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.
Correct, that poster on the German Board just hasn't looked up his account for a long time, confirmed by post #12236 on that board... visible for everyone...
So get back to sleep...
Bizreader, have a look in the document, I referenced. That one is explaining the process quite well from my point of view. But as any legal talk it's better you get your own view on that.
The question was, is and always will be, how that structure of WAMU was internally...
DL confirmed, if we believe her of course, that WAMU Holding was not doing the securitization, but WMB was.
So what ONLY IN MY PERSONAL OPINION happend was the following:
WAMU Holding owned all the shares of WMB, WMB was building SPV/ABS/RMBS or whatever it was, and WMB held 100 % of the shares in that vehicle.
So in case, WMB would have become bankrupt, then all those assets would have been bankruptcy remote and fine. But be aware, the reason for having that bk remote vehicle is in first place to protect the investors in that vehicle and not the shareholders of the holding company...
The following is from a 2007 8-K:
Sorry, but do you even read what you write before posting? What shall I start reading?
- I read the official documents, check.
- I read the explanations available regarding all the buzzwords here, check.
- I also read all the theories here since 2008, check.
There is no "Debtor in Possession" anymore since WAMU restructed 2012 into WMIH and the "rubble" which was called WMILT is gone also.
Start looking behind the curtain... if you want to trace the "bk remote assets", which of course existed, start to understand the corporate structure of WAMU and if that is not enough compare it with Lehman Brothers... yeah, they also had "bk remote" assets.
But I'll help you further... a BK remote asset is used to prevent it from being liquidated or claimed in a BK process. Now it depends WHO owned that asset...
Case A: WAMU Holding owned the asset, which qualified as "bk remote asset", went to BK, restructured and came back. Yeah, you're correct, in THAT case it would still reside at Mr. Cooper today - potentially!
Case B: WAMU Holding owned WMB, which in turn held the asset, which qualified as "bk remote asset". Sounds familiar? Have a look at Lehman... Now WMB was seized (yeah, it was NOT a bk case!) together with that asset, which qualified as "bk remote", so WAMU Holding entered BK protection, AFTER the assets have been stripped away! So those went with the "fire sale" in 2008, sorry...
Now, which Case we had? A or B?
If you want to get yourself more familiar with that concept, start with a doc called "Asset Securitization: How Remote Is Bankruptcy Remote?"... you can find it with google... It's from the year 1998, so from the early days, but maybe you then understand who was allowed to build that "SPV" or "bk remote asset" in a securitization process...
Hint: A "bk remote asset" was designed to protect the asset in case of bankruptcy, not a seizure ...
LG, I try it once again...
"WHO is now managing those bankruptcy remote assets?"
Company or entity name with address is enough ...
Fun fact... exostatic (?) made a funny rude post trying to explain to me the "process"... but still after a wall of text he failed to answer the simple question in the room...
"If there are still bankruptcy remote assets, WHO is now managing them for us?"
Hint: Can't be the WMILT as it's done now. And without the WMILT there can also be now WMILT DST or DGT... simple also.
But somehow that question is never answered by anyone ... if they understood the process, that question should be easier to answer then to explain the process...
Well, maybe LG at some day will explain to me, how a DST can exist without the WMILT *rofl*
I give up on that, this is more like a battle for nothing and obviously, 12 years after reorganization, no one wants to alter his "well adapted theories anymore". Maybe some day a "non-releaser" will open up a court case just to find out, what happened behind those doors.
I will just continue to trade on COOP as I did for the last years - and then we all just wait for the next "housing bubble" like 2008 and repeat the process, because this is, what that system is about... creating massive amounts of money, burn massive amounts of money and repeat it.
Well, at least I try to read what it is in the docs... while you, yeah... only words I remember you to be famous for is "I expect it to happen <insert any date> here, but not later than <insert any other date here>!" ... and after both dates passed, you rinse and repeat with new dates ... how long do you want to drag on that show before you really start doing DD instead of just copying "statements" from other people?
Believe it or not, only source of income left is COOP, game over.
You understand your "Timely Signed Releases" and your gone "Escrow Share Markers" are just the two sides of the same coin?
