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.
Better tell that poster that got all those military ones then hey?
Better give em back bud army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, boy scouts, etc. etc. Sell em back bud.
Perhaps, "one of the big players" as opposed to player would have been correct, but hey I'm no letter writer either pal.
And don't forget CDIV that big loser, your wrong pal, you gotta know when to fold them is all, not Minimar's fault. CDIV from pennies to .77 under MM so it's not that bad folks. Here they come.
Excuse me ID but there are cost's that must go against the total value you've come up with, management costs, ambassadors payroll, rental costs, overhead expenses. They just do not pocket this money, but from $154 million I doubt their overhead is a 1/4 of this value. Does anyone know? I didn't think so.
Chart Analysis and terms see line.
http://www.trending123.com/patterns/technical_analysis_glossary.html
Glossary of Stock Terms for Newbies, there are many other websites that offer this and wherever you are trading usually has these terms listed in their website for your use. There are also terminology available to let you know what the chart terms mean as well. If I find it I will post here to if the overseers of this symbol allow it. See below link for your use.
http://www.tmxmoney.com/en/research/glossary.html
Short squeeze
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In finance, a short squeeze is a rapid increase in the price of a stock that occurs when there is a lack of supply and an excess of demand for the stock.
Short squeezes result when short sellers cover their positions on a stock. This can occur if the price has risen to a point where short sellers must make margin calls, or more loosely if short sellers simply decide to cut their losses and get out. (This may happen in an automated manner for example if the short sellers had previously placed stop-loss orders with their brokers to prepare for this eventuality.) Since covering their positions involves buying shares, the short squeeze causes an ever further rise in the stock's price, which in turn may trigger additional margin calls and short covering.
Short squeezes are more likely to occur in stocks with small market capitalization and small floats, although can involve large stocks and billions of dollars, as happened in October 2008 when a short squeeze temporarily drove the shares of Volkswagen on the Xetra dax from 210.85 euros to over 1000 euros in less than two days, briefly making it the most valuable company in the world.[1]
In the time from of 2/17/10-2/18/10 (2 days) CCTC Clean coal technologies went from .0449 to .42, an increase of nearly 1000% due to naked shorting and recently being on the REGSHO list.
The opposite of a short squeeze is the less common long squeeze.
This can also apply to futures contracts.
Why does this stock show a comeback of $1.48 up .05 I did not think it traded AH, so it must have been orders that came in during the day and filled after hours.
Short means more shares purchased or want to be purchased than is available to sell (in the float) available to purchase. Squeeze or short squeeze is there are shares that are sold now that there are no outstanding shares to fill the orders with proper certificates of the stocks, right now if we all called to have our certificates in hand they would not be able to accommoodate us all so hence value of the stock jumps based on supply and demand. I think I have it right someone correct me if I am off base here please. Take care and GLTA
Done. eom.
Moos I forwarded those links onto Cavuto, Beck, Limbaugh, and Cooper to see who comes out of the wood work first. We'll see.
Moos-los thank you for those informative posts and links, JPM is going down, let's see if the richest of the rich win this battle or if any mainstream outlets actually report these findings in the open public. Biggets Ponzi Scam Ever and JPM at the wheel, sweet.
Read the amount JPM paid and then read the existing assets and tell me that anyone with any common sense smell something might have been off a tad in the numbers game here in this takeover. JPM knew they would get TARP funds for all the bad loans and worked with the FDIC to get these, the rest to them was gravy dollars, no brainer in my world.
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08085.html
GLTA here we deserve better than this so far. GO EC value is value and law is law.
Sorry if this is a repost of news about bondholders agreeing with FDIC.
News for 'WAMUQ' - (Washington Mutual Senior Bondholders Join FDIC in Opposing Proposed Settlement)
NEW YORK, March 29, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senior bondholders of
Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) expressed their collective support for the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) decision, as reported by the Wall Street
Journal today, to reject a settlement proposed by JPMorgan Chase and Washington
Mutual Inc. ("WMI") as not reflecting the discussions between the parties.
Although the proposed settlement would resolve certain claims relating to the
WaMu receivership estate and WMI's bankruptcy proceedings, the senior
bondholders consider it to be unacceptable.
"JPMorgan Chase is claiming $2.6 billion in tax refunds created by the stimulus
bill that it does not own and which Congress intended to go to others. WaMu
bondholders do not support JPMorgan Chase's proposed settlement because it seeks
to use these WaMu tax refunds for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase either to settle
WMI claims against JPMorgan Chase or to indemnify JPMorgan Chase against other
claims," stated William Isaacson of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, a counsel for
bondholders.
