█ Der ESCROW - Thread █
ChangNoi : Mehr komisch
m0rph_eus : Safe harbor
odin10de : m0rph_eus.. dann lese mal das hier ...
m0rph_eus : :-)
@odin10de: ich versteh nach wie vor nicht, weshalb hier im Forum so oft idR schlecht oder gar nicht recherchierte Ihub-Posts rauskopiert, durch die schlechte Übersetzungsmaschine gejagt und dann hier gepostet werden.
Aber lassen wir das alles so stehen. Alles gut.
sonifaris : Aus Ihub
Friday, September 16, 2022 3:47:01 PM
Post# of 695400
My View ALWAYS HAS BEEN, A DST WILL PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN OUR DISTRIBUTIONS-NOT IF BUT WHEN
The following is from Dmdmd1 and I agree with his assessment in totality! He has been very gracious to share his immense research and in-depth knowledge with the following information:
ENYOY if you signed timely releases by 3/2012
Let me emphasize a very important point that bgriffinokc verified through the Delaware Secretary of State (which Sunshine commented on succinctly):
"Yeah, I simply FOLLOW the time frame published in LT's FINAL official announcement, namely:
"Charles Edward Smith and Doreen Logan served as the Trust’s administrators and have managed the winding-down the Trust’s operations and its dissolution. In December 2021, the administrators filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Delaware Secretary of State’s Office pursuant to which the Trust was canceled effective as at December 31, 2021. After giving effect to the foregoing, the Trust no longer has any active operations and the administrators expect to complete a full-winding down of the entity on or prior to March 31, 2022."
As I posted numerous times, bgriffinokc's $ 20 was WELL SPENT and APPRECIATED to affirm WMI becoming a DST prior to BK emergence which in turn ESTABLISHED/FIXED its "ASSETS" distribution scheme via the 2 SEPARATE EINs:
(1) LT EIN - Court recognized assets transfer to LT for distribution observing Lt's waterfall ( Plan 7)
(2) WMI's original EIN - Retain any REMAINING assets that were DEEMED BK - REMOTE/PROTECTED for subsequent distribution.
Remember WMI has adopted in every filing following BK emergence as " WMI Liquidating Trust, as successor in interest to the Debtors,"
Legal Definition of successor in interest: a successor to another's interest in property, especially: a successor in ownership of a business that is carried on and controlled substantially as it was before the transfer.
Furthermore, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST. DEFINITION. A Successor in Interest is someone who has received an ownership interest in a property, even if they are not obligated to repay the debt. In other words, individual(s) (I.e., WMI Liquidating trust) who may have inherited or had a property transferred to them with no requirement to pay for the property.
Conclusion: The cancellation filed by the trust administrators in Dec 2021 making the WMI liquidating trust officially "DEAD" effective Dec 31, 2021 meaning the 'DEATH Certificate" issuance date and recognized as such by all authorities.
Where is then the progress?
(1) LT EIN part - LT has REMOVED the infamous Escrow cusips and whatever cash remained was donated to charity - wind up done
(2) Original 'WMI" EIN part - Wind Up not complete until "emptying" its content and the TIMING is communicated to us ( including Tepper) as follows-
a full-winding down of the entity on or prior to March 31, 2022."
"As I posted numerous times, bgriffinokc's $ 20 was WELL SPENT and APPRECIATED to affirm WMI becoming a DST prior to BK emergence which in turn ESTABLISHED/FIXED its "ASSETS" distribution scheme via the 2 SEPARATE EINs:"
1) Why would WMI convert into a Delaware Statutory Trust (DST), prior to BK emergence on March 19, 2012, from a Corporation and also get a distinctly different EIN/Tax ID#?
IMO...My answer is simple: the bankruptcy remote assets (beneficial interest in MBS Trusts) owned by WMI would be housed in the new DST.
2) A more important emphasis is when will be the distribution of the DST cash/earnings/proceeds to beneficiaries (old legacy WMI shareholders that released their Class 19 & Class 22 claims)?
