LP, AND MORE FROM CBA09
WOW oh WOW – This TELLS A STORY-SOME LARGE STYLE FACTS FROM SUBJECT MATTER HANDS-ON EXPERIENCED CERTIFIED BANK AUDITOR POSTER CBA09 - TOTAL ENJOYMENT FOR THOSE WHO SIGNED TIMELY RELEASES BY 3/2012
1) Caution – Long post and I suggest copy/pasting as this may get taken down
2) I have taken the liberty and copy/pasted the last 16 posts from Poster, CBA09
3) These posts are his last 17 from 12/18/2017 until he quit 2/17/2018 from last post to current
4) Again, copy/paste as this post may not last and SHARE ACCORDINGLY
CBA09 Monday, 10/03/16 08:37:45 AM
Re: hotmeat post# 463715 0
Post #
463722
of 625546
hotmeat - Turnover Proceeding.
Regarding Equity and Assets-
WMI vs. WMIIC ( Turnover Order ) is clearly telling the whole world they have the "Sole Legal" unconditional rights and privileges to said assets that others do not have!
My career has involved many years in the banking industry. Some auditing, strategic planning, call reports and valuing both banks and S & L for acquisitions. Thru my empirical experience I know all to well how these depository entities and parent holding companies operate to secrete assets and income ( all within the confines of regulatory statues; both legal and accounting ).
________________________________________________
CBA09 Sunday, 10/02/16 01:48:46 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 463667 0
Post #
463673
of 625547
hotmeat - Turnover Order Proceeding.
Agreed - WMI vs. WMIIC is telling in a BIG WAY!
Appears WMI has valid claims against WMIIC. I can thing of a few reasons why WMI has filed for Turnover as follows:
1) WMIIC has taken ownership and/or control and/or pledged property that belongs to WMI. and/or,
2) WMIIC has taken ownership and/or control of "INCOME" that belongs to
WMI. and,or
3) WMIIC has taken ownership and/or control and/or pledged "Loans / Fees / Other Accounts Receivables" that belongs to WMI. and,
4) WMI can prove evidence of title / interest of rights to such claims of # 1 # 2 and # 3 above via agreements / contracts / bank accounts.
I firmly believe Assets belonging to WMI, will come back in many forms. Since the WAMU theft Holding Companies are now subject to seizure along with their depository entities.
__________________________________________________________________________________
CBA09 Thursday, 09/28/17 02:49:07 PM
Re: A deleted message 0
Post #
489507
of 625539
Ref: Safe Harbor items would not be disclosed as part of receivership first of all.
Commentary:
100% spot on. Off balance sheet means sold and not longer the assets of WMB.
On January 17, 2002, the State of Delaware enacted the Asset-Backed Securities Facilitation Act, 6 Del. C. § 2703A (the "ABSFA"). The ABSFA effectively creates a safe harbour under Delaware state law for determining what constitutes a true sale in securitisation transactions.
The ABSFA first provides that "[a]ny property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, in the securitization transaction shall be deemed to no longer be the property, assets or rights of the transferor."[1] Given the foregoing provision, to the extent Delaware law applies, the traditional legal criteria used in determining what constitutes a true sale in the context of a securitisation is intended to be irrelevant.
The ABSFA further states that "[a] transferor in the securitization transaction ... to the extent the issue is governed by Delaware law, shall have no rights, legal or equitable, whatsoever to reacquire, reclaim, recover, repudiate, disaffirm, redeem or recharacterize as property of the transferor any property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, by the transferor."[2] The ABSFA also provides that "n the event of a bankruptcy, receivership or other insolvency proceeding with respect to the transferor or the transferor's property, to the extent the issue is governed by Delaware law, such property, assets and rights shall not be deemed part of the transferor's property, assets, rights or estate."[3] The foregoing provisions facilitate reaching the conclusion that a true sale exists in the context of a securitisation transaction where Delaware law apply
_____________________________________________________
CBA09 Thursday, 09/28/17 05:17:22 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 489508 0
Post #
489542
of 625539
Ref: the same holds TRUE WITH WMI does it not?
Comment:
Yes WMI too ( In a true Sale) !
