Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Jamie the Gangster??? LOL
Jamie the Fucking pussy id say
http://www.jrdeputyaccountant.com/2009/04/jp-morgans-jamie-dimon-one-bad-ass-mofo.html
FEBM
Everybody loves jamie the fucktard LOL
http://adscam.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/jamie-dimon-banking-fucktard-extraordinaire.html
FEBM
Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.
The government is going to want some of that money back.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1
That would be super sweet, and it could also be the "see, bankruptcy isn't that bad" example, but I doubt it will happen.
I see buyout/settlement = done forever .
I'm hoping they'll be Obamas recovery poster child. They'd be the first to pull thru under his administration, that would make headlines...
That's why I really think a settlement/buyout is imminent.
Nobody wants them to emerge, which is why they will be absorbed.
Mainstream media is a herd of sheep, they do what they're told. No one is reporting on WAMU unless they have to. They'll be like flies on shit when WAMU comes out of all of this solid.
Some screwed over shareholder will whack Dimon, its just a matter of time. In the meanwhile, the courts are in session and things are smelling rosier every day.
Hahaha. Could be, could be, but it is clear that he does what he wants when he wants.
I love how there is like one article written about this, and nobody in the mainstream media talks about it. Surprise surprise huh?
A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in Idaho when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, 'If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?'
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, 'Sure, Why not?'
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook comp uter, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, 'You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.'
=0 A
'That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,' says Bud.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then Bud says to the young man, 'Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?'
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, 'Okay, why not?'
'You're a Congressman for the U.S.Government', says Bud.
'Wow! That's correct,' says the yuppie, 'but how did you guess that?'
'No guessing required.' answered the cowboy. 'You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are and you don't know a damn thing about cows....this is a herd of sheep.
Now give me back my dog!
Is Dimon dosing on acid or something, nothing like a attempted global screwing by these filthy fuckers
Italy Seizes Millions in Assets From Four Banks
"By CLAUDIO GATTI
Published: April 27, 2009
With municipal bond investigations spreading to Europe from the United States, Italian authorities have seized about $300 million in assets of four global banks — JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, UBS and Depfa — whose officials have been accused of fraud.
The Guardia di Finanza in Milan, the financial police of Italy, took over real estate properties, bank accounts and stock holdings on Monday to assure it could collect from the banks if their officials were found guilty and the banks were held responsible.
The seizures stem from the banks’ handling of a $2.2 billion municipal bond issue and related financial contracts known as swaps that Milan undertook to retire other debt in June 2005. The lead prosecutor accused the bankers of misleading the city and falsely claiming that the deal would generate savings. If all the costs had been properly included, the prosecutor said, the entire deal would have been illegal under a national law that allows restructuring of debt only if it produces a savings.
Alfredo Robledo, the prosecutor in Milan, suspects the banks made $130 million in illicit profits, according to information obtained in a joint investigation by the Italian business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore and The International Herald Tribune. He is also investigating transactions by the banks with other local Italian governments and the possibility that public officials received kickbacks.
About 35 billion euros ($46 billion) in bonds were issued by local Italian governments over the last decade, mostly by the London units of large banks based in the United States and Europe. A former executive from one of the banks being investigated in Milan said that all of these could be subject to challenge.
Representatives of each of the four banks declined to comment. JPMorgan is based in New York, Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt, UBS in Zurich and Depfa is a unit of Hypo Real Estate in Munich.
Three of the banks are also being investigated over their municipal bond practices in the United States. Officials or former officials of JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and UBS, along with the institutions themselves, are the subjects of investigations, company filings and documents filed in civil cases show.
In its annual report released last month, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged parallel investigations in the United States by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible antitrust and securities violations involving derivatives sold to local governments. JPMorgan said it was cooperating with the investigations and had provided documents.
On both sides of the Atlantic, the banks and their executives have been accused of misleading local governments and selling officials exotic financial products known as derivatives that they did not fully understand.
These derivatives, when combined with bond offerings, were presented as ways to raise cash and reduce the long-term cost of debt, but officials claim now that many of the contracts, in the form of swaps, were packed with millions of dollars in fees that were not disclosed.