IMO...I don't know but per the Seven Deadly Sins of a Delaware Statutory Trust, #6 explicitly states :
"However, they are required to share the earnings and proceeds realized from the DST to its beneficiaries within the agreed distribution date."
Therefore, upon the formation of the DST prior to bankruptcy emergence (March 19, 2012), there was an agreed upon distribution date. We (retail) don't know what that agreed upon distribution date is!
BUT...I bet that Bonderman et al, and the Underwriters know what that "agreed upon distribution date" is...
AND that distribution date was determined long before WMI/WMIIC emerged out of bankruptcy on March 19, 2012.
The following is a list of the Seven Deadly Sins of a Delaware Statutory Trust (meaning all seven conditions below need to be true in order for a DST to be a legal entity):
"The Seven Deadly Sins of Delaware Statutory Trusts (DSTs) Explained
Carl E. Sera, CMT
Managing Principal, Sera Capital
Dec, 01, 2020
If you are reading this, it’s probably because you have already reached the point where you understand that perhaps A DST or Delaware Statutory Trust may be an excellent vehicle to defer and possibly avoid the 4 taxes associated with the sale of real estate.
Not only do DSTs allow investors to earn hassle-free monthly income, they also eliminate the stress of managing rental property and offer the potential to diversify and upgrade your real estate portfolio. Like all good things, the DST comes with a price or a set of rules that the sponsors of these vehicles must follow.
It will serve the reader well to understand what we call the seven deadly sins of DSTs. Why? Because when you invest in a DST, not only must the sponsor follow these rules but so will the investor. They were designed to make a DST resemble real property as much as possible and is why for example—you can’t 1031 into either a public or privately traded REIT (for that, you’ll need a 721 exchange).
If you need help with your 1031 exchange, schedule a free call with us.
To prevent the misuse of power by the appointed Trustees, the IRS (ruling 2004-86) introduced the seven deadly sins of DST that limits the powers of trustees. These seven deadly sins act as a compulsory guideline for both the trustees and beneficiaries of a DST. Below is a detailed explanation of the seven deadly sins of DST.
1. Once A DST Offering Is Closed, No Future Equity Contribution Is Permitted To The DST, Either By Current Or New Beneficiaries.
When you invest in a DST, you receive a certain percentage of ownership based on the value of your initial investment. According to the IRS ruling, once the initial capital investment offering is closed, the trust manager cannot request contributions from the existing beneficiaries or organize a new capital call for investors.
This is because if the Trustee accepts additional capital contributions to the DST after the close of its offering, your ownership percentage may be diluted thereby affecting your claims to the DST assets.
2. The Trustee Of The DST Is Restricted From Borrowing Any New Funds Or Renegotiating The Terms Of The Existing Loans.
Once you decide to invest in a DST, it is required by law that the sponsor disclose the loan amounts associated with the DST. Part of the due diligence you should do is to understand the loan amounts of the DST and how they impact your investment returns. Please note, these loans are non-recourse which means that the DST investor is not liable for any loans within the DST they purchase. In this regard, DSTs function more like limited partnerships and limits the financial responsibility of the investor to their initial investment.
Since DST beneficiaries are limited in their right to dictate the operations of the DST, this ruling prevents sponsors from assuming more debts or refinance into a new mortgage because it may cause a serious impact on beneficiaries’ interest.
3. The Trustee Is Not Allowed To Reinvest The Proceeds From The Sale Of Its Investment Real Estate
Once a DST is sold, the IRS prohibits the sponsors from reinvesting the proceeds from the sale of the DST into a new investment real estate. This makes a DST very different from a REIT. The ruling stipulates that the sale proceeds must be distributed to the various beneficiaries. In a nutshell, the sponsors have no right to withhold or reinvest the proceeds without the knowledge of the beneficiaries.
If you had invested in a DST, you have the option of 1) “rolling over” into another DST through the 1031 mechanism, or 2) completely or partially cashing out of the DST. Of course, any amount you do not “rollover” is subject to the various federal and state taxes.