As Delaware is unequivocally the leading jurisdiction in which to structure securitization and other transactions.
The Asset-Backed Securities Facilitation Act, (ABSFA) first provides that "any property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, in the securitization transaction" shall be deemed to no longer be the property, assets or rights of the transferor if a securitization constitutes a true sale.
____________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 09/29/17 09:09:43 AM
Re: Large Green post# 489600 0
Post #
489606
of 625539
Ref: $ 615 Billion- The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.
Commentary:
Sold means $ 615 Billion removed from WMB balance sheet. Legal title transferred.
Ref: The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.
Commentary:
Trust Sales accounting solidified! Reason - Two Tier SPE Entities. First tier (i.e., Depositors - “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation), Second Tier issuing Trusts.
Conclusion:
$ 615 Billion were removed from the Balance Sheet of WMB in true sales. Neither WMB / JPM nor the FDIC receivership has any claim to these securitized Trust assets.
Further, revenue that has & continues to be generated remains captive within each respective Trusts.
Now the caveat - The holding company generally receives the cash flow from Trusts either directly from the Trusts or indirectly thru it's Depositors. From here the holding company will past "on an as needed basis" cash to it's banking entities. To safeguard and protect the assets received by the holding company it will not have an expressed contractual rights to pass on what it receives.
________________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 10/06/17 11:26:19 AM
Re: deanna-hopkins post# 490793 0
Post #
490806
of 625539
Ref: SO will they just magically make the Escrows worth something then?
Comment:
Shrew professional investors here. Those initial & ensuing Hedge Funds did not invest and release on guess work. Rather a keen understanding of what assets and rights to assets that will prevail beyond the reaching powers of bankruptcy.
It seems many here are down to a glimmer of hope, from once having high hopes. I have been primarily silent. Why!?! No need to focus on the daily PPS. It is of no concern to me.
Do you believe these Hedge Funds & Institutional Investors are concerned with the the daily PPS? Of course not, they are inured to its daily movement and the postings on this Board.
Those who have their ticket punched, namely releases, take note that you are joined in the company of those in the know. Knowing the "Final Outcome."
Key here, I strongly contend, is outside the waterfall. So those assets shielded from the Trustee's reach as follows:
1) SPE / Trusts assets ( The parent is WMI )
2) Abandonment of Stock. ( As any future value goes to WMI and not included as an asset of the estate).
_______________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 10/06/17 03:55:45 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 490863 0
Post #
490881
of 625539
Ref: Our interests are in what was OUTSIDE OF THE WMI BK CASE, not what was in it, now we'll be glad to take that as well, but the MONEY AINT IN WMI BK CASE, it's outside of it in our/my opinion.
Comment:
Yes exactly -- Outside, specifically bankruptcy remote assets. Those within SPE's classified as "True Sale" securitized assets.
Simply put, "Off Balance Sheet Assets" reflects assets that WMB gave up the legal ownership rights and complete control to SPE's which in turn is owned by WMI.
WMI being the parent, it is highly unlikely the court will dispute of the final ownership of retained assets to WMI. Just look at the Facts:
1) Off Balance sheet assets are removed from WMB. (Legal ownership given up)
2) Off Balance sheet assets initially transferred / sold to SPE # 1
3) Off Balance sheet assets subsequently transferred to SPE # 2 / Trust.
4) Neither SPE # 1 & # 2 are subsidiaries of WMB but rather WMI.
5) Generally SPE # 1 is the credit enhancer within SPE # 2. Thus SPE # 1 would have ownership in the form of subordinate tranches, namely called a equity ownership.
6) Both the SPE's # 1 & # 2 along with assets and income generated within are isolated from WMB.
______________________________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 10/06/17 03:55:45 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 490863 0
Post #
490881
of 625539
Ref: Our interests are in what was OUTSIDE OF THE WMI BK CASE, not what was in it, now we'll be glad to take that as well, but the MONEY AINT IN WMI BK CASE, it's outside of it in our/my opinion.
Comment:
Yes exactly -- Outside, specifically bankruptcy remote assets. Those within SPE's classified as "True Sale" securitized assets.
Simply put, "Off Balance Sheet Assets" reflects assets that WMB gave up the legal ownership rights and complete control to SPE's which in turn is owned by WMI.
