It “tanked” so bad that it reached a new ATH today and is only up 35% this year alone
There is something very important which Escrow must do in order to be affected by RD‘s post:
They need to buy the 7.375% bonds due in August 2026 with the CUSIP 30191BAB7, which have been issued by the Italian company F-Brasile S.P.A - because the DTCC announcement refers very clearly to this security.
Maybe RD can explain the relevance of these bonds to Escrow holders - or maybe some very basic Due Diligence wouldn’t be amiss.
COOP cannot just distribute its treasury shares to former Escrow holders because management can’t just give significant assets of the company away as a present for former shareholders of a completely different company.
There is literally no link between COOP and former Escrows that would justify such a gift.
So, you can either believe a bunch of Linkedin profiles or official documents published by COOP on its website and filed with the SEC.
Your choice
COOP has to report all major shareholders in its annual Proxy Statement and there simply is no mysterious XXXX unless you are willing to believe that management would just lie in an official SEC filed document.
Page 69 shows all shareholders holding more than 5% (Vanguard 12% and BlackRock 17%) https://s1.q4cdn.com/275823140/files/doc_financials/2024/sr/2024-proxy-statement-bookmarked.pdf
XXXX simply doesn’t exist as is blatantly obvious from COOP’s SEC filings - and management would never lie in such filings because they could go to jail if they did.
But who cares about facts.
They will not make the connection because there is no connection between these JPM bonds and former Escrow holders.
Just like there was no connection in all the prior dozens or probably hundreds of similar claims regarding JPM / BOFA / GS / NOVO NORDISK / FDIC etc etc over the last 10+ years.
But who cares about reality?
Interesting that you always make such a big deal about others having been 100% incorrect.
Your own track record is faultless - right?
There won’t be any distribution today and the predicted date will just be replaced by a new one, and then a new one, and so on.
The LT did not pursue any of these claims in the end - the looked into suing Goldman but decided not to.
What happened to these “Retained Assets”? Did the LT pursue these claims and secure any value for them?
the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them
Why don’t you update everyone what happened to the LT and its pursuit of these assets?
Sure - lets just see if there is an announcement from JPM regarding a multi billion LIBOR payment to the FDIC early next week
"JPM and the FDIC lost the Dual Track in DC."
Would be nice to see some proof for this "Fact"
Which part from your own link do you find difficult to understand?
The final rule implements a special assessment to recover the loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF or Fund) arising from the protection of uninsured depositors following the closures of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, CA, and Signature Bank, New York, NY.
FDIC is raising approx 16B from over 100 banks to compensate for payouts to SVB and Signature depositors
https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/insurance/assessments/specialassessment-psrd.html
The payments to the FDIC have nothing to do with Escrows of course - it couldn‘t be clearer that they are made to replenish the FDIC‘s funds after the payments to depositors at SVB and Signature.
The idea that the FDIC will just announce in late June that these funds are instead paid out to former WMI shareholders has nothing to do with reality.
This isn’t complicated.
It just says that in case that former beneficiaries of the Trust receive distributions and Griffin is a former beneficiary of the Trust (both conditions would need to be fulfilled) she would be entitled to such distributions.
It simply wasn’t the court‘s judgement whether there would be any distributions in future (there were none of course), so they stated this simple fact that Griffin would have kept her rights despite failing miserably in her claim against the LT.
What is there to misunderstand?
It means that some people believe that they were swindled out of their fair share of 30B but didn’t find the time to discuss this with a lawyer in the last 12 years.
Of course by now all of this falls under the statute of limitations so any discussions about reclaiming that money would be moot.
It has nothing to do with WMB - it’s just the FDIC replenishing the funds which it had to spend on compensation for SVB and Signature Bank depositors (as it says clearly in the announcement).
The idea that somehow this money is being paid to former WMI shareholders is just detached from reality.
What does one typo change, exactly?
This isn’t complicated.
It just says that in case that former beneficiaries of the Trust receive distributions and Griffin is a former beneficiary of the Trust (both conditions would need to be fulfilled) she would be entitled to such distributions.
It simply wasn’t the court‘s judgement whether there would be any distributions in future (there were none of course), so they stated this simple fact that Griffing would have kept her rights despite failing miserably in her claim against the LT.
What is there to misunderstand?
This is not complicated.
Why don’t you show a quote from the FINRA website which shows that FINRA is supervising / vetting / monitoring individual investors’ compliance?
We both know why you can’t do that, right?
Who does FINRA compliance apply to?
Several entities and individuals are subject to comply with FINRA regulations. The main groups are:
Brokerage firms: FINRA regulations apply to brokerage firms, including investment banks, broker-dealers, and securities firms that are registered with FINRA. These firms must comply with various rules and requirements related to their operations, sales practices, supervision, and customer protection.
Registered representatives: Individuals who work as registered representatives, commonly known as brokers, must comply with FINRA rules. They are required to pass qualifying examinations, such as the Series 7 or Series 63 exams, and maintain their registration with FINRA. Registered representatives engage in securities-related activities, including advising clients, executing trades, and providing investment recommendations.