4. The Trustee Is Limited To Making Capital Expenditures With Respect To The Property To Those For (A) Normal Repair And Maintenance, (B) Minor Non-Structural Capital Improvements, And (C) Those Required By Law.
While Trustees are allowed to carry out minor structural improvement or maintenance of the property, the IRS restricts sponsors from making any capital property upgrades that may put beneficiaries’ investment at risk. This DST deadly sin protects the investment of beneficiaries from being used in ill-fated capital upgrades.
5. Any Liquid Cash Held In The DST Between Distribution Dates Can Only Be Invested In Short-Term Debt Obligations
Since DST sponsors are not allowed to raise extra cash or funds after the offer closing date, there is usually a reserve of cash available for additional investment. To prevent the use of these cash reserves in a speculative way, the IRS only allows for DST sponsors to invest in short-term loan obligations that can easily be converted to cash before the agreed distribution date.
One of the upsides to this rule is that it allows DST sponsor to increase the value of the DST on behalf of the beneficiaries without causing any risk.
6. All Cash, Other Than Necessary Reserves, Must Be Distributed To The Co-Investors Or Beneficiaries On A Current Basis
According to the IRS regulations, DSTs are allowed to keep cash reserves on hand to cover emergency maintenance and repairs issues. However, they are required to share the earnings and proceeds realized from the DST to its beneficiaries within the agreed distribution date. This deadly sin prevents trustee misappropriation of funds and protects beneficiaries’ rights to receive their earnings promptly.
7. The Trustee Cannot Enter Into New Leases Or Renegotiate The Current Leases
DSTs work great with a long-term lease to creditworthy tenants under a triple-net basis. Since the IRS prohibits DSTs from entering new leases or renegotiating their current lease, most DSTs employ the use of a Master Lease Structure.
Under the Master Lease Structure, the DST leases the property to a master tenant who is charged with the responsibility of entering new or negotiating existing leases. The upside to this deadly sin is that it prevents the Sponsor from entering new leases or changing the terms of the DST structure. However, the IRS allows for an exception in the event of a tenant bankruptcy or insolvency.
We hope this post answers some questions with regard to investor rights and DST design. In a nutshell, the DST is an option for those that want to defer and potentially avoid taxes by the use of a 1031 exchange but no longer want to utilize the 1031 exchange into real property but instead into securitized property. Schedule a call with us if you need help with your 1031 exchange.
The question then becomes-what’s the best DST or portfolio of DSTs available and how do I choose which one or ones to purchase and in what quantities. To learn more visit our page on Delaware Statutory Trusts and 1031 Exchanges or Delaware Statutory Trust Fees and Commissions.
IMO...it's no longer a question of IF? How Much? but it's a question of WHEN??????
Rest assured, somebody knows exactly when. That date will only be evident to us when they make a public announcement.
IMO...It will happen, it's just a matter of time.
KeyKey : @langhaariger1: Dann ist die Rente noch fern :-)
Und ich muss zugeben, dass ich das iHub Posting wieder nur kurz überflogen habe.
Es sind doch auch keine wesentlichen neuen (bisher noch nicht bekannter Details) genannt?
LG etc wiederholen sich ja auch meist.
Und bisher ging man immer davon aus, dass wenn sich David etc nicht zur Wehr setzen, dass diese wissen dass was kommt .. So die "Optimisten" - oder?
Was aber, wenn ..
a) David irgendwie schon längst "hinter unserem Rücken" abgefunden worden ist?
b) Vergleich mit der Hypo Real Estate damals: Was hat JC Flowers denn damals großartig gemacht und welche Möglichkeiten hatte er denn damals? Er hat sich letztendlich damit abgefunden / abfinden müssen. Und deswegen - wieviel Gewichtung hat denn diese Spekulation mit Hedgefonds überhaupt? Ich sehe da eher geringe bis gar keine Indizien.
Vermutlich kann man nur mal wieder den aktuellen Stand bei der FDIC erfragen.