WMI being the parent, it is highly unlikely the court will dispute of the final ownership of retained assets to WMI. Just look at the Facts:
1) Off Balance sheet assets are removed from WMB. (Legal ownership given up)
2) Off Balance sheet assets initially transferred / sold to SPE # 1
3) Off Balance sheet assets subsequently transferred to SPE # 2 / Trust.
4) Neither SPE # 1 & # 2 are subsidiaries of WMB but rather WMI.
5) Generally SPE # 1 is the credit enhancer within SPE # 2. Thus SPE # 1 would have ownership in the form of subordinate tranches, namely called a equity ownership.
6) Both the SPE's # 1 & # 2 along with assets and income generated within are isolated from WMB.
______________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 10/06/17 04:15:05 PM
Re: austin01 post# 490887 0
Post #
490888
of 625539
Ref: CBA09, are you optimistic that escrows will be rewarded well?
Comment:
On a scale of 1 to 10 and ten being the highest level - 10! I have too much experience within the banking industry and specifically Pooling and Serving Agreements (PSA) to believe otherwise.
______________________________________________________________________
CBA09 Friday, 10/06/17 04:29:31 PM
Re: austin01 post# 490887 0
Post #
490891
of 625538
Ref: CBA09, are you optimistic that escrows will be rewarded nicely? Nicely, as in 3 to 4 bucks per escrows share or more.
Comment:
Waaay too little. Just ponder this; some of the "Shrewdest Investors" in the world have reserved a seat here and been here over nine years. Even before they were here I was thinking massive. There presence validates my opinion.________________________________________________________________
CBA09
Monday, 12/18/17 03:22:20 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 500911
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: I have my own views as per the limited value of the "Retained Assets" but would like your take on same. See post# 500809 for the relevant links and page numbers.
I have read Post - 50089 It reflects - Retained interests in mortgage loan securitizations, excluding the rights to service such loans, were $1.23 billion at June 30, 2008, of which $1.13 billion are of investment-grade.
Comments:
I am glad to see "ONLY" $ 1.23 Billion as of June 30, 2008. Aggregate of "Retained Assets" are captured within the Trusts.
Why so -
1 -Primary reason - protected from WMB creditors and not included within the estate.
2- Secondary reason - for each Dollar of Retained Assets retained by WMB a corresponding increase Capital is required.
Nothing out of the ordinary here. Secure / Sound "Retained Asset" protection via using the Bankruptcy Remote SPE's to own Residual Certificates. Common practice is to have a Residual Certificates for each the following:
1) Excess Spread Account
2) Cash Collateral Account
3) Collateral Investment Account
4) Subordinate Securities.
In addition the Residual Interest maintained by WMB often times there is a provision with the PSA to pledge back to the Trust it's Residual Interest if insolvency is triggered.
CBA09
Monday, 12/18/17 03:59:51 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 500996
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: My thoughts were that WMI's substantial Trust interests would not be reflected on the books as "Retained Assets", but rather as some type of "Income Line Item" in their financial filings.
Comment:
Two places:
1) Balance Sheet - Asset ( Debit ) Residual Interest ( Estimated Present Value - Future Cash Flow )
and corresponing - ( Credit )
2) Income Stmt - Income Line Item - (i.e., from Securitization / or Other Income).
Note: Regulations requires At least Quarterly the revaluation of Residual Interest.
CBA09
Tuesday, 12/19/17 08:57:53 AM
Re: TJ0512 post# 501009
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Couple of questions for you.
In post #498826 you made the comment
WMIIC's role was two fold:
1) Provide / Solidify assets "MBS" as bankruptcy remote. By way of "WMB" (Originator) to WMIIC (Depositor) to Trust. In effect a TWO TIER protection. Totally taking WMB out of any risk of substantive consolidation.
2) WMIIC being the depositor would also be the provider of credit enhancement. Having what is referred to as residual interest. Holders of subordinate certificates & overcollaterized loans.
Are you making an assumption in your comments above?
Comment:
Yes, assumption. My Point / Big Picture - no matter who is the depositor - Material "Force and Effect" of two tier structures.