In his filings to a judge in Italy seeking the asset seizure, Mr. Robledo asserted that the bankers falsely claimed that the deal would save 57.3 million euros.
While charging only nominal fees to show the refinancing would be beneficial, he said, the bank then hid their profits in the spread between what the city paid to the banks and what the banks gave in return on swaps contracts that accompanied the bond issue — a difference of 52.7 million euros.
The original deal was rescheduled five times until October 2007 and produced an additional 48 million euros of profit for the banks.
In total, the banks earned about 101 million euros in such payments over a two-year period. The largest share went to JPMorgan Chase, which the prosecutor said took in almost 45 million euros.
It is too soon to tell whether the long-term cost of the deal and the swaps contracts, which carry more risk than a plain-vanilla bond offering, will be even higher.
The jurisdiction of this case is in dispute. Last January, days after Milan announced that it was suing the banks in civil court, JPMorgan filed a countersuit in the High Court in London to have the claim heard there instead.
In their presentations, the banks noted that they were regulated by the Financial Securities Authority in Britain, an agency similar to the S.E.C., and that their contracts were subject to British laws.
But the Italian investigators argue that they have authority to investigate any fraud. British law “would be applicable to civil proceedings, not a criminal one, such as this,” said an investigator involved in the case who said he was not authorized to speak about a continuing investigation. According to the Italian magistrate, British rules may have been violated as well. Citing the opinion of David Dobell, a former British financial regulator who is now a partner in CCL, a compliance consultancy, the prosecutor claimed that the banks breached their fiduciary duties as defined by the F.S.A. when dealing with a nonprofessional customer like Milan.
These and other similar transactions could be invalidated if the banks breached those duties, requiring the banks to disgorge their profits from the deals and pay damages.
Beside the 10 bankers, Giorgio Porta, Milan’s general manager at the time of the deal, and Mario Mauri, then a financial adviser to the mayor, are also under investigation. The Italian prosecutor could soon request help from the British regulator in determining whether intermediary or consultant fees were paid by the banks and to whom.
Claudio Gatti is an investigative reporter for Il Sole 24 Ore. He is based in New York."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/global/28muni.html?scp=1&sq=Italy%20Seizes%20Millions%20In%20Assets%20From%20Four%20Banks%20&st=cse
That is correct. I wasnt born that way however i became that way after some rather large screwings. The x10 just makes me feel better. like i got something for my loss. LOL
The fixedops model = For every action against fixedops, there is an unequal and disproportionately, retaliatorily aggressive reaction.
I like it.
LOL But there is a big difference...
Their FEBM = screw everyone they can to gain wealth & power
My FEBM = screw me and I will screw you back X10
"I say Fuck Everybody But Me"
That is what they are saying, so you better be looking out for yourself.
LOL This shit these bastards are playing is like studio wrestling.. Who's strong who's weak or who's good or bad this week.
I say Fuck Everybody But Me...
The words worthless bitch only begin to describe Ann Coulter.
Lewis was doing exactly what Paulson, Bernanke, Bair, and the rest of the crooks told him he had to do.
The crooks, frauds, liars, and banksters had a grand master plan, that included JPM Bear and WaMu, BAC and Merril, and Citi and Wachovia(which ended up being WFC + Wachoviva). There was major corruption at the highest of levels regarding the "collapse" of the financial system, and these pieces of shit tried to pick the winners and losers.
What was LEWIS thinking?
Cuomo's Revelation: Bernanke and Paulson Strongarmed BofA's Purchase of Merrill
http://seekingalpha.com/article/132895-cuomo-s-revelation-bernanke-and-paulson-strongarmed-bofa-s-purchase-of-merrill
BofA's Lewis Confirms: Government Coerced the Merrill Deal
http://seekingalpha.com/article/132864-bofa-s-lewis-confirms-government-coerced-the-merrill-deal
Lewis Out? Calls Intensify for Bank of America Chief's Resignation
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7415038&page=1
Paulson Throws Bernanke Under the Bus, Backs Ken Lewis
http://seekingalpha.com/article/132676-paulson-throws-bernanke-under-the-bus-backs-ken-lewis
Mark-to-Market Isn’t to Blame
"Blaming fair-value accounting for banking misadventures is like criticizing the newspaper for reporting a murder.