Aber die haben bisher ja auch schon von sich gegeben, dass da höchstwahrscheinlich nichts für uns kommt. Also - worauf noch hoffen? Weiterarbeiten bis min. 67 :-)
sonifaris : LG Rsumee, nur für interessierte und Zeit hat ,
Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:02:27 PM
Post# of 695606
FROM Dmdmd1-Bankruptcy-Remoteness FACTS, True Sale, Non-consolidation
FDIC Presentation & CBA09 agree on ABS “bankruptcy remoteness”
« Reply #1 on: Today at 02:36:29 AM »
I thought it would be easier to access this very important piece of information by starting a new topic.
FDIC presentation on April 27, 2022:
“Structured financings are based on one central, core principle: a defined group of assets can be structurally isolated, and thus…[is] independent from the bankruptcy risks of the originator”
Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganizations of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York“
Per CBA09 post on IHUB #457584:
Wednesday, August 03, 2016 1:11:28 PM
Re: BBANBOB post# 457551
Post# of 687217 Go
May be, just may be, the addressed assets in court were those within a "SPE". If designed via a specific manner those so called "hidden assets" would be protected from bankruptcy as follows:
The structured solution to the bankruptcy, true sale, and debt-for-tax issues varies by venue. For example, if a U.S. bank wants to securitize receivables, the structure requires two SPEs to avoid a federally taxable asset sale and to achieve off-balance-sheet financing and a bankruptcy remote structure. In the U.S. SPEs are usually organized as trusts (for tax reasons) under the laws of the state of Delaware or of New York. The first SPE is a wholly owned, bankruptcy remote subsidiary of the originator/seller, and the SPE buys the assets in a true sale. The assets are now beyond the reach both of the creditors of the originator/seller and the originator/seller. Wholly owned subsidiaries are consolidated with the originator/seller for U.S. federal tax purposes, so this achieves the debt-for-tax objective. The second SPE is the issuer of the debt (or ABS) and is entirely independent of the originator/seller. It is a bankruptcy remote entity.”
Per CBA09 post on IHUB:
"CBA09 Tuesday, 12/05/17 07:34:44 AM
Re: hotmeat post# 498530
Post # of 505195
Ref: IMO, WMIIC ""owned/controlled"" these Trusts on behalf of and for the sole benefit of WMI and NOW the WMI Estate/Tracking Markers.
SPE/Trust are designed for independent ownership. Not controlled by WMI nor WMIIC.
Yes these SPE's/Trust are the "Crown Jewel" of WMI in it's capacity of being the Parent. Also Facts of great importance:
1) The bankruptcy estate does not have jurisdiction over these SPE's/ Trusts. WMI in its capacity of equity interest does.
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.
A Turnover action is routine Bankruptcy procedure to bring back to WMI estate what is considered estate assets. And SPE/Trust Income is not part of the estate assets.
We are all good here with the SPE's/Trusts of the Parent - WMI. "
CBA09 Ihub Post#501056:
Tuesday, 12/19/17 08:57:53 AM
Re: TJ0512 post# 501009
Post # of 550816
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?
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?
Safe Harbor Assets are removed from the estate. Thus. Trustee / Creditors of WMB have no claim to them. WMI is the parent they do.
• 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?
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. "
IMO…conclusions as of April 30, 2022 @ 0230 EST:
1) ABS/MBS Trusts are bankruptcy remote
2) WMI (parent company) and old legacy WMI equity shareholders (Class 19 & 22) are the beneficiaries (via WMI beneficial interests) of the securitized loans in MBS Trusts created by WMI subsidiaries.
FROM POSTER EXO
Scul why do you need someone to explain to you again? Let me explain.
In the chapter 11 bankruptcy there was the debtor in possession part and bankruptcy remote part. Are you following? 2 parts, not one, say it with me 2 parts. Good job baby girl. The debtors in possession paid their lawyers, business people $1,000,000,000.00 + during the course of the bankruptcy ( sorry the big number is 1 billion dollars plus). They paid off the debtors in order to close the bankruptcy...So now the debtor in possession part is now legally over, done, finished, past tense ect... Understand? Go back and read it all over if not..