Ref: In all of the trusts listed in the DB lawsuit as well as numerous other trusts I have seen WMB or a sub of WMB has been the originator & depositor.
If WMI or WMIIC was neither the originator or depositor for the trusts how does that benefit the estate of WMI/WMIIC?
Comment:
Safe Harbor Assets are removed from the estate. Thus. Trustee / Creditors of WMB have no claim to them. WMI is the parent they do.
Example:
Principal Subsidiaries
• Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a federal savings association, all of the common stock of which is held by New American Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and all of the preferred stock of which is held by Washington Mutual, Inc. New American Capital, Inc. is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Washington Mutual Bank, a Washington state chartered stock savings bank, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Washington Mutual Bank fsb, a federal savings bank, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Long Beach Mortgage Company, a Delaware corporation, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
Ref: Also, On a previous post #498722 you said:
2) WMI abandoned it's stock as worthless on record with the Estate. The Estate in turn diverted all future benefits back to WMI. A clever astute move by WMI.
Where are you seeing that WMI is receiving any future benefit from WMB with regard to the trusts or are you making an assumption?
Comment:
No assumption. First 1) WMI is the parent and rightful benefit to any / all future value of it's wholly owned subsidiaries. If you have any experience in PSA you will see that they are set up to ensure the "Retained Assets" are in fact retained within the SPE # 1 / SPE/Trust # 2.
I want to make this abundantly clear, sharing from my experience, generally the Parent's bank account is where the funds are first received from PSA accounts when the "Accounts Removable Provision" is triggered. Then the Parent has control and funnels whatever money's it deems necessary back to it's subsidiaries. The Parent's control part is the "Operative Word." As no expressed contract (s) are in force so as to direct the Parent as to distribution with funds received. This adds further protection to avoid substantive consolidation by the courts.
CBA09
Tuesday, 12/19/17 04:49:35 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 501082
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Fact or fiction on required or not required to participate and %% please.
I say required so as to show good faith ya aint peddling junk
Comment:
While I know of no "regulation requirement" to participate I have never seen a PSA Provision that did not include the SPE # 1 not holding a % of certificates.
Specifically:
1) Residual Interest, vis a via, "Retained Assets."
2) Subordinate Class - Helps with the creditworthiness and alleviate realized losses. ( a so-called good faith offering )
Hope the above helps.
CBA09
Wednesday, 12/20/17 10:14:47 AM
Re: TJ0512 post# 501063
0
Post # of 625527
Ref:
Do you agree or not agree that WMI (the parent) relinquished ownership of WMB when WMB was seized? The only ownership WMI had in WMB was in the stock of WMB that was abandoned (*worthless stock abandonment") which created the NOL).
Comment:
Trustee abandoned and thereby no longer an asset of the estate. IRS Revenue Code 165 G-3 allowed the capital loss to be classified as an ordinary loss (NOL).
Ref:
From that point on WMI had no control of WMB or WMB subs whatsoever as WMB was sold to JPM as a "Whole Bank Purchase".
Comment:
Whole Bank as in assets - $ 298 Billion vs liabilities 258 Billion.
Ref:
Your comment regarding WMI has control of safe harbor assets.
Do you agree or not agree that Safe Harbor Assets are the actual assets within the various trusts that are protected for the benefit of the actual investors (certificate holders) within each trust?
Comment:
Safe Harbor Assets are those assets that have statutory exemption from the bankruptcy systems. Securitization qualifies for such exemption.
Ref:
Do you agree on not agree that payment (proceeds) for assets sold into the trusts has already been received and the only future benefit (besides servicing fees) relating to these trusts would be the retained interest in the trusts and are recorded as an asset on the balance sheet?
Comment:
Proceeds:
1) $ for the initial transfer of pooled mortgages.
True Sale -
Balance Sheet - Remove assets loan mortgages
Income Stmt - Difference between proceeds received (cash) minus loan mortgages transferred = Net Gain or Net Loss.
2) $ Retained Interest.
Balance Sheet - Residual Interest Receivable (Estimated future benefits)
Income Stmt - Income from Residual Interest
Note: Lions share of the Residual Interest (Retained Assets) remain with SPE # 1 - as a Safe Harbor Asset.