After WMILT is legally dissovled now, the only legally binding agreement you have is, that for all time to come you may not sue anyone for anything anymore, which you released in 41.6?
Easy answer, because it was part of a Chapter 11 BK process, that's a civil process, not a criminal case ;)
You can settle (almost) anything in a civil process, as long as the state doesn't step in...
Totally agree with that Strike, if I ever get the chance to, I would like to ask our equity council legal team, why we (UQ) gave that big scope of release with only getting back (e.g. the 4 Billion in WAMU cash), what was most likely coming back anyway ...
Law is what you can prove, not what we feel ...
41.6 isn't stating an "Admission of Guilt", nor does any part of the DS or 1997 reference any part of litigation or compensation for Willful Misconduct.
JPMC was released for that, because they requested that in the Chapter 11 process and the compensation e.g. to my knowledge was, that WAMU got back the 4 Billion USD which have been incorrectly seized and transferred to JPM with WMB. WAMU used that 4 Billion USD to pay of certain claimants so they could reorganize as Chapter 11 and not end up in liquidation (Chapter 7 as I remember).
If there would have been a connection between 41.6, Willful Misconduct and RICO why hasn't that compensation been paid when the release became effective? If there would exist a time constraint, then this should have been part of the release paperwork every WAMUQ owner signed.
As to my knowledge, any "release" needs to clearly state, what the litigation result was and when compensation needs to be e.g. paid. Why should anyone release another party for damage owed without stating the time, this shall be paid? If you don't do that, the other party could never pay you, but you still released them? Doesn't sound that good for that releasing party to me ;)
ron... PLEASE! Read 41.6...
Only JPMC and his entities was by the letter released for "Willful Midconduct" in the DS Chapter 41.6, legally everything is settled with this since 2012!
Well, after the RS in October 2018 COOP went down to almost 6 $ in 2019ish ... if you bought back then and held until today, so yeah, every 1000 $ became 9000 $.
Of course as a long, who got his shares in 2012 and had a high of 3,50 ish on WMIH, today he hardly made a gain. But if you traded like with any other stock, well then you had your gain.
Unfortunately that means, the "true longs" have earned nothing, if they just held on since 2015 or when that 3,50 high of WMIH was... but hey, that's only 7 years *lol*
You have to say that slowly again... again... and again... COOP in 2022 (!) has no more value (if you go only by the stock price), after all those "boardings and whatever else" compared to the "no business just NOL" WMIH in 2015... sorry, that made my day *rofl*
"Just ~ sayin' ~ my ~ ... (...) opinion"...
Ok, now you lost me... why is it booked in the February 2012 MOR as a Distribution to the Trust, when it never went to the trust? And who is now managing those Treasury Notes?
This is how I read it also, but the Trust itself only booked a small fraction of that?
Why was that 20 Billion never on any other official report of the LT? If really 20 Billion - as ron assumes - went to the LT, where has it been booked then?
As I know, the WMILT 10-Ks never showed they "received" that amount?
I have a new date for you to wait for:
According to whois for wmitrust.net that domain expires on: 2022-10-17 !?!?!?!?
Maybe you want to take that as the final date for the WMILT? If domain is gone on 2022-10-18, will you then agree the WMILT is gone?
Sorry, just being a little bit sarcastic...
ron, I'm not blaming you for anything...
But don't blame me for the simple question (again), where our RE/DCR is now? Money doesn't simply vanish I hope and also that 25 Billion number was never officially stated as being in the RE/DCR. Latest number I found was 70 Million USD as a max...
So, also AZ says WMILT is done and of no importance to us, fine, I buy into that as it's also my opinion. But with the WMILT dissolved now, who is now in control of that 25 Billion?
I doesn't matter, what has been redacted if the unredacted portion of legal document is not depending on it.
Easy example:
If the unredacted legal wording says "The car is blue.", you can't have a redacted part saying "And in contrast to what was stated in the unredacted paragraph the car is red.".
Of course you're right, if a paragraph is relating to a redacted annex, that's another story. But that discussion would get us further down the road, instead some people claim "There are 600 (whatever) redacted pages, there must be something for us!"
