Both are good points:
Two equal sides, "WithCatz on the far left, Large Green on the far right" ~ IMO, they are not equal; one is supported by all that exists while the other is based only on what can't be proven.
You have described “the unity of opposites”, first suggested by Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC).
Two opposite sides are never equal; they are opposing parts of a single entity. Physical reality and non-physical reality are opposing parts of the same entity, with the mind being located at the exact union of the two. A more usable example of this concept is how our voting process works. In an election the “center”, which is comprised of people who cannot decide if they are conservative or liberal, determines the outcome. The liberals on the far left are the close opposite of the conservatives on the far right, and both groups have already made up their minds before the election. WithCatz and Large Green have opposing viewpoints. When our fate removes the escrow markers from our accounts, the winner will be whichever of the two that ends up with the most toys. Due to facts in plain evidence, it currently appears WithCatz will be the winner of the opposing viewpoints, and the outcome for all of us will be the value of WMIH.
Keep in mind, fact is stranger than fiction, and we do not yet know our fate.
Regarding the "owner of the money to fund the mortgages" ~ wouldn't that be the "depositors?"
As a depositor, what part of your bank do you own, other than your deposit?
A parent company owns all of its subsidiaries and all of the value of the subsidiaries. The corporate veil protects the parent company (WMI) from the actions a subsidiary (WMB) might commit during its business life and in certain legal situations. For example, because of the veil, the bank (a corporation) is responsible to its creditors and its creditors cannot sue the parent (WMI) if the bank fails or is seized. The part of the seized and sold bank that is nonreturnable to the parent is the deposits, the buildings, and the pencils, etc. The part that is returnable to the parent is the difference between the assessed value of the bank minus anything owed to its creditors, and minus anything owed to others as an expense incurred due to the seizure and sale. In the case of WMB, there are good mortgages and bad mortgages owned by WMB (not the depositors). The bad mortgages are subject to recourse by WMB. The OTS seized the bank after the FDIC had warned WMB multiple times in many lawsuits to clean up their act. The danger was that WMB was foisting bad mortgages onto FNMA and others, and did not have the cash to pay the recourse. The closest cash to use for the recourse payments was the deposits, and FDIC could not allow that to happen. There is more detail than we will ever know, but that is the simple version. Legal or not, ethical or not, the rest is irreversible history.
Mostly fact,
Best regards,
David West
