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.
No, it is not.
Its the financial results call for Brookfield Asset Management, as it says very clearly
You have made hundreds of similar predictions - all with the same result.
Contrary to assertions by various parties on message boards and other media platforms, Washington Mutual, Inc. did not have any role in connection with securitization transactions consummated by Washington Mutual Bank and its affiliates. Specifically, Washington Mutual, Inc. did not sponsor, guarantee or otherwise participate in such securitization transactions. Relatedly, Washington Mutual, Inc. did not hold any certificates issued in connection with such transactions, including any “R” or “residual” certificates issued in connection with such transactions.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/8817600/8817600210115000000000001.pdf
So any of the many post bankruptcy pay-outs left zero traces in the public domain? Why wouldn’t such a payout to former equity have been major news, discussed on message boards etc?
Is there a single precedent for a company completing a BK and subsequently distributing BK remote assets to former equity?
If you believe that Doreen stashed away billions of assets which belong to Escrow holders, why wouldn‘t you or anyone else discuss this with a lawyer - if only to see what would need to be done so that the Statute of Limitations doesn‘t run out?
Is there a link to the webpage where the DST information can be downloaded for $ 20?
Is there a link to get the DST information for 20 bucks?
Yes, which is why this document has nothing to do with WMI - as it talks about a ‘Second Amended Plan of Liquidation‘ as having been approved by the court.
Nothing to do with WMI
On Date 2, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Second Amended Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) with an effective date of Date 3.
WMI had Plans of Reorganization and only POR 7 was approved.
Same here - good idea
Many thanks - so there is no proof.
Happy New Year!
Has there ever been any actual evidence of the establishment of a DST?
You mean that you have been right most of the time - seriously?
You‘ve made hundreds of predictions, literally none were correct.
This has nothing to do with WMI, Escrows etc (its about Brookfield Asset Mngmt) but that doesn‘t matter, right?
In the first link Doreen Logan says explicitly in the first line on her LinkedIn Profile:
Controller / Treasurer / Trust Administrator at WMI Liquidating Trust (ended December 31, 2021)
And you claim that her profile says that she is still working there?
It will actually already be the 15th Xmas and New Year since the WMI insolvency.
And it will continue into 2023, 2024 etc for as long as these stories find a grateful audience.
Do you actually read what you post?
What does the upcoming dividend payment for Bank of Marin Bancorp have to do with COOP or Lehman?
There is literally no point trying to understand the reasoning behind his posts because there isn‘t any beyond pretending again and again that somehow somewhere money is coming for Escrows.
Anyone managing / administering money for other people of course needs to disclose how this money is invested, what the value of these investments is, what fees they are charging etc
None of this has happened here for more than 14 years
So you put faith in what an aide to a politician (who has literally been dead for a few years) told you on the phone 10 years ago.
Try taking that to a bank.
Tom Coburn stopped being a Senator in 2015 and has been dead for more than 2 years.
You left out the bit from 2008 where Bonderman wrote a letter and apologized to his investors for losing their money in WMI
https://www.reuters.com/article/washingtonmutual-tpg-idUSN2631351920080926
A dose of realism.
Much needed here, me thinks.
Amazing how a 12 year old statement regarding Retained Assets keeps getting quoted as if it was proof of hidden values - even though it has been demonstrated again and again from the actual document that retained assets were just claims which the LT could have pursued, but didnt.
Of course there is no link to values and payments outside of the bankruptcy.
Ten Year Notes takes eleven years to mature.
This is literally the same as claiming that 1+1=3.
It‘s literally in the link that I posted, last financials page before the Notes:
Retained earnings - pre-petition (20,770,848,942)
The 20B Retained Earnings was in BRACKETS, therefore denoting a negative number - so effectively a RETAINED LOSS.
Not subject to discussion, just a plain 10 year old fact
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951812000138/mm03-2712_8ke991.htm
Do you actually read the documents before posting them as evidence of coming Escrow payments?
Or they will just come up with a theory why it was always clear that big money would only be coming to Escrows in 2023 and not before.
Very good summary
Nothing will ever be corrected. It makes no sense to imply that something as simple as the # of outstanding shares is wilfully mistated again and again in public SEC registered filings of a listed company.
Investments are assets and anyone who doesnt understand this probably should not invest in stocks.
There is absolutely no back-up or source for this claim other than that you say you heard it.
That alone should be enough to judge its merits.
Ok, you seem to believe in the power of insults.
I stand by what I have written - lets leave it there.
Do you honestly think that insulting me makes any difference to the facts?
I never said that JPM didnt acquire any assets - no one would assume hundreds of billions of liabilities without getting smth in return.
As you seem to be doubting that JPM assumed most of WMBs liabilities in return for the acquisition of WMBs assets this is from the actual JPM annual report 2008:
Also, in 2008 the fair values of noncash assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Washington Mutual transaction were $260.0 billion and $259.8 billion, respectively.
Not sure why this is controversial.
I‘m not arguing that JPM made a loss on WMB, but I‘m not sure why you dont understand that assuming a debt is just another way of paying a purchase price e.g. in cash.
If you think that JPM didnt assume most of WMBS liabilities, who did? It wasn‘t the FDIC because they didnt make a loss on WMB as repeatedly stated. So who has been paying the WMB depositors and other creditors since 2008?
JPM assumed most WMB liabilities incl the deposits, which economically is the same as paying a purchase price. In return JP got all of WMBs assets.
Whether you pay 1M cash for a house or pay only 100K cash and assume a 900K mortgage on the house, your purchase price for the house is 1M in both cases.
If JPM didn’t assume and pay most of WMBs liabilities incl deposits as claimed who paid for them instead?