That message board around 2009 to 2012 at least was trying to argue with written facts, now it's more like exchanging opinions and almost religious positions.
But the issue with people like BOP is, as soon as you start questioning their story, they try to bawl you down... "Look when your alias was born!"... "AZ said..." ... "Do your DD..." instead of easily turning you on their side with facts you can verify.
Oh come on BOP, even you can do better... I still remember all your posts from the early times, but somehow 99% of those posters of the first hour are gone - only thing, which never changed in 14 years is the the good ol' story "It will happen after hours on friday!"... oh wait, that was an extract from a below #10000 message here from 2009...
Believe it or not, as it seems our F&R is "only COOP", so let's hope it will hit your target price, if it goes to 300 USD I would be break even with my pre-seizure shares... After 20 years maybe... rofl
Do you want to count how many people passed away in 14 years waiting for that claimed "F&R"?
Because for the last 14 years on that message board I've witnessed people like you bawling other people down for questioning those persons who just spin the word wheel like "<Insert word from court document here> will make us rich, you don't have a clue!". Fun fact, it never happened...
You listed "5 sources of money", ok, so let's go down one by one starting with your RE/DCR:
Fact: Was part of the WMILT.
Fact: Number was stated in my extract from an OFFICIAL COURT document.
Fact: Money in DCR was 70 Million USD, nothing left as WMILT closes.
So, I (!) as a former holder of 200k UQ escrows is asking YOU directly to prove me, that I'm getting compensated for MY loss from that RE/DCR. Will you finally?
Because I (!) after 14 (!) years finally want to know the TRUTH, whatever it may be! What's about you? Ready to pull the curtain and start some "true DD" or just continue using words other people have already used on that message board around 2011/2012?
I can remember walls of text regarding RICO and "2x to 3x times damage to be paid", so where is it? That was discussed here back and forth in 2009 (!).
Honest question (really): Where is that RE/DCR which was part of the WMILT? As WMILT is dissolved and gone, who is administrating that RE/DCR today?
Well... I "averaged down" after the BK for a total of 200.000 WAMUQ (most for 0,07 to 0,09 USD), which all became escrows and are now "gone". What did I release for by the way?
That puts me... from a ~ 200.000 USD position pre-seizure to... well, 22.000 USD today ... a 10 % return of the original amount... after almost 15 years now... sorry, this is driving me mad sometimes.
I just want to have a final decision now... worth or worthless, F&R or Smoke & Mirrors.
No, my "job" is to find out after being tricked by those wise guys on that message board since 2009, where my "Fair & Reasonable" return on my roughly 5k PRE-SEIZURE WAMU shares is! What I released for in 2012!
Hint: It is not COOP!
Sorry, but, what are you trying to mix up here?
We agree on the fact, WMB packaged, securitized and sold loans which are called RMBS.
We agree on the fact, WMB retained a certain amount of those RMBS as proven with company financial reports available on edgar.
Let's go down your safe harbor road... safe harbor normally ends, when the bk ends, because this is what it is made for.
WAMU bk is done, reorg was in 2012, WMIH is now COOP. The WMILT ist done for months, so please take this as a direct question:
Who has now access to those safe harbor assets? Obviously it is not the WMILT and it is not COOP as no one found any "miracle return" of those assets on any financial report?
You - like AZ - are always answering by just placing the same words over and over again, but after 15 years these "assets" are still... well, where are they? What is holding the return?
I've released 200.000 UQs in 2012 for now ~ 500 COOP after the RS. So, where are those assets in safe harbor? Where are those "interest flows"? Only thing we ALL here witnessed since 2008 are theories and people telling us, what would happen... but somehow it never turned out as those wise guys told us!
So don't you think, we should now try to have a closer look behind those words - like safe harbor - placed by the wise guys? Who invented that safe harbor rumor, which was also denied in a WMILT letter? If I'm not wrong, it was AZ...
What's your point Bob?
It's about the CHAIN OF TITLE! Those 85 % where NOT "bought" by WAMU, they were sold to other investors and those are entitled to any interest. If WMB retained 15 % then those interests come back to WMB or now JPM.