The second part ( remember that from earlier) was bankruptcy remote!!! In other words not part of the bankruptcy, separate from, hence the second part. This is where we stand now going forward. Since this was a chapter 11 bankruptcy they get to reorganize and continue, stay alive, carry on business. There ARE ASSETS that the court could not use (look at, take, sell...because they were protected from the debtors hence bankruptcy remote. There were so many ASSETS the FDICR went to congress to change the law. Congress did but only GOING FORWARD!!! so those ASSETS still belong to the poor old old shareholder) So now we have all these ASSETS that we KNOW ARE THERE, but are protected in such a way that the company has not YET given back to their owners. No one can penetrate the corporate shield or the MANY TRUSTS that have those ASSETS. Following?
So only a few corporate or fiduciary people know how much money is in those trusts (or SPE's specialty purpose vehicles) and they have not told what is there!!! Reread the last sentence several times!!! Now do it again!!! Since they were protected they do not have to legally say we have XYZ.
Let me repeat, WE know there are ASSETS but they were protected from the debtors and for our benefit in such a way they do not need to say we have XYZ in this trust... That is why some can say 1/2 truths and cry... The funny part is old share holders should know the truth and still can not buy or sell any shares. So the lies do not affect the outcome of billions or hundreds of billions that old share holders will receive...If you think the FDIC cried 3 weeks after the theft of WAMU to CONGRESS and that was not a important FACT then go on with your belief that nothing is coming back, I just will not believe you but that is just me.
"Well, maybe LG at some day will explain to me, how a DST can exist without the WMILT *rofl*"
DST is Delaware Statuary Trust. Most all businesses use Delaware... To save time and effort look it up. ROLF There are many, many, many , many trusts because they structure them to protect them from predators or bankruptcy's as in this case.
WMILT Easy simple answer, something different that you should know or not know and it still will not affect the outcome...hahaha
Things happen behind closed doors, nonpublic information, trade secrets, Delaware trusts, Courts redact information all the time yet we live in a free society. Just because something does not make sense to you does not mean its not true. The Earth looks pretty flat to me when I was a kid but now I grew up. I learned, studied, saw pictures and now know... tadaaa the Earth is round hahahaha My opinions are mine and I share them freely.. Take them or trash them as you wish to help you understand even though I think you do but will not accept the truth because it does not fit your agenda. I have never been to space so the Earth is round... Here is another picture... That is not real boohoohoo Facts do not matter right???
I am stepping away. Those that know, know. Those who do not seek the truth will never find it!!!
Have a great day!!!
FROM Dmdmd1 on April 29 2022
Dmdmd1 Post Follows CSNY - Starts With IMO
Quote from: CSNY on April 29, 2022, 03:25:28 PM
The assets of the protective trusts WMB set up were never in the custody of the FDIC, in my opinion, although I believe the FDIC told the trustee not to disburse anything in those trusts (including income) until the FDIC said otherwise. (I think the FDIC threatened its avoidance powers and the trustee blinked, whatever its counsel said.)
I think that happened in 2021 when Mnuchin was headed out the door.
IMO...My conclusions as of April 29, 2022 @ 1725 EST:
Let's put this all into a simple big picture perspective.
1) If WMI old legacy holders (that were released in March 2012) owned beneficial interests in loans securitized into MBS Trusts ($101.9 billion)
2) assets of WMI were not conveyed by the FDIC (specifically MBS Trusts were bankruptcy-remote assets that were not under the jurisdiction of the FDIC) to any entities. So by simple deductive reasoning, the WMI assets (i.e. beneficial interests in bankruptcy remote MBS Trusts) were not conveyed by the FDIC to JPMC or any other entity. This means that the SPVs/DSTs owned the securitized loans in the MBS Trusts and not WMI, but WMI owned the beneficial interests to the MBS Trusts.
3) Per the "source" the value of WMI assets are valued at $625 billion ($25 billion in cash + $600 billion potentially in COOP stock).
