Replies to post #222051 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[fsshon]

Biz.. What the FDIC did was use the OTS to "seize" the Banks. JPM was sold the banks through the P&A. However, the Board Of WMI was lost in translation, they basically gave up everything to JPM. They could have used the court to try and get an injunction and prove they were solvent and should not be seized and sold for pennies. What they didn't do was FIGHT! They laid down like whipped little puppies and gave the company to JPM. They had to have known the FDIC was allowing JPM to encroach upon their Corporation Business, but they just let them come in and take everything.."Including their books and real estate assets."

This would lead one to believe they were compromised before the seizure. They did not even bring this up to THJMW in the original filing, all they did was ask for protection from bank creditors.
They were not liable to bank creditors, the FDIC was.. It makes you think someone had something on them, well before the seizure.

Killinger was fired on Sept7th.. I wonder who voted to oust him and put in NY Banker Fishman, that will give you a very big hint. Many investors came in on Sept 14th after the new CEO of WAMU said they did not have to raise any money. OTS/FDIC said it was not a liquidity problem for WAMU, but an institutional one that could crash the entire system.. SO !!!

Federal Government let them grow that big, it was the Federal Government that took them over and sold them to another HUGE BANK, that does not make any sense. How could JPM which also had a "Cash-strapped" problem, afford to assume over 200 Billion in Deposits and all the loans? (after Bear Stearns) Answer>..Easy..FDIC released them of liability "all liability!" All they had to do was take over WAMU's deposits/loans and assume the liabilities of them.. They were given over 10% in cash to cover it.

JPM's problem "if they lied and misrepresented WAMU facts to FDIC during "color" process (and FDIC acted upon the info and seized), then they could be held liable for damages. "LOTS OF DAMAGES!"

~Fish~

~Don~

[Jestiron]

Thanks Biz for opening the floor to discussion. Interesting how another point of view can clarify why something "is" happening.

In both "use" scenarios you mentioned; however, I still believe the statement "WMI was seized" is false.

While The OTS/FDIC did not seize the entire parent WMI Holding Company (use one), we do know that they did seize some of their assets and/or subsidiaries(use two).

Since the OTS/FDIC seized only parts and not all of the parent WMI Holding Company, I believe it would still be inaccurate to say "WMI was seized.".

Love dancing around semantics with ya Biz! As you mention in your post, words fail often to convey intent of the author. I love the open discussion to set it straight!

Good Luck Biz!

-jest