Now YOU have to PROVE (!) how much of that 85 % you refer to was bought by WAMU (the holding company)...
Of course, if the holding company itself bought those RMBS, they would get some benefit, but those assets should have been shown in the Chapter 11 proceeding.
According to the last 10 of WAMU/WMB, WMB held roughly 18 Billion in MBS, when it was seized.
OH BOB...
The total "Asset number" of a bank, ron is referring to is the equity number, so assets left after liability offset. And this is not 299, but the last available doc leaves a difference of only 25 billions.
You can even take wikipedia...
Easy answer:
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/94320131119151031990622.pdf
Could we finally after 15 years get that story right?
WMB had a number of 299 Billion USD of assets... but you have to deduct the deposits and what ever else... that is a complex issue of accounting! The assets, you're thinking of, are a FRACTION of that total amount of "assets"...
Well... let's stick with POR VII...
RE/DCR was run by WMILT... WMILT is gone for months... question to you ron, where is that RE/DCR now? Who's responsible for it with WMILT gone?
ABS, 15 % minimum? Yeah, those have been packaged by WMB, not WAMU as the bank holding company... so I assume gone with takeover of WMB by JPM.
WMBfsb? According to POR VII was a subsidiary of WMB and therefore also seized and sold to JPM. Nothing coming back from there.
Any further theories?
WAMU was not able to sell something (the loans) which WMB originated. So WMB is considered the "securitizer", they retained a minimum and that was lost with the seizure. That's even clearly stated in some JPM K's you can find on edgar...
Don't know what you're looking for? Especially that WMBfsb account was part of that roughly 4 billion USD, WAMU claimed was its property and just resided at WMBfsb and was therefore incorrectly seized by the FDIC. That money was part of the settlement and POR VI, so this topic is long gone?
What is Class 23?
Per the DS to POR 7 there is no Class 23?
Let us make a fact check then...
The DS to POR 7 lists the wording "Capital Trust" 16 times, only 4 times it references the WMI Capital Trust.
Let us take at look at page 55 of the Edgar Version of the DS...
Left side down of the diagram you see the proof for the words of DL, because the CCB Capital Trusts are listed below WMB and are the same color as the other seized assets - so it's a valid assumption, that all the other trusts and securitizations were run under the umbrella of WMB and with the seizure were lost for WAMU.
Only WMI Capital Trust 2001 is listed as part of the assets of the debtor WAMU, which went into bk.
Per the DS:
It should be noted that the Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001 is a trust related to the PIERS Units (defined below), further described in Section IV.B.5 of this Disclosure Statement, and is not considered one of the 33 Non-Banking Subsidiaries.
So, were does it state that WAMU Capital Trust was not considered by the court? It's only NOT considered as a Non-Banking Subsidiary...
Per the DS any trust WAMU was the sponsor for - directly! without use of WMB - would have needed to be declared like the WAMU Capital Trust 2001...
Sorry MadBadger, but you need to read the whole story DL wrote...
She said, WAMU INC did not conduct any securitization business, only WMB did. Therefore in the line of arguments, if some people suspected Mr. Kosturos to know something about that business model, he would have needed to be employed by WMB - and DL made clear he never was.
The text she wrote is clearly written by a lawyer, "common people" don't use so much words for saying "WAMU INC did not conduct any securitization business!" ...
He was the assigned trustee for the DST, nothing more to see here.
Crazy thing here is, we have one poster, who claims to be under some type of NDA, on the other hand doesn't know any specific catalyst, when something will happen.
Again, COOP with its current PPS is on the same level as WMIH before the merger... high was 3,50 USD, so with resplit around 42 USD... makes me scratch my head...
Well, it seems like DL was able to solve that issue quite simple by stating what many here were suspecting ... in contrast to your assumptions.
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. Finally, it also has been suggested that the Trust’s former liquidating trustee, William C. Kosturos, served and/or is currently serving as the trustee of one or more special purpose entities or statutory trusts that were used to consummate one or more securitization transactions. That suggestion also is inaccurate: Mr. Kosturos has never had any role in, or served as a trustee for, any securitization transactions sponsored by Washington Mutual Bank and its affiliates.