Ref:
On a consolidated basis in each 10Q & 10K the retained interests have been listed (I have gone back as far as 2004) and the total retained interests (not credit card related) were as follows:
in billions
MBS:
2004 - 1.62
2005 - 2.80
2006 - 1.90
2007 - 1.71
2008 - 1.23
Comment:
This reflects only a small % of the overall Residual Interest. Lions share protected within SPE #1 - Based on my experience.
Ref:
It's been said that there was a minimum 25% participation in these trusts which IMO is not the case and the only benefit going forward from 2008 was the retained interests.
Comment:
My experience from 1978 - 2004 - No Regulated Minimum. But, Certificates are issued for the Residual Interest and held by SPE # 1 ( Largest % ) and Originator ( there retained % much smaller ).
CBA09
Wednesday, 12/27/17 12:36:28 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 501758
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: . Just what Are' ?, a company's "Retained Earnings" ?, ... and were' the company's, ... "Retained Earnings", ... Bankruptcy Remote
Comment:
Retained Earnings is a permanent "accumulation" account. A given balance is the result of "TOTAL" PAST:
1) Net Income. ( increases Retained Earnings )
2) Net Losses. ( reduces Retained Earnings )
3) Dividends Paid. ( reduces Retained Earnings )
Each fiscal (year end) the net result of temporary accounts (i.e., income and expenses ) from the Income Statement are zeroed out . If Total Income for that year is higher than Total Expenses the net result is an increase to Retained Earnings.
Example: Year end - 2008 Entries to zero out Income Statement Temporary accounts -
Debit Credit
Income $ 1,000
Expenses $ 750
Retained Earnings $ 250 - (Increase as Income greater than Expenses)
Note: a Negative Retained Earnings is a Deficit - meaning:
1) Past Expenses have been greater than Past Income from the Income Statement.
Ref: Retained Earnings, pre-petition as of 09/26/2008 = Deficit $16,739,175,191.00
Retained Earnings, pre-petition as of 02/29/2012 = Deficit $20,770,648,942.00
Comment:
Appears $ 4 Billion of the $ 4.04 decrease in Retained Earnings was related to recognizing the exchange event of trusts preferred. The accounting journal entry would be as follows:
1) Retained Earnings deduction - ( Theory here is that past earnings transferred )
2) Preferred Trust increased
CBA09
Wednesday, 12/27/17 09:20:10 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 501820
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: So the +$18B in Retained Earnings listed under Stockholders Equity (pg 104) in WMI's last official 10K was an actual +$18B deficit rather than surplus cash or assets???
Comment:
Retained Earnings:
Pg 104 as of 2007 - $ 18 B is a plus.
The 9/26/08 and 2/29/12 Pre-petition $ 16.7 B and $ 20.7 respectively are Negative ( deficit ).
CBA09
Thursday, 12/28/17 02:03:35 PM
Re: sometimes_right post# 501831
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Isn't the dramatic change in retained earnings indicative of the transferral of MBS Trusts and WMI's corresponding participatory cash flow into bankruptcy remote safe harbor accounts triggered by the change of ownership event???
Comment:
Reduction ( dramatic change ) to Retained Earnings would not be related to outflow of cash to bankruptcy remote safe harbor assets.
Changes to Retained Earnings are mostly due to the following:
1) + adds to Retained Earnings - when Income exceeds Expenses from Profit & Loss Statement.
2) - reduction to Retained Earnings - when Expenses exceeds Income from Profit & Loss Statement.
3) - reduction to Retained Earnings - when Dividends paid.
4) - Prior period error ( + or - ) to Retained Earnings ( would result in adjustment to previous stated Retained Earnings which did not account for the error ).
5) - Change in accounting principle ( + or - ) would result in restating Retained Earnings as if the change happened retroactively.
Retained Earnings is a nothing more than a collective result of past transactions that would be reflected on the Profit & Loss Statement. WMI investment in WMB was abandoned as worthless so the entry would be as follows:
- Investment in WMB - Credit ( Asset - Balance Sheet )
- Loss on Investment in WMB - Debit ( Expense - Profit & Loss Statement )
The Loss ( Expense ) from the Profit & Loss Statement would transfer to Retained Earnings as a reduction.
