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.
Any decent lawyer could have easily addressed most if not all of the theories here since 2008 - but obviously that was not an option anyone wanted to pursue despite expectations of life changing payouts.
Why would that change after the expiry of the statute of limitations now?
It’s not complicated to get a professional opinion: Just ask COOP‘s Investor Relations team about AZ‘s constant assertion that COOP is a subsidiary of ‘XXXX‘.
Pls post their answer here ideally.
Actually this has nothing to do with WMIH / Coop / Escrows - as is this is about the acquisition of First Republican Bank.
But as a “retired College Finance professor“ you have known this, right?
You should tell COOP that they lied every year in their annual Proxy Statement, which they have filed with the SEC, then.
Or better still: tell the SEC, I’m sure that they would love to know.
While he is at it, AZ should also explain why COOP‘s management knows nothing about this ‘XXXX‘ as a parent, as is evident by the company’s SEC filings for which management are liable.
But of course he won’t, because he can’t.
But of course he is a “retired College Finance professor”
Who was surprised that the Novo Nordisk dividend was actually paid to Novo Nordisk shareholders and not former Escrow holders
This isn’t complicated actually
Here is a link to a recent SEC filed company document which says that there is no XXXX of which COOP is a subsidiary
https://investors.mrcoopergroup.com/financials/sec-filings/document-details/default.aspx?FilingId=16526046
So where is your SEC document to say that what you claim is correct?
Let me guess: AZ stands for Arrogance and Zero knowledge?
You should let COOP management know that they are a subsidiary of “XXXX”
This isn’t complicated.
“Retained Assets” were claims which the Debtors (the LT) could have pursued. None such claim was successfully pursued.
The constant claims that WMI held parts of its MBS portfolio (which could be distributed to Escrow holders) have been explicitly repeatedly denied in writing by the LT.
Of course the actual management of COOP disagree with your repeated claims about being a subsidiary of ‘XXXX‘.
But you know better then them - right?
This is insane - you have literally been wrong 100% in all you predictions.
You didn’t even understand that a Danish pharma company pays its dividends to its own shareholders and not some Escrow holders.
But never mind, more theories coming tomorrow from a “retired College Finance professor”.
Of course - even the Columbus Day holiday absolutely is sure sign for a Escrow payoffs.
After all, this comes from a „retired College Finance professor“ with an 100% track record of being wrong - so it must be true.
Again, obviously unrelated to Escrows - like 100% of your “theories“ before.
You literally must be the only „retired College Finance professor“ struggling to comprehend financial documents.
This is the testing of a new accelerated settlement system at the DTCC - it has nothing to do with Escrows.
The “prove me wrong” has been delivered comprehensively hundreds of times.
But as a “retired College Finance Professor” simple reading comprehension was obviously not on the curriculum.
Before you offer to teach me maybe best to reflect on your endless streak of failed predictions.
For example why dont you report back whether the recent dividend payment for Danish (country, not pastry) pharma company Novo Nordisk had anything to do with Escrows?
This is actually in relation to Vue Entertainment International Limited, which is why they put Vue Entertainment International Limited in the Subject line of the document and which is why they printed Vue Entertainment International Limited in bold at the top of the text.
But maybe that was not obvious for a “retired College Finance professor“?
Thanks for posting - this fits the picture really quite nicely.
Of course as usual there is not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
But who needs evidence when you already bought Super Bowl tickets from your Escrow payout, which literally only you and no one else received?
Of course, the 9 month DTCC testing program of its settlement system is a definite sign of Escrow payouts.
Good thing that you a “retired College Finance professor“, right?
Is there any update on the interim dividend for the Danish Pharma company Novo Nordisk which you expected to be paid to Escrows?
In reality of course there is no Plan 6 in force - because no such plan was ever confirmed. If Plan 6 had been confirmed , there would have been no need for Plan 7, which was confirmed.
This is not complicated.
Why don’t you post a link to the 307B lawsuit by WMI against the FDIC if it’s all documented?
Shouldn’t be difficult.
It is really quite simple:
COOP denies that a parent “XXXX” exists. You claim that it does.
One of you must be lying, as clearly you can’t both be right.
So who is it?
Somehow I would expect that a “retired College Finance Professor” would understand that the dividend for Novo Nordisk, a Danish (!) pharmaceutical company (!), will be paid out to the shareholders of Novo Nordisk - and not former Escrow holders.
But let’s just wait another 10 days and see another of your “theories” disappear.
Nothing to do with Escrows, of course.
Just as the dividend payment for a Danish pharma company or changes to the DTCC settlement schedule.
But as a “retired College Finance professor“ you know this of course.
AZ is giving his fan base exactly what they want - and facts are not wanted.
XXXX does not exist - as literally one single email to COOP would demonstrate
(double post)
Just ask COOP and post the answer here..
AZ would be amazed
Sure, your original post was about a company from DENMARK and now you write about NETHERLANDS (that’s two different countries)
But who cares?
Facts are just so inconvenient, it’s much better to live in a phantasy land as a “retired College Finance professor”
Claiming a link between Escrows and a Danish pharma company’s dividend payment or the modifications of the “Amended and Restated Stock Options and Futures Settlement Agreement” by the DTCC is not Due Diligence.
It’s just b/s.
The size is NOT the tell - because there is no size.
This is just a modification of the “Amended and Restated Stock Options and Futures Settlement Agreement” by the DTCC as it says very clearly on page 1 of this 115 page document
It has nothing to do with Escrows.
You don’t even read your “sources” or you simply don’t comprehend them - but of course you are “retired College Finance professor”, right?
But you’ll continue with this nonsense - and you will insult anyone who call out this incessant b/s.
Zero
The interim dividend for Novo Nordisk shares goes to Novo Nordisk shareholders - or holders of their ADRs.
Sure - you (of course) haven’t presented any Due Diligence linking the regular dividend payment for a Danish pharma company‘s ADRs with Escrow payments.
But nobody cares, right? We just wait for the date and new “theories“.
Insulting me won’t change the facts, “professor”.
Where is the “Due Diligence” to link an interim dividend payment for a Danish pharma company with Escrow payments?
And when the date comes and goes without anything for Escrows you’ll just make up another “theory” - correct?
This is the interim dividend payment for a Danish (country, not pastry…) pharmaceutical company.
JPM’s only involvement is that they have issued the company’s ADRs and therefore will pay the dividend on behalf of the company to US investors.
But as a “retired College Finance Professor”, you know all this - right?
You have made hundreds of predictions.
Success rate: 0%.
Pointing out the sheer lack of basic logic or even reading comprehension is certainly not hating
It is utterly ridiculous for a “retired Finance Professor” to cite forthcoming 2024 changes to the DTCC’s settlement schedule or the end of the “Wilmington Trust Company” as evidence pointing to Escrow payments.
It’s not an educated guess to link the end of the “Wilmington Trust Company” with potential Escrow payouts, it’s just nonsense
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172578565
But you will just move on without further comment to many more hundreds of new predictions
And of course you are a retired Finance Professor.
Don’t forget that (only!) AZ already got paid in Feb 23 for his Escrows following a personal intervention of Brian Rosen and invested in SB tickets from the proceeds