There is nothing to return from any "miracle" trusts to WMI, WMIH, WMILT or any other entity, because any potential returns of those trusts are going to WMB and now obviously to the new owner of WMB - which is not the WMILT nor COOP. WMB packed all of the loans, sold them (securitized them) and WAMU Inc was not part of that.
You don't need any attorney to explain that...
That is "my" opinion which is backed up DL, who has been working in the trust for years.
And now AZ, after 10 years, please point to the exact line in the DS and POR 7 where it states clearly, that DL is wrong!
Obviously, as per DL, WMB has been doing all the "trust business" as the bank arm of WAMU Inc. So any title was pointed to WMB and seized together with it - story over.
The interesting question now remains: Why did our EC settle for basically nothing and gave up the 5th amendment taking?
As you said you wanted to talk "different angles of view" ...
Maybe the author of "'Excludes WAMU with total assets of $299 billion and zero estimated losses to the DIF'" just wanted to point out, that the $ 299 billion of WAMU was not counted to the receivership assets statement, because it was the only receivership with no costs for the FDIC to solve it?
My next question would then be again, why was WAMU seized, if the buyer of WAMU could cover all the losses? Easy answer, when you get all the cash of WMBfsb for free...
Next question then after 10 years... for what recovery did we even settle such big case? Only that COOP shares? Hopefully not... would be the worst litigation result I ever saw... We gave up the 4 billion in of WAMU money residing at JPM and got... nothing?
Currently everything is only a theory...
I really, really pray for being proven wrong and all of this turns out to be a good ending for escrows holders and that AZ was right all of the time, but I highly doubt it...
Again going by the letter:
NO ASSETS of the debtor can return...
If there are BK remote assets these are not counted as assets of the debtor so those could potentially return to the reorganized entity.
My theory regarding the trusts:
- WAMU sold them to 100 %, maybe retained some money earned
- that retained money (if any) was seized together with WMBfsb (remember that stock pile of money?) and sold by the FDIC
So no interest returning to anyone ;)
All imho after 14 years of that show...
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't AZ state "no one" could delete the DTC issued escrows? *lol*
Well, obviously the DTC is doing what an agent orders - in that case the WMI LT itself... exactly what CWG stated he received as response.
Doing some "dd" on domain wmitrust.net:
Registry Expiration: 2022-10-17 16:54:55 UTC
Updated: 2021-07-13 20:51:05 UTC
Created: 2011-10-17 16:54:55 UTC
"Created" date sounds familiar? POR 6 anyone?
So finally the escrows, which were created by the WMILT and distributed via DTC got deleted on request of the WMI LT via the DTC as the WMI LT finally shuts down in March 2022 - as we all know for years.
Registrant is PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC - a service for hiding you ID against whois requests. So that server including mail (see CWG post) was some type of communication server for the WMI LT.
So, what do we know:
- Escrows done, WMI LT done, nothing coming back from WMI LT => nothing new, known for years, no further twists and miracles to expect
- Now everyone will focus on... what? SPE? REIT? BK remote trusts collecting interest at the trustee... or no, wait, the FDIC? *lol*
Let's hope the current bubble in the real estate industry keeps running for a little bit longer, before Covid, Ukraine or whatever makes it burst ... all imho.
Well AZ, sorry, that is not true from my point of view.
Going by the word...
2)The Total Liabilities line item reflects those actual and accrued liabilities recorded on the accounting records of this receivership as of the date of this report. The Total Liabilities line item may not include other liabilities arising from Estimated Interest on Claims and Income Taxes, as these liabilities may not be recognized as of the report date, in accordance with current receivership accounting practices.
Meaning only: A claim is recorded as a liability, because that amount is set in the claims register. The interest on that claim a person or entity made can vary so that number of Total Liabilites isn't always up to date, it's that simple. If you make a claim and the claim isn't fulfilled you are owed interest which is paid according to your priority in the claims taxonomy and hierarchy.
As per your own words you said, that the interest (if any) from old WMI trusts or whatever goes to the trustee, not the FDIC. So that interest (if any) would not reside at the FDIC and therefore can't be included in a FDIC balance sheet...