Bk:
Just want to go record here about something. If someone uses a certain line of reasoning to predict a specific result, and the reasoning is shown to be invalid, the predicted result might still happen for an entirely different set of reasons.
To be clear, I find the logic of those predicting "billions" to be either obviously specious or based on assumptions about what we don't know. The "Because they did X, they must have known Y" line of argument.
Nevertheless, there are aspects of this bankruptcy that have nagged at me. Specifically, I wonder about the information that has not been disclosed. Do we really know what the full PAA provides, or what is under seal? No. (Please, no one bring up the missing asset list. I really don't believe there was one attached to the executed PAA, as this was a "whole bank" transaction, and it would have been paralytically stupid to even have attempted putting together a comprehensive detailed list of all WMB's assets in the extremely limited time that was avaialble).
In particular, I have always thought that the price paid by JPM for WMB in what was essentially a one-bid 24 hour auction might possibly not be the last word on the consideration that JPM agreed to pay. Given the uncertainties surrounding the transaction, if I had been in the FDIC's shoes I would have been very interested in ensuring that JPM was required to pay something more if - after the smoke had cleared, the turbulence of the crisis had subsided, and a better assessment of the value of what they had purchased could be made - it became evident that JPM had snatched up a bargain and achieved a windfall.
Although I can't quote his exact words, I also recall Rosen's remark back in early 2012 - when they were selling the POR to equity holders - about the unusualy strong prospects for recovery that the POR represented. Maybe he was just referring to the WMIH shares, I don't know.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
