Replies to post #236029 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[Lawrence 147]

Steved 45

Except for one thing in the case of WMI all the assets i.e. loans were sold and the liabilities i.e. transferred to JPM. This means someone is going to pay for what WMI did own or were owed or would have made had they not been seized without benefit of warning or even a recapitalization letter.

My point is that 30BB in assets doesn't mean 30BB in cash. Remember an asset on a banks balance sheet is a loan lent on leverage backed by customer's deposits (liabilities) and multiple types of short/long term loans.

[JMac9]

That was a gracious and gentle way to make a point. Nice link you posted.

I see your point. I'm holding to the concept of fair market value of assets seized. 'Fair market value of assets seized,' the statement, packs a wallop in terms of meaning, I see.

This begs the obvious question; what was WAMU worth?

Now our EC threw out '$30BB' in court. And we've heard 'tens of billions of assets.' We've heard about NOLs, $20BB in cash transfered away from, WMI?, post seizure, 2200 branches @ $1.5MM-3MM, TPS, and subs just to name a few. And we've heard about $8BB in liabilities.

We know that whatever Susman disclosed in chambers, that some argue based on the billings reports might have been a substantiated valuation of assets, changed the direction of the case.

So, what is precident in cases similar to this? When parties have overstepped their bounds, have they been required to pay for their mistakes in the past? I gotta believe that when it's all said and done, part of the proof of fair value must be in the billions JPMC has profited from WAMU assets...to the tune of what, $2 BB/ month?

You got me thinking to be sure.