Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[jackson227]

Check this out.

I just sent it to Kaye from the JPM Investor Relations Team.

I think you guys will like it.


Enjoy!


Good Evening Kaye.



I appreciate JP Morgan Investor relations responding to my original inquiry, but was disappointed that your response did not include any information and only asked for my telephone number. I did respond back and provided you with my phone number, and
I was looking forward to hearing back from you via the telephone, however, I did not receive a call today.

If you could please provide a valid response to the issues raised in my e-mail, it would be very much appreciated.

I do not have a problem with speaking to you over the phone, however, I would respectfully request that you provide a legitimate response in writing, or in the form of an electronic correspondence so that I can properly document your response to the questions raised in my original message and in the following message.

I consider the WaMu acquisition to be a very serious matter, and there seems to be some inconsistencies with JPM's accounting for, and explanation of the acquisition. These inconsistencies exist between what I heard on the January 15th conference call, what I've read in News articles, and what JP Morgan has presented in the Washington Mutual Inc bankruptcy case.

As I stated in my original e-mail, it is clear the JP Morgan acquired WaMu for far less than FAIR VALUE, and the recording of the assets as negative goodwill is clear support for this fact. It is amazing to me that $307 Billion in assets can be purchased for only $1.9 billion, which is why I originally asked how much more JP Morgan is planning on paying for WaMu.

In addition, on the January 15th conference call, Mr. Dimon stated that the acquisition of WaMu will add $.50 per share profits in the quarters to come. This indicates that JP Morgan knows exactly what they acquired in the WaMu deal.
http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/event/build2/mediapresentation.cfm?companyid=ONE&mediaid=34878&mediauserid=3542001&TID=544455153:4359AACA2188DDA533E8E04845206C59&popupcheck=0&shexp=200902080107&shkey=a3ab13e1f826aea391e63a9d1adedef5&player=1
However, there seems to be some inconsistencies in Mr. Dimon's statements compared to JPM's objection to the Bar Date for filing proofs of claim in the Washington Mutual Inc case. In JPM's objection to the setting of the Bar Date, JPM requested that the Court either deny the Motion to set the bar date, or exempt JP Morgan Chase from any bar date the Court may set for the reasons listed in the response and objection. Item 19 in the following document states that "This case poses an unprecedented range and volume of factual questions for JPMorgan Chase to investigate." Item 18 in the following document states that the recently filed schedules of WMI "confounds rather than clarifies a number of the open issues relating to JPMorgan Chase because the Debtors claim interests in property that clearly should belong to the buyer of the receivership assets. " Item 18 goes on to state that "There are too many open questions regarding these assets, contracts purchased and employee pension, and other payments made, to require JPMorgan Chase to submit a claim by March 31, 2009." Item 17 , in the following document, states that "Rather, as JPMorgan Chase has previously made clear, it is in most senses a stranger to these Debtors and in these proceedings." and goes on to state that "JPMorgan Chase's disputes with the Debtors are disputes over the ownership of assets as between a regulated financial institution in receivership and its paren holding company in bankruptcy, and the rights of setoff that exist to secure those intercompany liabilities and claims". Item 16, in the following document, states that "The contracts, licenses, assets, and liabilities in dispute may be those in which WMI is asserting ownership or other rights when JPMorgan Chase believes the relationship, asset or agreement in question appears to be part of WMB's banking activities, to be included in the regulatory capital of WMB, or otherwise to have been bought and paid for by WMB or its subsidiaries. In those situations, JPMorgan Chase believes that title MAY have been passed from the FDIC to JPMorgan Chase. Even if JPMorgan Chase is mistaken, a dispute of this nature and import ought not to be classified as a "claim" to be summarily adjudicated, estimated, or classified as part of a claims process in the Title 11 proceedings of WMB'S former parent holding company."

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090122000000000001.pdf



Now I could go right down the numbered list in this court document and provide you with every example that shows that JPMorgan Chase can not say with certaintly what they acquired, or what is even legally theirs, but I will not do that. I wanted to provide you with enough quotes from JP Morgan's response and limited objection to motion of the debtors for an order, pursuant to section 502(b)(9) of the bankruptcy code, Bankruptcy Rules 2002a7, f,I, and 3003c3, and local rule 2002-1e, Establishing the Deadline For Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof, that provide a far different reality of the grasp JPM has on the assets that were part of the WaMu acquisition than the grasp Mr. Dimon provided on the January 15th conference call.

So, in addition to my request for your best estimate as to how much more JPM is planning on paying for WaMu, whether payment is to the FDIC or to Washington Mutual Inc, to atleast make up for the negative goodwill that was recorded as a result of the purchase, I am also respectfully requesting an explanation as to why it is that Mr. Dimon told shareholders that WaMu will bring $.50/share profit in the future, when the court documents make it clear that JP Morgan doesn't even know exactly what was acquired.

To me, either Mr. Dimon wasn't being truthful on the January 15th conference call regarding the WaMu acquisition and the effects the acquisition will have on the price per share, OR JPMorgan Chase Bank's Response and Limited Objection, referenced above , was fraudulent in its drafting and submission in court.

Either JPM knows what it acquired, or it does not know what it acquired.



If JPM does know exactly what was acquired, then most, if not all, of the items listed in the court document provided above were both fraudulent and misleading. If JPM knew what was acquired , the JPM would not have asked for more time from the court to settle "disputes over the ownership of assets as between a regulated financial institution in receivership and its parent holding company in bankruptcy" . Number 15, in the court document referenced above, states "The examples provided are only two of the dozens of analogous situations that have arisen. JPMorgan Chase does not believe that at the end of the day there should be any serious dispute in most situations, but the Debtors have taken the position on more than one occasion, orally and in writing, that JPMorgan Chase's actions with respect to assets JPMorgan Chase acquired from the FDIC amount to a violation of the automatic stay because the Debtors assert a claim over the same assets."

I am of the opinion that JP Morgan Chase does not know what is legally theirs, and therefore the above filing was not fraudulent and misleading The above filing by JP Morgan Chase obviously proves that JPM does not know with any certainty what assets were acquired, and therefore can not, and should not even attempt to speculate as to what value the acquisition will have on JPM's share price, nor should they just assume that the Court will rule in such a way that supports JPM's "understanding" of who owns what.

So, since it is clear that JPM does not know what was acquired, nor do they know who has rightful ownership of assets in this case, and since as you put it , there are "dozens of analogous situations that have arisen", I am deeply troubled by the apparent misleading and fraudulent statements made by Mr. Dimon during the January 15th, 2009 Conference Call.


If JPM does not know exactly what was acquired, the Mr. Dimon misled investors on the January 15th Conference Call with regards to the acquisition of WaMu and the effect the acquisition will have on the share price of JPM.


I would very much appreciate a valid and appropriate response to the serious issues addressed in this correspondence, and I would very much appreciate it if Mr. Dimon would fully disclose to shareholders, and the Public, the uncertainty surrounding the ownership of assets and the "dozens of analogous situations that have arisen", as by failing to do so, I fear that Mr. Dimon is jeopardizing whatever is left of the integrity and trustworthiness in the JP Morgan name.

Misleading investors, especially by the CEO of a company like JP Morgan Chase, is a very serious matter and I expect a very serious response to this message.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I am also giving you the chance to respond to my inquiries so that you can clear up the confusion surrounding the value of the WaMu acquisition.

Please responde either in writing or in the form of an electronic correspondence.

Once such correspondence is received, I will review it, and at that time, I feel that a conversation over the telephone would be very warranted.

Thank you kindly for your time, and I very much look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Have a great night!

Sincerely,