green, you and az have done a fantastic job trying to put the pieces of this sad puzzle together. You make sense on many points, and are probably correct regarding some wamu holding company assets. What also makes sense is that wamu was the biggest seizure in history of banking and as such justice should happen.
Unfortunately, that's not real world. There is no way substantial assets are being negotiated behind closed doors. Just no way. Info would have leaked years ago, the bk trustee would have tried to claw back the assets. Lawsuits would have been filed, Reporters would be all over this in a heart beat if their was even 2 billion coming back to the estate. http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120213000000000024 whos opinion do you think is more correct? Yours or Jonathan Goulding wmi Treasure? he was there! He signed off on the Amended Por 7. He had access to the wamu assets. he knew what was and wasnt there. AND GUESS WHAT? his opinion contradicts YOURS. in plain English he said NOT ALL ASSETS WERE SOLD.. he makes it more clear for you by saying the word SUBSTANTIALLY! So now you know the majority was NOT sold.
then to make it MORE CLEAR FOR YOU he said a transfer in ASSETS does NOT constitute a sale of assets or SUBSTANTUALLY ALL ASSETS. So there we have a wmi trustee tell you it wasnt sold and the transfer wasnt consider a sale of ALL!
So is his opinion correct or yours? fyi in case you want to start reading into words focus on the last sentence where Mr. Goulding said the GSA is not a sale of all the assets or substantially ALL the assets. this find has covered every argument you have made! what say you now? that's the problem with bk's, the assets get sliced, diced, laundered, washed, given away for tax reasons and strategical positioned so they are hard to trace and no one does it better than jpm.
green, answer my one question that people like yourself refuse to answer: What's your take on the pr that jpm put out regarding the 30 billion of wamu assets they found in the rubble. Wouldn't you have thought those were holding company assets, they surely were not bank deposits, right. the answer to this is easy... JPM didnt get everything!!! just as Mr. Goulding said. so obviously JPM had to purchase it AT BOOK VALUE AS IT CORRECTLY STATES IN THE PA&A! all imo
crap like this... i demand links to support this dd of yours.
or is this not DD?
we all have an opinion but your repetitive opinion of sliced an diced is not supported
we have found DD to support a different theory
this is the WMIH/LT board
were here to inform through facts and supported links to prove facts, but your responses are nothing but your opinion. bkshadow has much respect here even though we disagree
please... if your going to disagree... leave your relentless opinion behind and support your theory with fact finding