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.
Sigh, oh well.
I hear ya, and hey that's great that you BELIEVE in your WAMU, backed up by your own technical analysis - a winning combination IMO
You mean, he's gonna post the vid AFTER the deal? That doesn't make any sense. Besides in the vids he always states he doesn't know what's going on with the trial, he just follows the Technical Indicators.
Ahhhh, didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, yeah you're right on that one being that it is a comment based on part fact and part faith. But hey if you still would like to know about it just email me at tularay@yahoo.com 'cus post will get deleted.
Where's Clay trader?? We need his entertaining analysis on this latest monster WAMU move. Positive thoughts reaffirm more positive thoughts which create more positive thoughts which materialize into our puny little 3-D world.
No problem Oil. Email me at tularay@yahoo.com and I will email back to you
Dude, what do you want to know? Plz dont make sf waste her posts
OMG, it didn't even occur to me to notice that. YOU ARE A GENIUS
OMG, it didn't even occur to me to notice that. YOU ARE A GENIUS
SF thanks for the "WAMU" tip - I got it . I was thinking about asking you too. I should just defer all my WAMU related questions to you from now on huh? Hey I don't have PM. Can you plz email me: tularay@yahoo.com I will add you to my address book. Thanks!
Hey people, if the merger is really going to happen, isn't LEHMQ a bargain right now compared to WAMUQ? I mean, WAMUQ is 3 times the price, but in the end they're both going to be worth the same, so isn't there more potential upside over at the Lehman side? I'm just speculating so plz don't throw tomatoes at me. All questions IMO.
Umm, how about: "Your Honor I'd like to correct an error...when I previously mentioned $160 million, I meant to say $160 BILLION your honor. Sorry about that, your Honor...little scrivener's error."
AIMVH-and sarcastic-O
Yup, I'd say about the same percentage of people that actually understand how the Fed works know what's up with WAMU-it goes hand in hand. Understanding how WAMU happened inevitably leads you to understand how the bank gangsters operate, which leads to the Fed
Chill, he put a disclaimer in red letters: "That being said-I'm not a believer in such a high payout so do your OWN DD!" So he's got it covered.
Last August I dreamt I was in chambers, and I was hovering around but not inside of Rosenpuke's head, in between Susman and the THJMW who was seated and I remember the big SG looking at Hosen and saying in a deep, almost slowed down voice: "Well, whatta' you want?" and before I felt the Hosencrap begin to answer I woke up! Arggh!!
LOL yup, you'll find a nice little milk moustache around Rosenturd's lips. I know Susman's got 'em by the balls, otherwise the hedgies depo wouldn't have been cancelled. Onwards and upwards
Hey good for you!
Yea I know about the silver. If Wamu works out, that's where I'm putting most of my cash (and gold)
Yup. Good luck to you.
Yup, I KNEW you knew what you were talking about when you talked about the circumstances of the WAMU story (I didn't need explanations). Two words: False Flag. Tried and true methods inherited from the losers after the WWII victory that are still being used-among other methods, but oh well that's another topic altogether
Ok, point taken, but how do we know the $160 Million Rosen Fart stated is actually what the EC agreed to as the final value for WAMU?
No I'm not sf! I take your posts very seriously. You always know what you're talking about like some other great posters here (who do not require mention - everyone knows them) and not just spewing out some random-Brian-Rosen-babble. Ah, so of the trillions bamboozled by the Ben Bernanke at the Fed to banks overseas, IMF kick-back money is coming back to WAMU land so they can keep the rest! Geesh. What a con. Thanks.
"They will nerwer bet $8"? But they will bet $10 for puny little Bear Stearns? Right, just like they will always be "honest" bankers? Right. JPMorgue's honesty can be traced back to 1908 when they crashed the market to profit from it by spreading rumors through various newspapers they owned. They 'claim' they own WAMU but they never rightfully purchased it. They desperately wanted it...baaad. So, bad, that they had to have it, at any cost. AIMHO
“Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care
not who makes its laws”.