Exchanges and Alternative Trading Systems (ATS): Exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq, as well as Alternative Trading Systems (ATS), must comply with FINRA rules. FINRA oversees the trading activities and compliance of these entities to ensure fair and orderly markets.
Issuers and offerings: Companies that issue securities to the public or engage in public offerings are subject to certain FINRA regulations. This includes complying with rules related to the registration, offering process, and disclosures to investors.
Clearing firms: Clearing firms, which facilitate the settlement and clearing of securities transactions, must comply with FINRA rules pertaining to their operations, risk management, and safeguarding of customer assets.
Investment advisers: While the primary regulatory authority for investment advisers is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FINRA may have jurisdiction over investment advisers that are also registered as broker-dealers or are involved in securities transactions subject to FINRA oversight.
https://bigid.com/blog/finra-compliance/
This is not complicated
FINRA has nothing to do with individual investors because it’s a regulator for financial services firms
To protect investors and ensure the market’s integrity, FINRA FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY is a not-for-profit organization that oversees U.S. broker-dealers.
https://www.finra.org/about
How about disclosing what being “FINRA compliant“ would actually mean for an investor - given that FINRA doesn‘t regulate individual investors?
FINRA Regulates Broker-Dealers, Capital Acquisition Brokers and Funding Portals. A Broker-Dealer is in the business of buying or selling securities on behalf of its customers or its own account or both.
https://www.finra.org/about/firms-we-regulate
So if you have been found to be “FINRA compliant“ must mean that you are a financial institution, right?
on rosies orders, vetted by D Logan, and once vetting, was proven, as well as a proper and finra compliant participation in the WMB' Euro Notes was personally Proven' ... ! ! ... then my friend D Logan, submitted my direct info, to the Wells Fargo Trustee' ...
So you were personally vetted by D Logan on the order of Brian Rosen and were found to be compliant
And not a shred of information about this required vitally important vetting process was given to other investors who held the same security in the last 18 months.
What a lucky coincidence
Sure - he was personally vetted by the Trustee and found to be FINRA (which btw is a regulator of brokerage firms and not investors…) compliant.
Of course the Trustee never put out any public information on the need to be vetted, the process for doing so etc even though many people held the same securities and may have been very interested in such information.
Only AZ knew how to do it and was successful - what a lucky coincidence.
He is making claims about receiving regular payments since last year - which no one else has reportedly received.
This is not complicated.
This is hilarious - you’re now denying that he made exactly these claims about recurring payments from the Trustee?
There are endless messages from him boasting about all these payments
“ direct deposit from the Trustee' into my account ... yeppers, Feb 2023, then July 2023, and Feb 2024 coming up quickly' ”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173195175
AZ has been claiming for over a year now that he has been receiving regular payments from the LT.
No one else has received a payment and not a shred of evidence exists for such payments at all.
Draw your own conclusions - it’s not complicated.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=171122818
You should tell this to the JPM shareholders - they seem to have no idea that they still need to pay 300bn for WMB after 16 years…
This isn’t complicated.
If you truly believe that someone has been hiding literally hundreds of billions in assets from their rightful owners for almost 20 years without any accountability like saying how much money they are holding, who is administering it, how it is invested, what fees they are charging, what profits they have made, what steps need to be taken to reclaim the money, what the timetable to payments is etc - then you would have spoken to a lawyer years ago already.
Lawyers would probably have advertised super aggressively for such clients because of the billions of fees which they would have made.
But of course nothing like this happened.
In the meantime the Statute of Limitations has most likely long expired - so even if you were cheated / defrauded out of these billions you could probably no longer even bring a claim, as any lawyer could explain to you.
All of these questions have been answered again and again and again in official SEC filed documents such as COOP‘s 10Ks.
Anyone claiming that these doc are are not true is effectively saying that COOP‘s management is intentionally lying to the SEC.
This really is not complicated or controversial.
The entity which was known as WMIH until 2018 is now known as COOP after its merger with NSM. WHIH therefore has no financial year ending in June (or any other time), because such an entity no longer exists.
——
Mr. Cooper, which was previously known as WMIH Corp. (“WMIH”), is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware since May 11, 2015. On July 31, 2018, Wand Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of WMIH (“Merger Sub”), merged with and into Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. (“Nationstar”), with Nationstar continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of WMIH (the “Merger”). Prior to the Merger, WMIH had limited operations other than its reinsurance business that operated in runoff mode and focused on identifying and consummating an accretive acquisition transaction across a broad array of industries, with a primary focus on the financial institutions sector. As a result of the Merger, shares of Nationstar common stock were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. Following the Merger closing, the combined company traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “WMIH” until October 10, 2018, when WMIH changed its name to “Mr. Cooper Group Inc.” and its ticker symbol to “COOP.”
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000933136/7fc4c497-2a2d-4ed9-8e6d-6bcae203a444.html