Replies to post #413022 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[AZCowboy]

... AND ~ In My Opinion, Why KKR is Here ~ ...

Now, Just My Opinion, However, I may have bought into the whole ... KKR is here merely for the WMIH zero value shell with some NOL's future' ... (35% of 5.97b ~ yada yada yada')

Nope, had the rights offering been comparatively less than some 25% of KKR's Liquid Cash on Hand, I may have bought into the NOL' slow growth theory etc etc ... But 400m ? in convertible B series preferreds ? ... HHHMMM'

And then Citi ? jumpin in ? those dudes can not take any chances ... just sayin' ...

However, again, and In My Opinion, KKR & Citi (and I also think Blackstone) are sittin' in the hallway waiting for the FDIC to return assets seized that have NOT been in a position to be liquidated as a return to the original debtors estate' ...

And the fella's are just waitin' in the hallway to help us out ...

just sayin'

AZ

[bkshadow]

$100B+++ of Loans, YES; "Missing Loans," NO

The reference to the Examiner's Report, the argument and the related footnote 39 are as follows:

The Equity Committee found no basis, in the information made available to it, that would substantiate the claim that WMB was insolvent when seized. It cited WMI's internal analysis provided to its Board of Directors on September 22, 2008, as demonstrating solvency. 39


39 Equity undertook a preliminary solvency analysis based on the limited information made available by the Debtors. Equity noted that a final analysis of solvency would require a detailed review of WMB's loan portfolio, which is not available to Equity and was also not reviewed by the Debtors. The Examiner in this Report has an analysis of solvency, but he also did not conduct a review of the loan portfolio.

So, yes the Examiner did not conduct a review of the loan portfolio "for solvency purposes." That has nothing to do with even gesturing (by Equity or the Examiner) that there were "missing loans."

Further, the Examiner "he did not conduct a review of the loan portfolio is a far cry from "the WMI Loan File was not allowed to be reviewed by the Examiner.

due the fact that the WMI Loan File which was to be "serviced" by Chase was still within the confines of the initiated, Purchase & Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan ... and was NOT a party to, or able to be a consideration of' the WMI' Bankruptcy Proceeding while that contract was activated' upon seizure ...

And this is not even in the argument or the footnote at all.

If one wants to look to the Examiner, look to the loan ownership chain.

Applying a balance sheet test, the Examiner has not seen evidence clearly establishing that the value of WMI's assets -- principally WMB's mortgage portfolio -- was less than its liabilities as of September 10, 2008.217

217 WMI's principal asset was WMB. WMB's principal assets were its mortgage loans. Thus, the value o fWMB's mortgage loan assets is highly relevant to the determination of WMI's solvency.

[bkshadow]

No specific references to the support...

...for the statements made in the first paragraph. The second paragraph merely mentions documents, but no quote and reference and link.

... JPMorgan received the servicing rights to the extensive WMI Loan File ... JPMorgan paid an "initial" payment to the FDIC' ... The "assets within the Assets" did NOT transfer to JPMorgan ...

reference; the GSA' ~ The Disclosure Statement' ~ The Purchase & Assumption Agreement' ~ the Examiners Report' ~ The Plan of Confirmation' ~ The Goulding Document (in support of) ... etc ...

All of the references in the first paragraph are debunked in the following.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108747918

I'd be interested to see the support for the above with the same level of documentation.

[Roach58]

Dodd Frank wasn't signed into law until 2010, and it pretty much made legal today, what was not legal when they stole WAMU in 2008.Remember when Geithner was making his Sunday morning talk circuit and he was practically bragging about how the new legislation would allow them to come in, seize the institution and wipeout its equity. They make their own rules and when they don't work they break them with impunity. For example; Conservatorships are different than receivership and they don't last forever and they don't get treated as a revenue stream...unless you happen to be the government who has a different definition than the rest of the population.imo