Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Dmdmd2020]

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=13274.msg234570#msg234570

Quote from: CSNY on Yesterday at 08:45:56 PM
WMI had time to protect itself against its assets being seized to satisfy the banking entities' debts. I think the post-WaMu changes allowing the FDIC to seize assets of holding companies resulted directly from WMI's bankruptcy and, possibly, such the pre-seizure planning I've described. If WMI did this then the bankruptcy court would have no jurisdiction over the assets, which wouldn't appear on WMI's books. WMIIC probably would have been the initial trustee.

This is speculation but it is entirely possible given that seizure was possible. If I'd been WMI's counsel I would have advised such an action for crown jewels (whatever they might be). I've wondered about this for some time. If you read up on spendthrift trusts in DE you'll find this was entirely possible.

By the way, the spendthrift (i.e., beneficiary) has no right to demand payments from the trustee, which is one reason why creditors can't reach them.

_________________________________


Per Investopedia:

Spendthrift Trust
A Spendthrift Trust is a trust setup with "spendthrift provisions or clauses" that protect the trust assets and the beneficiary assets from creditors of the beneficiary. The trust is normally created to allow the trustee to control the distribution of the trust's assets to the beneficiary(s) in order to manage the spending habits of the beneficiary(s). The creator of the trust might also be afraid that the beneficiary would "blow through" the assets of the trust if a controlled budget and independent trustee was not in place to maintain stability.

Read more: Types and Basic Provisions https://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfp/liquidity-appointment-trusts/cfp5.asp#ixzz5WOJE5ZOX

___________________

CBA09 (Certified Bank Auditor) iHub posts:

Post #489606

“Friday, 09/29/17 09:09:43 AM

Re: Large Green post# 489600 0
Post # of 546270
Ref: $ 615 Billion- The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.

Commentary:
Sold means $ 615 Billion removed from WMB balance sheet. Legal title transferred.

Ref: The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.

Commentary:
Trust Sales accounting solidified! Reason - Two Tier SPE Entities. First tier (i.e., Depositors - “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation), Second Tier issuing Trusts.


Conclusion:
$ 615 Billion were removed from the Balance Sheet of WMB in true sales. Neither WMB / JPM nor the FDIC receivership has any claim to these securitized Trust assets.

Further, revenue that has & continues to be generated remains captive within each respective Trusts.

Now the caveat - The holding company generally receives the cash flow from Trusts either directly from the Trusts or indirectly thru it's Depositors. From here the holding company will past "on an as needed basis" cash to it's banking entities. To safeguard and protect the assets received by the holding company it will not have an expressed contractual rights to pass on what it receives. “

________________

Post #490806

“Friday, 10/06/17 11:26:19 AM

Re: deanna-hopkins post# 490793 0
Post # of 546270
Ref: SO will they just magically make the Escrows worth something then?

Comment:

Shrew professional investors here. Those initial & ensuing Hedge Funds did not invest and release on guess work. Rather a keen understanding of what assets and rights to assets that will prevail beyond the reaching powers of bankruptcy.

It seems many here are down to a glimmer of hope, from once having high hopes. I have been primarily silent. Why!?! No need to focus on the daily PPS. It is of no concern to me.

Do you believe these Hedge Funds & Institutional Investors are concerned with the the daily PPS? Of course not, they are inured to its daily movement and the postings on this Board.

Those who have their ticket punched, namely releases, take note that you are joined in the company of those in the know. Knowing the "Final Outcome."

Key here, I strongly contend, is outside the waterfall. So those assets shielded from the Trustee's reach as follows:

1) SPE / Trusts assets ( The parent is WMI )

2) Abandonment of Stock. ( As any future value goes to WMI and not included as an asset of the estate).”

______________

Post #490881

“Friday, 10/06/17 03:55:45 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 490863 0
Post # of 546270
Ref: Our interests are in what was OUTSIDE OF THE WMI BK CASE, not what was in it, now we'll be glad to take that as well, but the MONEY AINT IN WMI BK CASE, it's outside of it in our/my opinion.

Comment:

Yes exactly -- Outside, specifically bankruptcy remote assets. Those within SPE's classified as "True Sale" securitized assets.

Simply put, "Off Balance Sheet Assets" reflects assets that WMB gave up the legal ownership rights and complete control to SPE's which in turn is owned by WMI.


