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.
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.
What will you say if and when it comes off the greys?
I agree and there is a contingent of people out there with a vested interest that are still watching to see what happens, and hoping there won't have to be future legal expenses to keep everyone honest. ...well maybe honest is kind of a strong word to use. If honesty were ever a part of the plan here, none of this would've happened to begin with.
not ever?!...wow, now that's a long time. I guess that's one of those decisions that one makes and doesn't look back so they don't see what happens and, quite possibly in this case,regret that decision. Of course, you still have the escrow hope.jmo
So the guys who bought their shares the same time I bought mine (b/t October of 2011 and Feb 2012) will triple their ROI...and the cap supposedly punished them(class)!? I guess that provides fair treatment for those incidental to the plan.
So are you figuring on one, maybe two more piers distributions?
Ha! good one rockie.
If I'm not mistaken they didn't really need our vote did they? No offense Jeff, but I'd think saving a life would be easier. I mean what needs to be done is right there in front of you. You either do it correctly or you don't, and, you know it when you're doing it which it was. The outcome, however, is way,way more important by any standard. This is much more difficult and while I totally get the anger and frustration I seriously doubt any of these guys at this level of high finance are fools. jmho
Your local property appraiser likely has the property history available on line.
Has any of the BOD members sold any of those free shares, or are they waiting for them to decrease in value? Just curious.
same here.
How about, just don't do bidness with JPMC. That's a personal option that everyone has. As far the escrows go, they are still showing up in my account every day and there is a reason for that. When the final gavel falls and they disappear from my account with no monetary value, then I'll know...we didn't get fair and or reasonable.
How many?
I thought those assets and subs were protected by the corporate veil, and Walrath wasn't willing to allow a piercing of the corporate veil.
I'd be surprised if they ALL didn't see what was coming and prepared for it. If they didn't, they weren't doing their jobs. Our small business first noticed it in late 2006 when our clients started cutting costs. For us, the downturn escalated from there. jmo
FDIC Board Adopts Proposed Interim Final Rule To Provide A Transitional Safe Harbor For All Participations And Securitizations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 13, 2009
Media Contact:
Andrew Gray at (202) 898-7192
Email: angray@fdic.gov
On November 12, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) adopted a proposed Interim Final Rule amending 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 to provide a transitional safe harbor effective immediately for all participations and securitizations in compliance with that rule as originally adopted in 2000. In summary, the Interim Final Rule confirms that participations and securitizations completed or currently in process on or before March 31, 2010 in reliance on the FDIC's existing regulation will be 'grandfathered' and continue to be protected by the safe harbor provisions of Section 360.6 despite changes to generally accepted accounting principles adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
"The Board's action provides needed clarity to the financial markets," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair. "With changing accounting rules, we need both to ensure that participations and securitizations that have relied on our existing regulation retain that protection and to consider needed reforms for securitization going forward."
At the meeting, Chairman Bair also announced that FDIC staff would propose to the Board at its December meeting a set of conditions that securitizations initiated after March 31st must meet to receive 'safe harbor' treatment. "We have seen the problems that the 'originate to distribute' model played in the build-up to the financial crisis," Chairman Bair concluded, "and we must ensure that future securitizations do not place the Deposit Insurance Fund and our financial system in jeopardy."
The safe harbor protection provided by the Interim Final Rule continues for the life of the participation or securitization if the financial assets were transferred into the transaction or, for revolving securitization trusts, beneficial interests were issued on or before March 31, 2010 and the participation or securitization complied with Section 360.6. Under this transitional safe harbor, the participation or securitization will comply with the Section 360.6 requirement that any transfers into the transaction meet all conditions for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles, other than the 'legal isolation' condition, if the transfers satisfied generally accepted accounting principles in effect for reporting periods prior to November 15, 2009.
For participations and securitizations that meet those requirements, the Interim Final Rule provides that the FDIC shall not, by exercise of its authority to disaffirm or repudiate contracts, seek to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of the institution or the receivership any financial assets transferred in connection with the securitization or participation, even if the transaction does not satisfy all conditions for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles as effective for reporting periods after November 15, 2009. As a result, any financial assets transferred into such securitizations or participations will not be treated as property of the institution or receivership, and consequently the consent requirement of 12 USC §1821(e)(13)(C) will not apply.
Attachment:
Amendments to 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 Defining Safe Harbor Protection for Treatment by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Conservator or Receiver of Financial Assets Transferred by an Insured Depository Institution in Connection With a Securitization or Participation http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2009nov12no6.pdf
Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to restore public confidence in the nation's banking system. The FDIC insures deposits at the nation's 8,195 banks and savings associations and it promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed. The FDIC receives no federal tax dollars – insured financial institutions fund its operations.
FDIC press releases and other information are available on the Internet at www.fdic.gov, by subscription electronically (go to www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html) and may also be obtained through the FDIC's Public Information Center (877-275-3342 or 703-562-2200). PR-208-2009
Last Updated 11/13/2009 communications@fdic.gov
Home
|
Contact Us
|
Search
|
Help
|
SiteMap
|
Forms
|
En Español
I agree, I don't think any of these guys take it lightly when they don't succeed in a deal. You don't climb the ladder of success, in any field, based on continued failure. ..well, except maybe in politics
Hey, it's a start, and they are keeping us informed. I think that's progress. ...for now. wouldn't want to see a pattern of failed tries or anything. jmo
Thanks. I'm thinking the same when it comes to a rs; we'd need to have whole bunch more shares for that to make sense. The dilution thing does concern me though. I truly think this would be a bad stock for them to pull any obvious shenanigans with due to the engagement by us. The opportunity to make big money is there without needing to screw anyone else as well as a lot of the same people again.jmo
Wouldn't they have to release that info to shareholders. I recognize we've already authorized the shares, but are we due any required notice when any or all go into play?
