Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[boarddork]

New proof that "COOP is just a "Registrant" or "CHILD" corporation for a much larger corporate entity in hiding. According to GLEIF.org.... 'Mr. Cooper Group' is the "CHILD" of both an unreported "NON-PUBLIC" "Direct" Parent, and "Ultimate Parent".

Scroll down the MR. COOPER GROUP page on GLEIF.org, to the 'PARENTS' section. Review both the Direct and Ultimate Parent tabs which refer to the "Exception" by which the Direct and Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc, uses to hid their identity to the public. Direct Parent being the closest Parent Corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation. And, Ultimate Parent being the furthest Parent corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation.

Direct Parent: "Direct Parent Exception Reported" "The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
Ultimate Parent: "Ultimate Parent Exception Reported" The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record

So, how does an LEI numbered corporation (originally granted & generated by GLEIF) such as Mr Cooper Group Inc claim a "NON-PUBLIC Parent Exception" in their LEI Reference DATA to GLEIF.org, if it doesn't have a parent as some claim ?

"Non-Public, whenever the relationship information is non-public and therefore creates obstacles to releasing this information. This category includes cases where there are obstacles in the laws or regulations of a jurisdiction restricting the reporting (“Binding Legal Constraint”); the existence of other legal constraints such as articles governing the legal entity or a contract (“Legal Obstacles”); where disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the legal entity or the relevant parent (“Disclosure Detrimental” and “Detriment Not Excluded”); and where the consent to disclose the parent LEI was not obtained (“Consent Not Obtained”). An entity is not required to provide non-public relationship information in order to register or renew an LEI. https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/current-versions/level-2-data-reporting-exceptions-2-1-format

What is a "binding legal constraint" is A binding constraint is one where some optimal solution is on the line for the constraint. Thus if this constraint were to be changed slightly (in a certain direction), this optimal solution would no longer be feasible."

What binding legal restraint prohibits Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) from Reporting its Direct and Ultimate corporate Parent relationship ? Let that sink in...... That tells me there is a gag order on who owns COOP right now...what could be so controversial? JPMC ?

So, Why would releasing Mr Cooper Group Inc's Direct & Ultimate Parent identification create an obstacle? Why stay Non-Public if its just an...'accounting thing' as stated "in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified." Why is it detrimental for BOTH the Direct & Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc to be public information? What would the damage be if these Parent corporations of Mr Cooper Group Inc were to be named publicly?

A bit of color: remember GLEIF.org states MR Cooper Group Inc's application for LEI registration, gave the Exception rule for NON-PUBLIC Reporting of its Direct & Ultimate Parent(s) names based on....Direct Parent: "fully consolidated..by the accounting standards specified." Ultimate Parent: ultimately consolidated..by the accounting standards specified"

"What is the difference between consolidated and parent accounting?
Consolidated financial statements are used when the parent company holds a majority stake by controlling more than 50% of the subsidiary business. Parent companies that hold more than 20% qualify to use consolidated accounting. If a parent company holds less than a 20% stake, it must use equity method accounting.

"Consolidated financial statements: the financial statements of a group presented as those of a single economic entity. Subsidiary: an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, that is controlled by another entity (known as the parent)."

"Ultimate Parent Company means a Company, which owns more than fifty percent (50%) equity shareholding either directly or indirectly in the Parent Company.


COOP's Direct Parent is alive (xxxx) and owned by those who released...who is then owned by (XXXX)'s controlling interest in (xxxx).

And if one thinks old WMIH Corp or WMI Holdings Corp is dead ??..., as of May 20, 2022 they were both listed as "NewValue" "Modifications" to GLEIF.org's "Changed Fields" under Mr. Cooper Group Inc's LEI identification number under "LEI Record Changes". https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record_modifications

So, Mr Cooper Group Inc is hiding both its corporate Direct & Ultimate Parents under a NON-PUBLIC veil, yet illuminatingly lists WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp as the "NEW VALUE" other entity names for the CHILD corporation we and the public know as Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) !!! I betcha one of the two, WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp, is the Direct Parent (xxxx) of Mr Cooper Group Inc, and the other is the direct Parent of the other.

AS to the Ultimate Parent (XXXX) of Mr Cooper Group Inc ? Who'd stand the most to gain? JPMC ?! They bought the farm in 2008, why wouldn't they need to buy the landscape as well - especially to make RICO lawsuits go away. According to the definitions provided, the Child corporation Mr Cooper Group Inc can't do anything without the say-so of its Direct and Ultimate Parent who own the controlling interest in Mr Cooper Group Inc.

Think about that last sentence... how could the Ultimate Parent (JPMC ?) dictate COOP's corporate direction? They'd have to own more than 50% of the company.... How could/did they (JPMC ?) get greater than 50% of the Child corporation COOP ? Either through 1) buying up enough Preferred and Common shares before 2012 reorganization and/or a combination of both 2) buying up WMIH/COOPs loose shares quietly and steadily for years....Whatever they couldn't get pre-bk, they could've got for pennies from frustrated legacy holders who bailed early.

Makes me wonder about COOP's year long statements to this day !! about buying up so many shares of itself...or really maybe for another's ultimate benefit.....JPMC ? As COOP was a portion of the legacy WMI for those who released, If there's a COOP payout component in the future from JPMC ?, the more you own of yourself the less you pay to others...meaning it'll cost them nothing really.

In any case, AZ was and is g.d right this whole time about COOP hiding behind someone else's skirts. He's graciously shared other direct and 'accredited' proof that I'm grateful for, but I still wanted to see if there was other info available to those who might look. And there is, and its quite revealing...and not that hard to find and disect.