WMI being the parent, it is highly unlikely the court will dispute of the final ownership of retained assets to WMI. Just look at the Facts:

1) Off Balance sheet assets are removed from WMB. (Legal ownership given up)

2) Off Balance sheet assets initially transferred / sold to SPE # 1

3) Off Balance sheet assets subsequently transferred to SPE # 2 / Trust.

4) Neither SPE # 1 & # 2 are subsidiaries of WMB but rather WMI.

5) Generally SPE # 1 is the credit enhancer within SPE # 2. Thus SPE # 1 would have ownership in the form of subordinate tranches, namely called a equity ownership.

6) Both the SPE's # 1 & # 2 along with assets and income generated within are isolated from WMB.”

____________

Post #491048

“ Sunday, 10/08/17 12:49:50 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 491037 0
Post # of 546271
Ref Would this really also apply to WMI even though they never securitized or sold any MBS's?

I believe WMI would have transferred assets to WMIIC as it seemed to be their Investment Management Vehicle.

In such a case, how would WMIIC's assets be treated post bankruptcy with regard to the WMILT and WMIHC?

It was specified (in an LT MOR, not sure) that WMIHC owns the Equity and the WMILT owns the assets of WMIIC.

In addition there is the "No reversion (of LT Assets) to the Debtors" clause in the LT Agreement.

I honestly believe we're sill missing a lot of important pieces here.

Comment:

WMI is the parent and thereby have ownership rights to all the assets of it's children, namely subsidiaries. Holding companies are the "Gem" within it's conglomerates. Their survival is dependent upon it's revenue of it's subsidiaries. The courts know this and will support this ownership position.

On another issue,do you think that by WMI having abandoned it's stock in
WMB as worthless will remain worthless? I don't. This was an astute move. By doing so, having this on record within the bankruptcy, any value that returns will not be an assets of the bankruptcy estate and whollly retained to WMI.”

___________________

Post #491061

“ Sunday, 10/08/17 02:49:50 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 491056 0
Post # of 546272
Ref: I actually thought about this very point and had previously been of the opinion that abandonment meant WMI relinquished their full rights of control over WMB. It never occurred to me that this was a move that was legally permissible, if it was done under the umbrella of the bankruptcy.

Comment:

Yes, a clever filing. By fully disclosing as worthless stock at the time of bankruptcy filing it gives WMI full and complete ownership of any future value return. Further is satisfies "Any & ALL" future value returned as assets removed from the bankruptcy estate. Thus future value being bankruptcy remote!! ”

____________

Post #499043

“Thursday, 12/07/17 08:35:12 AM
Re: mattchew post# 499009 0
Post # of 546272
Ref: Question: doesn’t the FDIC require a “release” before any $ distribution happens?

Comment:
No FDIC can make distributions at any time on claims. FDIC makes a determination based on available funds on what claims to pay. Of course they is a priority order and unfortunately shareholders are last.

Of importance is that final release / closeout of FDIC receivership will not happen if any unresolved litigation exist. Assets not of WMB that were transferred to JPM must be put back or paid for.

So yes the follow is correct-
Answer: The FDIC will be released when they "Make the Final Payment" according to the GSA and POR7”

______________

IMO...my conclusions as of November 09, 2018:

1) If WMI set up spendthrift Trusts as CSNY has suggested, then it makes sense that billionaire vulture investors like Bonderman wanted control of WMI, even in the midst of a recession.

2) WMI Non-banking assets (i.e. real estate, mineral rights, beneficial interests in MBS Trusts created by WMI subsidiaries) were not sold to JPMC, or any other entity, during the FDIC receivership.

3) I agree with CBA09 in regards to WMI abondoning WMB stock was an astute move by WMI. This makes all recoveries as “bankruptcy remote”, and WMI Escrow Marker Holders are the rightful owners to all the recoveries.

4) Now if you believe in CBA09’s assessments, and in Denke’s appraisal of mineral rights (possibly $47 billion to maybe $180 billion) then add all the MBS Trust assets by virtue of beneficial interests ($692 billion x 26.24% Participation = $181 billion) and possible CDS contracts being paid out ($23 billion) you will realize that my previous estimates on recoveries might be conservative.