The credit meltdown has spawned a few false villains, and one is “mark-to-market” accounting. Too many observers—including Congress’s Republican Study Committee—think that if we just suspend the accounting rule that requires financial firms to report certain investments at fair market value, then the crisis will go away. But accounting isn’t the culprit here. You may ask: What the heck is “mark-to-market” accounting? The people who write and enforce our national accounting standards mandate that publicly traded financial companies must report some of their assets (things like mortgage-backed securities) and liabilities (like money they’ve borrowed from other institutions) at “marked-to-market” values. That is, if you bought a certain security at $100 last year, but you can’t find anyone to buy it this year for more than $40, you’ve got to report its worth as $40, since, unless you plan to build a time machine, that’s the “fair-value market price” it would command. Contrary to popular belief, mark-to-market accounting isn’t new. Financial institutions have reported many financial instruments this way for decades, usually because they wanted to. Their desire makes intuitive sense. If much of your business is borrowing huge amounts of money and then buying and selling securities to exploit and magnify small price changes in those securities, then you’ve got to have a way of telling the world how much money you’ve made this quarter doing just that. Informing your investors that Joe’s mortgage is still worth the same $250,000 it was 10 years ago (when somebody else lent him the money), minus Joe’s previous payments, doesn’t advance that goal. But telling them that you made $50 million on Joe’s mortgage and thousands of others like it this month by exploiting small changes in interest-rate expectations does. Financial institutions even fought for, and eventually won, the right to report some of their really long-term assets at day-to-day “fair values.” Firms like Macquarie report the value of toll roads on such a basis so that they can take regular profits from them. Enron won the right to report long-term energy contracts on a “fair-value” basis, allowing it to do much the same thing, with a big dose of fraud mixed in. This stuff sounds crazy (and it might be), but it’s what the industry wanted. Especially over the past decade or so, banks thought that anything—whether it’s a toll road in the first world or a power plant in India—could be monetized and treated as a perfectly liquid, instantly tradable financial instrument, like 100 shares of Exxon stock. But contrary to another popular belief, no financial firm has to report all of its assets at “fair value.” What must be reported that way are things like derivative securities, securities purchased temporarily—or what an institution hoped was temporarily—through constant trading techniques, and securities that companies have designated as “available for sale.” This, too, makes sense: if a bank always planned to sell a particular security pretty fast, and was, in fact, depending on the money from that sale to continue funding its operations and churning out profits, it should value that security at what it’s worth right now. When it comes to most long-term investments, financial firms have more discretion. If a bank had always planned to hold a security “to maturity”—that is, hang onto a mortgage-backed security for the entire life of all of the mortgages bundled into it, for example—it doesn’t have to pay much attention to those fair values. There is a big exception, though: if the bank believes that that long-term investment is permanently impaired, it must subtract that impairment from the long-term value. A security could go bad like this for many reasons: if the market thinks that 40 percent of the borrowers in a mortgage-backed security are going to default, that’s a permanent impairment, because the institution holding the security will suffer those losses even if it holds the security until maturity. But even then, an institution doesn’t have to write these long-term securities down to immediate market values; it only has to write them down to, say, the expected value of the remaining good mortgages in the security. So what’s all this talk about fair-value rules being new and somehow precipitating or at least exacerbating the current crisis? In truth, the only new wrinkle came last November, when the accounting-standards people issued new guidelines for how to measure fair value. First, they reminded people that though companies usually have a choice about whether to report an asset in a “fair-value” category, once they decide to do so for a particular investment, they can’t change their minds. Second, the standards folks told companies how they should mark affected assets to “fair values” when there wasn’t much of a market for them. The board assigned three simple categories. “Level one” denoted assets that financial institutions could accurately compare with identical assets trading in active liquid markets, meaning that investors could feel confident that the “fair value” prices were current and reasonable. “Level two” contained assets whose fair values were harder to determine, but for which institutions could still find somewhat comparable assets trading in somewhat active markets. This designation gave companies a way to warn investors that they should treat those prices with some skepticism. “Level three” designated assets for which there was