Do not be overly concerned with Retained Earnings. While having a positive Retained Earnings is a sign of profitability transferred from the Profit & Loss Statement, Parent Companies generally use up ( reduce ) Retained Earnings via Dividends or Investments.
For us escrow holders - Important assets are those in Safe Harbor.
CBA09
Saturday, 01/06/18 10:07:23 AM
Re: hotmeat post# 502845
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Based on your experience, if applicable, what is your opinion on the following.............
1) Does the GSA govern ALL future distributions of Safe Harbor assets (only) to our "Markers" or will it revert to pre-bankruptcy ownership rights of the different classes ie Preferred and Common???
Comment:
"Safe Harbor" rules within Bankruptcy Code governs the protection of "ALL" distributions of Safe Harbor assets.
Our situation - Retained Assets ( which will be there ) within SPE/Trust are in the form of residual interests via Certificates held by subsidiaries of WMI (Parent). Safe Harbor rules protect these assets to pre-bankruptcy ownership. The Court nor the estate have no avoidance / claw back power. Fact - Court will ensure / protect the transfer of these assets to it's rightful certificate holder.
I contend WMI being the Parent and having a security interest it's subsidiaries which in turn that have a security interest via holders of security certificates of SPE/Trust residual certificates will reap the value of these Safe Harbor assets. Finally, WMI's legacy holders(escrow holders) gets the so-called Retained Assets. And, yes they will be there.
2) Can any party (FDIC, DTC etc) other than the WMILT make cash distributions directly to our "Markers" for any Safe Harbor assets held outside of the bankruptcy process???
Comment:
Yes, very likely to happen. Reason, the Residual Certificates are securities.
3) As the reorganized WMI, does WMIH own or are they entitled to any of the Debtors pre-bankruptcy assets/interests, other than that which was transferred during the reorganization process (ie WMMRC and 100% Equity in WMIIC) and clearly stated in the GSA???
Comment:
Yes, those assets, if any, that were transferred past a Pooling & Service Agreement cut off date. They would not be protected as Safe Harbor Assets.
4) Is the WMILT the sole and rightful "inheritor" and arbiter of the entire Debtors (WMI + WMIIC) estate,..bar none???
Comment:
The Court has the ultimate authority.
Happy New Year CBA and TIA for your response.
CBA09
Saturday, 01/06/18 10:19:30 AM
Re: austin01 post# 502860
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: CBA09, are we hoping or is it conclusive that escrows will be the beneficiary of a hundred or so Trusts in Safe Harbor?
Comment:
I have no doubt. Do not the Hedge Funds / 100 + Institutional owners make it abundantly clear?!!!?
CBA09
Sunday, 01/14/18 03:41:16 PM
Re: LuckyPanda post# 503177
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: CBA09, if safe harbor rules protect the assets to pre-bankruptcy ownership then its distribution should not apply to POR7. Does that mean escrow markers are moot? Will all Wamu shareholders receive a distribution including the non-releasing ones? Thanks in advance for your input. I have been wondering about this for some time.
Comment:
Liquidation of assets involves two distinct assets:
1) Property of the Bankruptcy Estate - (Por7 applies).
2) Non-Property of the Bankruptcy Estate - Safe Harbor Assets ( regular bankruptcy code procedures / priority apply).
While the above two are distinct in nature "ALL" residual interest will go to Escrow Markers. So, no, not moot. Escrow Markers are the legacy shareholders. Thereby, have final legal standing and in turn sole contractual rights / title in residual interest.
Ownership Chain -
WMI owns the assets of WMI and in turn has legal title to all the assets of it's subsidiaries. Shareholders of WMI have legal title to all the assets of WMI. All assets that end up in WMI thru it's subsidiaries are thereby assets that WMI shareholders have legal contractual rights.
Por7, thru its declarations, have addressed the distribution of liquidated Bankruptcy Estate Assets. All residual interest of estate assets will go to Escrow Markers per the 75 % / 25 % allocation.
