“…The isolation of the system, however, implies that whatever morphological changes Was 49b underwent happened during the beginning of its encounter with Was 49a, and so it has not been severely tidally stripped (unlike, for example, the SMBH-hosting ultracompact dwarf galaxy M60-UCD1; Seth et al 2014), suggesting that the SMBH was intrinsically overmassive or that perhaps the black hole's growth during the early phase of the merger happened well before the buildup of its host galaxy (e.g., Medling et al 2015; see also the Discussion in van Loon & Sansom 2015). If Was 49b was originally a late-type/dwarf galaxy, its SMBH is a factor of 10 2 -10 4 as massive as other black holes found in this galaxy type, which are typically between 10 4 and 10 6 M (e.g., Filippenko & Ho 2003;Barth et al 2004;Izotov & Thuan 2008;Shields et al 2008;Reines et al 2011Reines et al , 2013Dong et al 2012;Secrest et al 2012Secrest et al , 2013Secrest et al , 2015Maksym et al 2014;Moran et al 2014;Baldassare et al 2015Baldassare et al , 2016Mezcua et al 2016;Satyapal et al 2016), potentially giving new insight into how SMBHs form and grow in isolated systems. For example, recent work has suggested that black hole mass growth at higher redshifts precedes bulge growth (e.g., Zhang et al 2012), while other work has found no such effect (e.g., Schulze & Wisotzki 2014).…”