no market activity—like lots of mortgage-backed and derivative securities, starting last year. If a company labeled an asset “level three,” it was a signal to investors that it was next to impossible to assign a fair value to that asset. The companies didn’t have to report such values as zero, though. They could still provide their best guess as to the securities’ value, as well as the reasoning behind that guess. But the accounting board clearly meant for investors to treat any such “level three” asset values with a large helping of salt. Around the same time, of course, the markets for the most opaque, complex securities were seizing up, and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of residential mortgage securities, commercial mortgage securities, and the like have moved straight from the sterling “level one” corner office to the dreaded “level three” basement. Whereas once you could instantly find thousands of buyers for mortgage-backed securities close to the prices at which the securities were issued, nobody wants them anymore—at least not without weeks of scrutiny, and certainly not at the price the banks want to sell them. In demonizing fair-value rules, critics say that the standards have spawned write-down after write-down, causing yet more losses at financial institutions that use their peers’ values as guidelines, and causing more investors to flee, escalating the losses and causing big firms to fail. No one doubts that we’re experiencing a crisis in confidence in asset values, but fair-value accounting didn’t cause it. It could have been stopped only by the banks themselves. They could have chosen, starting more than two decades ago, to be in the long-term investment business rather than in the short-term, exotic-security creation and trading business. People who say that itâu™s not proper to value a long-term asset at today’s value miss the point. Most such assets were never meant to be long-term investments for the banks that had just issued them or still held them when the credit crisis struck. Moreover, fair-value accounting isn’t exacerbating the crisis, and suspending the rules won’t slow it. First, the problem for investors isn’t that banks are blindly, slavishly adhering to some arbitrary rules. It’s that with or without the rules, nobody knows what certain securities are worth. Investors didn’t short Lehman Brothers’ stock because it had written its “level three” securities down to zero (it hadn’t). They shorted Lehman partly because they didn’t think that it had written such securities down far enough—some were still valued at 70 percent of original value, while Merrill Lynch had sold what seemed to be similar securities at 22 percent of their original value. As for the charge that it’s ridiculous to value some mortgages at 22 percent on the dollar, and that fair-value accounting helps to create the absurdity: maybe, maybe not. The stark truth is that when you consider that banks wrote mortgages against houses that may have been more than 100 percent overvalued, and when you consider how much it costs such institutions to foreclose on a house and maintain it for a few months or longer before sale in a tough market, it’s easy to see how values get down to less than half. Subtract some more money for uncertainty—which markets do all the time—and you’re down to 22 percent, more or less. Finally, even if standard bearers and regulators suspended fair-market rules today, banks would still be wedded to fair-market principles, at least until all of today’s complex securities are unwound. Consider credit-derivative securities, a form of insurance against debt default. AIG, which holds half a trillion dollars in such obligations, would have gone bankrupt last week without government help. But AIG’s problem wasn’t some accounting rules. Even without them, AIG’s trading partners would have demanded higher cash collateral from the firm as ratings agencies downgraded the firm, due in part to their own private assessment of the chance that AIG would actually have to pay out on those claims. The same was true at firm after firm: risks increased and counterparties demanded more cash, as called for in private contracts. Changing the accounting rules midstream can’t change that. In the end, the only thing that was wrong with “fair value” accounting was that it was a mirror of the modern financial industry. Financial institutions thought that they could trade anything, anywhere, at any time, safely and virtually risk-free and for an instant profit. It turns out that they couldn’t. Fair value’s sin was in exposing that failure spectacularly. But the anti-“mark-to-market” crowd may well get its wish, not because the accounting and regulatory world will throw away fair-value rules, but because investors will regard the business behind such rules much more carefully. After all, financial institutions needed money from the outside world to create all of those fair-value investments in everything from mortgages to toll roads; it’s unlikely they’ll replenish their now-depleted coffers in the future, because investors now understand what complex securities and assets structured to trade instantaneously do not only on their way up—but on their way down.
Source: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0925ng.html "
http://www.truthinaccounting.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=497
FIGURES & FACTS NEVER LIE BUT LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE!