Wouldn't those authorized shares have to be issued in order to be part of a r/s or no? 3.5 billion shares for a company with no visible business and twice the number of shares outstanding in our predecessor which had a very large and visible business is hard to try to understand, particularly in the context of everything that has transpired over the past 7 years.jmo
maybe they're waiting for cover from some major news event. There are all kinds of potential for a major news event(s) to pop...russians, politics, hillary gets indicted, volkswagen. All kinds of potential,just a matter of time. jmi
oh. And what if they turn out to be right?
...I try to help people who are speculating that they will be rich because of escrows to get a reality check.
So, just how does that work? You either have escrows or don't, and I'm having a real hard time understanding where you "help" comes into play.jmho
On this day in history, September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual Inc. rescued JP Morgan Chase from what would have a been world wide economic collapse. I borrowed the first few words, up to the third comma, from my TDA account news today. They must not have been around as they got the next part wrong. I corrected it here. You're welcome.
So, we're a company with no business, a buttload of NOL value, who just added 3 billion shares, and we're already talking rs. It seems the only way a rs makes sense is IF we have multiple of the shares we already hold. That would be a real negative attention getter and hedge funds are already in the crosshairs of a lot of parties for various reasons. No?
This was treated just like a monopoly game by Sheila & Jamie. Almost like what they did wasn't real and wrong, and didn't have real effects on REAL PEOPLE. Jamie is still acting like JPMC was the one bright spot in the financial realm of darkness that he, himself was instrumental in creating. Don't trust em, and can't trust em.
Yeah, I watched that entire interview. He also neglected to mention when he was boasting about how JPM was there to help everyone in 2008 and since, that they were gifted the 6th largest financial institution in the country. He did say that they (the entire financial industry and the government, not him and Sheila) combined, did wrong and a lot of people were hurt. It would have been neat if Chuck Todd had asked what he thought would have happened had JPM had not been gifted WAMU. aimo
I don't think so. You have to ask yourself why would a company with no business but considerable value authorize 3.5 billion shares. I don't have any idea how F & R will be structured, built I do believe at some point it will happen. jmo
Since I'm still waiting for Fair & Reasonable in the context of what happened, to happen, I guess I'd have to say no. It was a century old company, banks are still dealing with a pretty heavy backlog of foreclosures just from 2008, and Hotchberg acknowledged that they didn't have the time in mediation to do a full assessment. Do you really believe they have tracked down ALL the assets from WMI. I doubt it. Where would the pressure come from to get that done? Up to now, minimizing the value has been the goal it seems. jmo
tc, there is no if. Misspending is what our government does and no, I don't think they are goods stewards, I think they are crooks. That is why they did what they did to begin with. If the FDIC had been collecting premiums from the big banks during the FAT times, what happened in 2008 likely wouldn't have, at least not to the same severity. A little bit OT here, but this is WHY we need term limits for our politicians, ALL of THEM, not just potus. Donald is right, they ARE stupid.
Actually there is huge difference; Fannie & Freddie are in a conservatorship, which by definition are short lived(not 7 years) processes where at the end, the owners get their company back. With F & F, they've paid over 40 billion in excess of what was borrowed. Again, the government is overstepping their authority and breaking the law and spending that money just like they have a right. They clearly do not. IMO where they are the same is that both required required illegality & collusion on the part of the government;
In wamu they outright stole the main solvent assets from a solvent parent company and in fannie & freddie they are still stealing and mis-spending money that's not theirs.
If there were 100+ billion plus like some on this board think, the press would be all over it, it would hit the nightly news.
That only happens when they want it to happen. They managed to keep the entire theft under wraps for the most part, for close to 7 years now. People to this day , when discussing the 2008 meltdown, still skip over the WAMU mess, almost like it never happened. The press is afraid to address it, and have been since 2008. Considering it was the 6th largest financial institution at the time of its taking, it's truly incredible with so many affected, they were able to keep it out of the news...nearly phenomenal. jmo
too bad lawyers are permitted to lie in court
rockie remember the Anchor litigation started in 1995, and in part was settled in this BK. The wamu theft was way bigger than that.jmo
Judge orders massive release of Fannie, Freddie conservatorship docs
Bove: Should eventually give shareholders their ownership rights back
Someone posted this yesterday over on the wamu site. I haven't found any news about this on my TDA account under the news tab.
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34550-judge-orders-massive-release-of-fannie-freddie-conservatorship-docs
You would think that kind of important info would show up on the news for that ticker on my brokerage account. Nope, four days later and still not on the news. That's a WOW for ya, because that is IMO, huge news.
You made an incorrect statement, I merely corrected that. There is no degree to be measured. Whether anyone is or is not dealing with that issue is unknown(unless you're an insider that does know). Short of that, it's just an opinion you hold. Also, what is or is not on an entity's balance sheet, as I'm sure you know, has nothing to do with what is on public records (other than owner changes when that happens) in every jurisdiction in this country. As I've stated before...still waiting for fair and reasonable 'cause we ain't seen it yet.
I agree with that. When there is no accountability or consequences, there is little or no incentive to change. In this case JPMC apparently made out like a bandit. That, to me IS incentive for this sort of thing to happen again. What's more, Dodd-Frank almost guarantees it. JMO
When it comes to real estate assets, everything is traceable back to its origins. That's what title searches are all about, to ensure there are no encumbrances.