Since our Safe Harbor Assets are outside the bankruptcy estate, those captured within SPE/Trusts will follow each respective Pooling & Service Agreement (PSA) provisions. Generally, it's Parent that receives cash flows of residuals. Note, SPE# 1 create the SPE# 2 /Trusts, SPE 1 are many times direct subsidiaries of the Parent. And, SPE # 1's have a great deal of involvement in residual interest of SPE # 2 / Trusts.
In a solvent entity shareholders cannot force a distribution. A Corporation, thru it's board, has to declare a distribution of it's profit before shareholders are to receive any distribution in the form of dividends.
PSA are compelling and indivisible - only one end stop - Escrow Markers.
CBA09
Friday, 02/16/18 06:28:24 AM
Re: chaarles post# 509186
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Do you think part of the DB distribution is coming to escrow markers?
Comment:
If and only if:
1) WMI and or it's subisidiaries were participants in said Trusts. Participants via the SPE# 1 which hold the lions share of Residual Interest Certificates, and
2) The powers managing / controlling this shameful saga are ready to bring it to an end.
CBA09
Saturday, 02/17/18 03:18:11 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 509289
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: There is a theory where only Common Escrows, as the true owners of the original WMI estate as per pre-bankruptcy rights, benefits from the former WMI estate ie the Safe Harbor assets of WMI and Pref escrows only benefits from the Preferred Offerings that backed those securities.
I have two questions.......
1) If this is true, would Common and Pref holders who did not sign releases to elect to participate further be eligible to benefit from any returned Safe Harbor assets as they are bankruptcy remote and since releases were a bankruptcy process??? Using that theory's logic (kudos to goodietime).
Comment:
The answer is what you provided in # 2) below:
2) In the POR (pgs 59-60 quoted below) it clearly states that "ALL DOCUMENTS" pertaining to Prefs and Commons are deemed cancelled relating to WMI, (the Debtor),...not the Trusts. How could this be reconciled with the above theory???
Furthermore-
The court approved the negotiated 75/25 %. As for Non-release stakeholders, they have no standing, they do not exist.
Only released share holders, while being the last paid, will reap the greatest treasure - Safe Harbor Sssets. Some ripe and some still generating revenue. It's "abundantly" clear they are still there!
CBA09
Saturday, 02/17/18 04:00:46 PM
Re: chaarles post# 509339
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: is it standard or common in these trusts that the originator keeps the residual interest certificates?
Comment:
While it is common for the originator to keep residual interest, their interest is small in comparison to that of the SPE# 1. At least from my experience.
Ref:- if that is the case, how much % of the trust initial value can be the value of the residual interest certificates?
Comment:
% of residual interest certificates varies from trust to trust. And profitability varies based on:
1) Performance of underling collateral - current vs delinquent vs
foreclosure,
2) Refinancing,
3) Prepayments, etc.
Ref:
- while reading the prospectus of some of the trusts, I found that the servicer retains around 0,40 - 0,50% as servicing fees depending on the PSA. I assume these quantities will remain with JPM that has been the servicer since 2008 or do you believe some of these fees could be kept in some account for the benefit of wmi lt?
Comment:
No benefit to WMI. Servicing fees belong to respective providers of service.
CBA09
Saturday, 02/17/18 04:26:37 PM
Re: hotmeat post# 509621
0
Post # of 625527
Ref: Thank you for your response. I do have one more question re the Conditional Exchange Event (CEE) that occurred with the TPS Securities. I was of the opinion that they automatically became WMI Securities with the bankruptcy. How does the CEE relate to the highlighted statement below.
PG 59 POR7:
23.2 Cancellation of REIT Series: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23.1 hereof, on the Effective Date, all REIT Series shall be deemed extinguished and the certificates and all other documents representing such Equity Interests shall be deemed cancelled and of no force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 23.2 shall have no effect on, and shall not result in the extinguishment or cancellation of, the Trust Preferred Securities and, in accordance with the Global Settlement Agreement, JPMC or its designee is the sole legal, equitable and beneficial owner of the Trust Preferred Securities for all purposes.
Comment:
Section 23.2 makes it clear JPMC is the sole legal equitable and beneficial owner.
What is mystery / not clear - how JPMC can reap the benefit of Trust Preferred Securities without being the provider of such funds. It would be highly irregular that such benefits could be JPMC without JPMC providing due
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