Just in case a theif comes into your life!
http://www.judgmentregistry.com/DatabaseSubmissionForm.asp
Subject: 2008 Stella awards
>
>
> What are our juries thinking????????????
>
> >
>
> It's time again for the annual 'Stella Awards'!
> For
>
> those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named
> after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot
> coffee on herself and successfully sued the
> McDonald's
> in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee.. You
>
> remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it
> between her knees while she was driving. Who would
> ever think one could get burned doing that, right?
>
> That's right; these are awards for the most
> outlandish
>
> lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S . You know, the kinds
> of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your
> head scratcher handy.
>
> Here are the Stella's for the past year:
>
> 7TH PLACE :
>
> Kathleen Robertson of Austin , Texas was awarded
>
> $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her
> ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a
> furniture store. The store owners were understandably
> surprised by the verdict, considering the running
>
> toddler was her own son.
>
> 6TH PLACE :
>
> Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won
> $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran
> over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently
> didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the
>
> car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's
> hubcaps.
>
> Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.
>
> 5TH PLACE :
>
> Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was
> leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the
>
> garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic
> garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get
> the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter
> the house because the door connecting the garage to
>
> the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced
> to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of
> Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the
> homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental
> Anguish.
>
> Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must
> pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all
> have this kind of anguish.
> Keep scratching. There are more...
>
> 4TH PLACE :
>
> Jerry Williams, of Little Rock , Arkansas , garnered
>
> 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500
> plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt
> by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the
> beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
>
> Williams did not get as much as he asked for because
> the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked
> at the time of the butt bite because Williams had
> climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly
>
> shot the dog with a pellet gun.
>
> Grrrrr . Scratch, scratch.
>
> 3RD PLACE :
>
> Amber Carson of Lancaster , Pennsylvania because a
> jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her
> $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and
>
> broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on
> the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend
> 30 seconds earlier during an argument What ever
> happened to people being responsible for their own
> actions?
>
> Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are
> only two more Stellas to go...
>
> 2ND PLACE :
>
> Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of
> a night club in a nearby city because she fell from
>
> the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two
> front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to
> sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying
> the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club
>
> had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah,
> plus dental expenses Go figure.
>
> 1ST PLACE : (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos
> please)
>
> This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner
> was Mrs.. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma ,
>
> who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On
> her first trip home, from an OU football game, having
> driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control
> at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to
>
> the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.
>
> Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway,
> crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs.
> Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the
>
> owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave
> the
> driver's seat while the cruise control was set . The
> Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down,
> $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually
>
> changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just
> in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also
> buy a motor home.
>
> Are we, as a society, getting more stupid..? Ya
> Think??!!
>
> More than a few of our judge's elevators don't go
> to
>
> the top floor either!
Most evil female award
"Officials are responding to a formal complaint filed by Coulterwatch.com blogger Dan Borchers. “For over 10 years, Ann Coulter has gotten away with illegal, immoral and unethical behavior, ranging from plagiarism to defamation, perjury to voter fraud,” claims the conservative Borchers. Coulter declined to comment, but in the past has branded Borchers a stalker. He says the FBI has determined he poses no threat".
FEBM
Goldman Sachs and Merrill: Did December Ever Happen?
"It is difficult to tell why December was so bad when banks are providing different explanations. Public disclosures won’t help much. Goldman Sachs, for instance, announced earlier that it would change its fiscal year to end in December, unlike previous years when Goldman’s year-end was in November.
The move effectively eliminated a very ugly month from Goldman’s official annual financial results for both 2008 and 2009, although that was likely not the bank’s intent.
December’s results likely won’t show up in any of Goldman’s publicly disclosed annual financial statements. A mention of “more information” is coming in the quarterly filing. Still, future generations will look at only two sets of Goldman earnings: one that ended in November, and one that started in January. "
Ha.
Follow the link. Too funny, and you gotta love accounting.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/14/goldman-sachs-and-merrill-did-december-ever-happen/
add this link to your Ibox;
https://www.straightshooter.net/CUFFGeneralFraudForm.htm