-Mayer Amsched Rothchild
Where'd you get $8B for preferreds? Outstanding shares of WAMPQ are 3Million. $8B/3million = $2,666 PPS for P's. I thought P's max face value was $1,000 per share. Am I missing something?
K's are 20Million shares and U's 1.7Billion. For the P's max face of $1,000 per share times 3Million shares equals $3Billion. You're off by $5Billion on that $48.8 number (should be only $43.8), which could add around another $3 PPS to commons at $48.8.
So say EC gets at least what JPMorgan offered for WAMU in 2008 at $8 PPS for commons (I don't see how they could offer anything less than that being that it was a documented/publicized offer and being that the Canadians [TDAmeriturd] allegedly wanted to pay $25 per share just for the East Coast WAMU operations). And now the hedgie's depo's miraculously get cancelled - no wonder the damn PPS was so low!
That means (according to the revised calcs) commons would get around $11 PPS ($8+$3). If Diamond's 2x value plus theory holds, that means commons would then get at least $11x2 = $22 PPS which is right around $24 PPS. So, it doesn't seem too far fetched. Well at least to me. AIMHO
Well, thanks anyways. I was just curious as to whether the "IMF" reference did in fact pertain to the International Monetary Fund, what with all the hoopla about a looming dollar collapse and IMF plans to replace the dollar with SDR's (Special Drawings Rights) I'm worried about our WAMU saga turning into a win only to watch our WAMU dollars evaporate overnight due to a fiat currency replacement strategy. Ergo, diligence will not just stop with a WAMU victory
I dunno I've never actually seen the pic. I was referring to SF's pic where allegedly she saw the info about the WAMU merger, price and date.
What about the IMF part in the WAMU referenced pic? Did that stand for International Monetary Fund?
Great analogy! Puts the WAMU saga into perspective. Hey, on a side note if you're really interested in the greyhound thingy give this Tom Deckard guy a shot once this WAMU saga is over and help spread the word. I just started learning about him. Sorry that I couldn't PM
There!
Man, were you around here since before early 2010? If so, I must relinquish the Veyron torch unto you, thou hast earned it
Umm, (gulp)...holy fudge
During the mortgage crisis WAMU had been doing what everyone else was doing because that is what had been mandated:
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed regulations requiring Fannie and Freddie to increase the share of their loans to low and moderate income households. For example, the HUD regulations mandated that in 1996 40% of new loans financed by Fannie and Freddie had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This requirement was increased to 50% in 2000 and 56% in 2008. Similar increases were mandated for borrowers with incomes of less than 60% of the median. In 1999, HUD guidelines required Fannie and Freddie to accept smaller down payments and extend larger loans relative to income. Because of their huge size and dominance of the secondary market, the policies of Fannie and Freddie exerted enormous impact on the actions of banks and other mortgage lenders. Recognizing that riskier loans could be passed on to Fannie and Freddie, mortgage originators had less incentive to scrutinize the credit worthiness of borrowers. The bottom line: required down payments were reduced, accepted credit standards lowered, and more loans extended to subprime borrowers.
Source: http://www.uwp.edu/departments/economics/cee/teaching_resources/gwartney%20summary%20of%20financial%20crisis.pdf
How can JPIG and FDIC have gotten away with this for so long? Well, in summary, the Constitution doesn't apply to 'US Citizens' because they are property of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, which is a private corporation that along with CANADA is owned by the British Monarchy which is owned by the Vatican (due to the Papal Bulls).
At birth, you become property through the creation of your strawman (another fictitious corporation created using your name in CAPITAL letters so that you can be taxed [it is unconstitutional to tax a living human being, but not a corporation]).
All taxes levied upon the 'Citizens' are for purposes of payment of royalties to the Vatican, who controls all laws within their territorial possessions.
Admiral Maritime Commercial Law is the legal system currently being used and judges are Executive Administrators. All laws are administered and regulated from the Bar in the United Kingdom.
Now does the WAMU fiasco make sense?
Old news to me...Google people!
Fellow WAMUERS, I need help understanding something. Based on the below 'Loans' excerpt from a 'source file', how can WAMU be insolvent or bankrupt based on a bank run and supposed mortgage loan collapse if they followed the same mortgage loan/lending practices as everyone else and therefore LOST nothing when the borrower was unable to repay the mortgage loan?