If we assume:
Total in WMI assets in September 25, 2008 (seizure date) = $102 billion
What is the compounded annual interest rate if the total in WMI assets is currently worth $625 billion in 2021 (13 years)
IMO...my answer: approximately 15% annual interest x 13 years
Calculations: (use the simple compounded daily interest calculator from compouddaily.org) Make sure you mentally equate days into years on the calculator
$102 billion x 13 years x annual interest rate = $625 billion
annual interest rate = approximately 15%
4) IMO...ultimately, the WMI assets have grown 15% compounded annually for 13 years.
5) If all the Hedge Funds/big players like Bonderman et al and the underwriters can wait more than 13 years for the WMI recoveries, so can we (retail).
IMO...I concede that the Hedge Funds/Bonderman et al/the underwriters do not have control of the timing of the WMI recoveries. So all of the interested parties have to ask, who does control the timing of the WMI recoveries?
BITTE SELBER ÜBERSETZEN
MY answer, it isn't them, and it certainly isn't retail. So who is in control? The public will never know exactly, but we now know who isn't in control.
There is nothing for us retail to do other than to wait along with the "smart money".
IMO...For those who claim nothing is coming back, I just say that's your opinion, and I think that opinion is incongruent with the opinions of the Hedge Funds/Bonderman et al/the underwriters.
Andylein : Die Amis
Gibt es dazu eine offizielle Meldung, die nicht aus Indizien abgeleitet ist? NEIN
Ach doch eine "Quelle" von der niemand weiß, ob es sie überhaupt gibt, hat irgendwas behauptet
Also alles nur reine Spekulation
Wenn feststehen sollte, dass etwas kommt in Form von Cash oder Aktien, warum wurden dann nach Ausbuchung der Escrows keine neuen Platzhalter in die Depots gebucht? Ja klar weil die Daten der Release-Erteiler zentral vorliegen und man sich lieber die Mühe macht zu gegebener Zeit in irgendwelchen Archiven nach den entsprechenden Daten zu suchen. Klingt irgendwie unrealistisch. Ich denke mal in 5 Jahren um diese Zeit sind wir immer noch keinen Schritt weiter.
Zu Fasters Zeiten war ich auch mal sehr euphorisch und hätte mich über 8 Dollar pro Alt-Aktie riesig gefreut. Mittlerweise stehen ja schon mehr als 100 Dollar im Raum und die Jahre vergehen und es passiert nichts. Also mein Optimismus hält sich in Grenzen.
Ja die Harten hier glauben ja wahrscheinlich immer noch, dass "die Gegenseite" Angst hat, dass hier irgendwas illegales ans Licht kommt. Die Sache wird hier irgendwann verjährt sein und spätestens dann ist der Drops gelutscht.
rübi : Hi , ihr 1204 Mitglieder
von @sonifaris 12594 so wenig Resonanz findet .
Seid ihr alle schon über den Jordan gegangen , oder habt ihr noch
etwas Leben aus in euch , um euch noch einmal wach zu rütteln.
Wachet auf ,wachet auf ,es krähet der Hahn .
Die die Sonne ( Escrows ) beginnt ihre goldene Bahn ....
Gebt doch bitte mal ein Lebenszeichen von euch !
Liebe Grüße von Old Men rübi !
ranger100 : @rübi
Aber bitte: Jeder so wie er möchte...
Du hast gefragt...
rübi : Sagt mir
wo sind sie geblieben ?
oder wurden sie vertrieben.
wann wird man je verstehn ,
wann wird man je vertehn.
Sagt mir wo die Gelder sind ,
wo sind sie geblieben ,?
,wer hat sie versteckt ?
Wann wird man je verstehn ...
Sagt mir wo die Treuhänder sind ,
wird es sie noch geben ,
ohne dem Kleinanleger etwas zu geben.
Wann wird man je verstehn ...
Sagt mir wo die Escrow sind
wo sind sie geblieben ?
Man hat uns mit Ansage davon befreit .
Wann wird man je verstehn, ...
Sagt mir gibt es noch Gerechtigkeit ,
oder sind wir alle davon schon befreit.
Zugrunde geht die Menschlichkeit.
Wann wird man je verstehn ,...