Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[survivor Spain]

rramirez,...

What I meant is: WMI (the holding) was one more customer of WMB and its subsidiary WMBfsb. As such, it had some deposit accounts.

These 3.67B ended deposited / and are still deposited / in a WMBfsb account.

On Sept. 19th, they could have transfered - and it seems to me they legally could have done it - this money to other bank in other deposit account, let's say Bank of NY. Instead of it they kept it deposited in their own bank, aligned we all their millions of customer's small or large deposits.

Should they have taken the money out, then the "16B deposits run" would have been larger than 16B, therefore worsening the possibility of liquidity problems.

As any customer's deposit account, .. it generates a liability for the bank where the deposit is made. The bank is entitled to return the money if the customer wants it, but banks love this sort of liablility because they can convert it several times into "assets". Once the bank uses these deposited $ to lend money, then these loans become an asset for the bank.

I simply cannot see or grasp why JPM could claim that depositing the money in WMBfsb was "bad" for the bank. Here is where I don't see a point in JPM's claim.

I hope this clarifies my message.

On the other hand, JPM also say that it was a "book's electronic transfer" instead of "real money". What is the point in this? I don't think JPM or anyone else - besides IN movies - ever moved 4B of "real money" anywhere. Everything in a bank is based on books entries as well as electronically executed. Doesn't sound to me like an argument.


Cheers...