In other words, ALL OF THE WAMU mortgages produced NO LOSS to WAMU because they never offered equitable consideration for the loan (just like any other bank). How much does that add up to? Would this help our cause or would this only be useful during a trial, or would it be detrimental?
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2010/11/wamu-must-return-foreclosed-home.html
‘Loans’
A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or currency in the bank. Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. – Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics, p. 6
When you entered into a loan contract with a bank, you signed a note or contract promising to pay back the bank and you agreed to provide collateral which the bank could seize if you did not repay the loan. This contract supposedly qualified you to receive the bank’s money. The bank either sells or hypothecates your promissory note before you sign the final papers relative to the ‘loan’. In essence the bank is receiving the proceeds of the sale or hypothecation of your note before it purchases or accepts your note as a loan to itself.
Banks are prohibited from lending their ‘own money’ from their own assets, or from other depositors. So from where did the $$$ come? The contract we signed (our promissory note) was converted into a ‘negotiable instrument’ by the bank and became an asset on the bank’s accounting books. According to the UCC 1-201(24) and 3-104, it was our signature on the note which made it $$$.
Our promissory note (‘money’) was taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and sold by the bank for cash without ‘equal valuable consideration’ given to us for our note. The bank gave us a deposit slip as a receipt for the money we gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when we make a deposit to the bank. It then created an account at the bank which would contain this $$$ which we just created. A check on this account was issued with our signature and this account is the source of funds behind the cheque which we received as a ‘loan’.
The bank risked none of its own assets in the so-called ‘loan’ to us; rather it used our note to pay the seller, in order to raise an asset for itself, and also used the face value of our note as ‘principal’ which it claims it ‘lent’ us and against which it charged interest. Consideration on the part of the bank is non-existent so the bank has nothing to lose. It can not possibly sustain a loss. Since consideration is essential to an enforceable contract and the note was obtained from us via fraud, the entire transaction/ contract is fraudulent.
In the Ashley case of 1988, fraud on the part of the bank was proven because the defendant revealed, “the banks told me they had ‘money’ to lend and they didn’t.” Mortgage contracts are written in such a way to appear as if the bank lent us funds before they received our promissory note/ mortgage contract so that the bank can use it as a receipt which they can sell. The contract reads, “For a loan I have received...”, but, you haven’t received it yet. So in fact, we signed and gave the mortgage contract/note to the bank prior to their giving us the funds. So, the application for the loan created the funds (it has our signature on it) and the note (with our signature) covered the funds to ‘repay’ the loan. Again, constructive fraud.
I'm starting to see the pattern here: BELIEVE!
Agreed, but the internet is changing that (that's why Chavez has it banned now in Venezuela) so there is yet hope. There's absolutely no way any one of us would have been in here investing in WAMU were it not for the power of the internet and how it allows us to see through all of JPIG and FDIC's obvious shenanigans. That's why these elites are now trying to go after the FCC to 'regulate' it in our best interest. Sure, and my name is Tony Stark and I have a flying Iron Man suit.
Once they grab the internet, then it's Radio and finally Cable News and it's over-country will be finished. We will all be watching the same filtered crap on every channel. We won't have any idea what's actually going gone. IMHO.
Go WAMU. Screw everything else
Lol, my 4 figure loss was only that low because it represented about half of my investment ha ha...that's actually sad But yes, we will make it all back
She's onto 'em. But she knows her decisions are also made public. So in order to keep the financial puppeteers distracted she's playing Rosenfart into his own trap. This will lead Rosen to finally come out into the open at a new in camera hearing in which he will come clean with the judge and Susman regarding his true master and beg for mercy/direction. Or maybe it actually happened at the last in camera hearing leading to our present condition...hmmm.
Ditto, I've also suffered $X,xxx 4 figure loss ever since black Friday 3/11/10. If you're a WAMU long prior prior to black Friday, you suffered a loss. God please let this settle soon otherwise go to trial!!!