The problem here is "tunnel vision" on the part of some posters. If one reads the WAMU 2005 FASB Comment Letter (pgs 3-6), it clearly shows that assets of a bankrupt entity can also qualify for Safe Harbor protections. Safe Harbor is clearly NOT a fully bankruptcy remote process. It's documented...not an opinion.
Disclaimer: Regardless of my optimistic posts, I am still not 100% certain that there are any benefits from Safe Harbor assets due to our Markers as there is, as of yet, no verifiable proof of such existing.
FACTS...NOT EMPTY RHETORIC!!!