Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[JohnnyWinter]

Here’s the deal.

In response to the following,

“Posted by: drrugby
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:13:35 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 121092


“KLCC post: Wind Farm Nearly Sold.

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091118000000000001.pdf

Site visits and Transfer agent discussions referenced. “”,

I politely respond with the following.

Please be advised that when WMIIC (WMI Investment Corp) sold their wind interests/investments, they sold them for a LOSS .
Look at the December MOR under Note 2 Investments in Subsidiaries, and you will see the following.

"In December 2008, WMI recorded significant losses from its subsidiaries. These losses were primarily due to two factors.

- WMI Investment incurred losses from the sale of its remaining investment securities ($87.4 million) and experienced a loss attributable to its investment in its wind-energy joint-venture ($16.3 million) "......

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090202000000000007.pdf

So, this is another example of the recorded book value actually being higher than the market value, which resulted in a loss.


Some think otherwise, but I feel that when WMI sells their interest in the wind farms (with the "help" of Goldman)they will also lose money. The bottom line is that WMI's interest in the wind farms are not $500 million and are certainly not $1 billion like some claim. Also, by them selling their interest in the wind-farm, it should put to rest any claims that WMI will come back as a “green” company.



In response to this :
Posted by: drrugby
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:39:09 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 121087


“JPM News. The risk of WAMU going to cost JPM..

IMO: It will cost JPM a lot more than it paid.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalFinance09/idUSTRE5AH5TV20091118

Is this the news report hint of an expensive settlement
? “, I politely respond that this has nothing at all to do with the WaMu “deal” costing more because of any sort of settlement or payout and everything to do with added costs related to unforeseen system migration/integration problems related to the “deal”.

With regards to this : “
Posted by: drrugby
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:46:15 PM
In reply to: drrugby who wrote msg# 121046
Post # of 121082


Lastly, NOL's defined: Property of the Estate.

It is ordered back in Nov 2008

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229081117000000000013.pdf

GO WAMU.. “,
I politely respond that it is simply an order that restricts the transfer of stock in order to preserve WMI’s NOLs and IS NOT an order that verifies the actual amount of NOLs that are indeed the property of the estate. This order would have been signed whether WMI stated they have $1 billion , $20 billion, of $100 billion in operating losses, and the purpose of the order is simply to preserve whatever amount of losses are determined (which have yet to be determined) to be the property of the estate. With regards to refunds, in fact, in WMI’s own financial statements, they state “WMI understands that JPMorgan, the purchaser of substantially all of WMB’s assets, may seek to claim all or a portion of the expected refunds.”
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091029000000000012.pdf

WMI has actually not been able to provide valid support that they are entitled to the refunds in their entirety, and anyone who tries to make an argument centered around the tax-sharing agreement that was in place (and no longer is) giving WMI the right to the refunds in their entirety are wrong, and people that make those claims need to review Federal Laws that address situations like the situation of WMB and WMI as these laws protect subsidiaries from actions like WMI is trying to take. If the NOLs were generated by WMB, they belong to WMB, which means they will go to FDIC and/or JPM. In response to claims that JPM can’t use the NOLs because they took tarp, I respond that they can still use them, but they just can’t take advantage of the recently-passed 5-year carry-back provision, but they certainly can use them in the future. (even if they couldn’t use them they would still take them : ^ ) )

With regards to the following,

Posted by: drrugby
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:59:24 PM
In reply to: Sculelos who wrote msg# 120346
Post # of 121091


Sculelos,

DOn't forget that out of the 7.4b$ in the liabilities listed.

About 4b$ of that is the WMB Preferred Shares.

Again, The 2009 MOR's states that the the prefered share liability is soon to be credited..

When credited.. The Assets will be > the Liabilities.. “,

I politely respond that the securities referenced ARE NOT listed as liabilities, NO PREFERRED SHARES of any company are ever listed as liabilities, and when/if New Classes of preferred shares are issued, there will be a credit to shareholder equity (which does not benefit common equity at all), and upon the issuance of new preferreds there would be a recording of an investment in subs followed by an immediate write-down of that investment. Talk to an accountant regarding the significance of a credit to shareholder equity upon issuance of preferred shares.

