Replies to post #21161 on Washington Mutual Preferred fka WAMPQ

[Chiron]

Excellent post, as usual.

[Lawrence 147]

Mordicai,

This is just to let you know many long time posters defended you and your motives even though they do not share you pessimism. They still respect your opinions and motives. Just incase you missed them

[errett]

Thanks Mordicai---I find your arguments and insights always helpful--

[duck fan]

I appreciate your insights and well thought out responses. As you have stated, there are many of us who are just looking for facts and supporting arguments. You have always provided that and I thank you for sharing it with all of us. If I may, I am curious to know if you see a scenario play out that sees commons in the money. If so, could you provide a chance of success?
As always, thank you in advance for your response.

[ryanngina]

Modicai,your prob,one of the most respected posters on either bord,i look to see your oppinion,(along with only a select few)yes i still hold commins cause there there the real lotto play,although im not to possitive of the return over there but im very heavy in the pqs cause if the uqs get whiped clean im still smelling like a rose,thanks for your posts,dont let the undeversified bother ya!!!!!GO WAMUUUUUUUU

[WaS]

2019...

With both the WMB and WMI bondholders for one. Again, if you believed the pref shareholders could have taken a haircut for the sake of the commons then the bondholders are no different.

"I believe it to be wishful thinking on your part to think the ec can get these people to be that charitable in either a liquidation or reorganization scenario. The membership of the ec is irrelevant in the sense that preferred shareholders have not given them their power of attorney or proxy for the ec to do with them as they wish."

Maybe I misread you. I believed you said this had been your assertion, at least at one point. It certainly has never been mine.

The WMI bondholders can sell now and get 100% or more of what those bonds are worth. That's without a dime of money coming from WMI.

They bought injured debt, not a piece of an injured company seeking damages due to what happened.

THJMW bent over backwards to allow the WMB bondholders to argue their point due to potential fraud.

You're basically saying it happened and she'll find in their favor.

Maybe we should get some evidence relevant to that before we just assume that's the case.

At the same time, what did they pay for their bonds? What are they worth now? How many of them have already seen the value of those bonds rise beyond that which they would have made had they paid face and held onto them til maturity?

Likewise, the FDIC has 2 billion (as per Rosen) and as we've recently come to find, is still holding onto WMB assets of unknown value.

There's more going on with the WMB bonds and the FDIC than I'm going to get into here. People should check around on the other boards for more info on that.

As far as your opinions, you're entitled to them. I believe they're stacked upon safe bets on your part and trust me, I'm loaded with Ps. But I certainly don't believe that we know the outcome of the commons is certain either way.

Regardless of what Joyce said or what I said... and I agree with her, the FDIC can seize under dire times without being questioned...

However, you might want to read Susman's filing. If that seizure turns out to be part of a greater conspiracy then you're talking about a very diiferent can of worms.

In my opinion there are just far too many known unknowns to make anything more than semi educated guesses.

If this motion is approved, I will consider this a tie game going into extra innings. All bets are off. All stats and numbers are out the window.

Weil didn't pursue that which should have been sought. If we can find an end around them and so such... it's a different ballgame altogether.

All just my opinion.

[hestheman]

If somehow common shares receive nothing.....you can almost bet that it is a possibility preferreds will see nothing as well. I know some will say that comment is "ridiculous".....but it was you that stated you did'nt "trust" Rosen correct? Why would we trust him to throw any equity, including preferreds, a bone? I sure don't. In A BK reorg, I know that the debtors are often times the new shareholders of a new company and it is often due to the fact that there is not enough money to pay them in BK court (hence the reason for Rosen desperately trying to make it seem as A<L) however when there is enough to pay them shareholders remain shareholders of the new company. regarding Joyce's comments that the FDIC can seize a bank for whatever reason in an economic crisis.....it could be argued as to exactly what constitutes a "financial crisis" and did the FDIC and JPM use the so-called crisis as a SMOKESCREEN to conspire and rob a bank in broad daylight? There is IMO enough evidence to support that is exactly what they did. We must have an attorney with brass balls to pursue and uncover it. I believe Susman is that man. in DiamondGuru's words....2x value PLUS!