“In accordance with the terms of the documents governing the Securities, the Conditional Exchange of the
Securities occured on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 8:00 A.M. (New York time). The documentation
governing the Securities contemplates that at the time of the Conditional Exchange, each outstanding Security
was intended to be exchanged automatically for a like amount of newly issued Fixed Rate Depositary Shares or
newly issued Fixed-to-Floating Rate Depositary Shares, as applicable, each representing a 1/IOOOth interest in
one share of the applicable series of preferred stock of WMI. If and until such depositary receipts are delivered
or in the event such depositary receipts are not delivered, any certificates previously representing Securities are
deemed for all purposes, effective as of 8:00 AM (New York time) on September 26, 2008, to represent Fixed
Rate Depositary Shares or Fixed-to-Floating Rate Depositary Shares, as applicable.
WMI and its advisors are currently assessing a number of legal, accounting and tax issues related to the
Securities and the transactions related to the Conditional Exchange. Because of these unresolved issues, WMI
has not yet reflected the Conditional Exchange and/or its attendant transactions on its financial statements,
including any possible interests (direct or indirect, contingent or otherwise) in the Securities and the assets, as
the case may be, of Washington Mutual Preferred Funding LLC.
Assuming that the Conditional Exchange had been completed in accordance with the terms of the relevant
documentation, on a pro forma basis, WMI's financial statements would reflect Ca) a credit to shareholders'
equity of approximately $3.9 billion upon issuance of the new classes of preferred stock; (b) an investment in
subsidiary (I.e. WMB) of approximately $3.9 billion Upon contribution of the Preferred Securities by WMI to
WMB; and (c) an immediate and corresponding write-down of such investment in subsidiary.”

Also, what you have to realize is that WMI would actually have to have the assets to back the issuance of NEW preferreds, and since the “preferred securities” are supposedly backed by assets that are held in trust (some, if not all of which are MBSs), one could reasonably argue that the value of the assets that back the securities are not worth the $3.9 billion they are “valued” at.

"WMPF's assets WERE LIMITED to direct OR indirect interests in MORTGAGE or MORTGAGE-RELATED assets, cash, and other permitted
assets which were held in certain trusts."

"The Trust Securities have an aggregate liquidation preference of approximately $4 billion and upon information and BELIEF are currently worth at least that much."

I really don’t think that WMI has the assets/value to back up the issuance of New Classes of Preferred Stock.

This is what got WMI in trouble in the first place. Their "ASSETS" simply didn't/don't have the value they claimed they had/have.

In addition to all of that, here is a little tidbit from WMI SEC filings, which opens up another can of worms.

“WMB has received confirmation from the Office of Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”) that the Company Preferred Securities are eligible for treatment as core capital of WMB under the OTS’ applicable regulatory capital regulations[b/] and intends to treat the Company Preferred Securities accordingly.
If the OTS so directs following the occurrence of an Exchange Event (defined below), each WaMu Cayman Preferred Security and each Trust Security will be automatically exchanged for a like amount of depositary shares representing a 1/1000th of a share of specified classes of preferred stock (the “WMI Preferred Stock”) of WMI. “Exchange Event” means (a) WMB becoming “undercapitalized” under the OTS’ “prompt corrective action” regulations, (b) WMB being placed into conservatorship or receivership or (c) the OTS, in its sole discretion, directing such exchange in anticipation of WMB becoming “undercapitalized” in the near term or taking supervisory action that limits the payment of dividends, as applicable, by WMB, and in connection therewith, directs such exchange. “



Lastly, that trading order that was approved over a year ago, and mentioned above, has absolutely nothing to do with WMI’s intent to keep equity in tact (neither commons or preferreds), and has everything to do with preserving whatever NOLs they are entitled to. Please see the following post regarding trading orders and their significance as it does a good job of explaining the significance of such orders supported by a recent case.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43566290