Isaacson added, "The senior bondholders commend the decision of the FDIC to
decline the current proposed settlement and we plan to work constructively with
the FDIC and the other parties to attempt to reach a resolution of the issues
that will provide a fair and beneficial settlement for bondholders and the
receivership estate."
WaMu has been in receivership since September 25, 2008, the same day the FDIC
sold existing assets of WaMu to JPMorgan Chase. Prior to the bank's demise,
senior bondholders provided WaMu with essential financing and liquidity.
JPMorgan Chase's acquisition of WaMu was structured as an asset purchase, so
that JPMorgan Chase could avoid taking on WaMu's obligations to its creditors,
which include the senior bonds.
The FDIC and senior bondholders were recently asked to approve a proposed
settlement described in general terms on March 12, 2010 in the WMI bankruptcy
proceedings. The settlement, among other issues, seeks to resolve claims to the
FDIC by JPMorgan Chase to two tax refunds that arose after the asset sale and
that the senior bondholders maintain should be paid to WaMu receivership. Senior
bondholders have objected to the proposed settlement in part because the
proposed settlement would unfavorably resolve a claim by JPMorgan Chase that, as
the asset purchaser, it should be paid by the WaMu receivership estate an
estimated $2.6 billion tax refund from stimulus money created by the November
2009 Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. JPMorgan Chase made
this claim despite the fact that this same legislation bars TARP recipients such
as JPMorgan Chase from receiving those tax refunds. Bondholders have also
objected to JPMorgan Chase's claim to a $3 billion tax refund based on the
post-asset sale tax losses generated by the FDIC's sale of WaMu's assets to
JPMorgan Chase for $1.88 billion.
Senior bondholders have contended to the FDIC that the proposed settlement
described in the bankruptcy court would have improperly permitted JPMorgan Chase
to use major portions of the tax refunds belonging to the WaMu receivership
estate, including the stimulus tax refund, to settle WMI's claims against
JPMorgan Chase. The proposal would have further allowed JPMorgan Chase to direct
another $1.4 billion of the stimulus tax refund to the receivership estate to be
used to indemnify JPMorgan Chase.
Senior bondholders include, among others, Marathon Asset Management, the D. E.
Shaw group, Solus Alternative Asset Management LP, Caspian Capital Advisors LLC,
and over 20 others.
Rosen needs to submit a credit invoice to JPM. Being paid for this garbage is a crime in itself. Perhaps he is attempting to draw out the overall opinions to show JPM the weak points in their arguments, and where the FDIC stands from it's language. JMHO.
FDIC says it's not on board with the way the language in the POR is stated. What happened to Rosen stating all parties were on board with this POR? Is Rosen a liar? FDIC says the JPM cannot collect a tax refund if they took TARP monies which they did. But they are still trying to steal that tax monies and took TARP money no wonder they are the rick crooks in this party. FDIC is finally going to follow their own rules for once, this bodes well for our solution and our EC battle. Nice JPM you openly now are the fools everyone knew you were, now you will get yours and guess what that skirt of the FDIC you've been hiding behind just got lifted.
JPM in buying WAMU did the following: JPM wants 200 cookies but only wants to pay for 1 cookie to get all 200 cookies. FDIC says OK what is in it for me? Well in the end I'll give you 20 cookies in tax refunds later on. FDIC sounds good to me, we'll cause the cookies to be stale so everyone that sees this will know we saved everyone from eating stale cookies. JPM, good idea FDIC. So WAMU's cookies gets bought for the price of 1 cookie because the FDIC told WAMU your cookies are stale and not good to eat so their value is only worth 1 cookie, but we are buying all 200 to help you from sickening the public with the rest of the bad cookies.
Today JPM inadvertantly ate a few of these cookies and now has gotten themselves sick over it, now are ready to give the cookies back to WAMU, but WAMU wants the original cookies, plus the packaging plus 200 more new cookies just baked from JPM and FDIC.
WAMU claims that had you waited just four more days a new batch of cookies would have been baked and we would not have had any stale cookies to sell, but you rushed in and took our stale cookies at a discounted price, no you must pay us all back for those stale cookies and give us some new ones on top of that.
Oh and also we want all our original packaging the stale cookies came in so send those back as well and a gallon of milk please.
JPM ends up with no cookies, no milk, no packaging, but got sick by eating all those stale cookies they paid a pittance for.
Morale don't ever buy anyone's stale cookies it will come back to haunt you.
I really appreciate all the posters here whom have followed this company from the start. You have really done a great job compiling all this valuable bankrupcy information for us all to read and peruse over. Myself I really am a very simple person and always I return to what caused this to occur. I think all the information about the C11 and valuations are all mute because none of them should have ever occurred here.
We had a solvent company and it was taken away by rich crooks, period with the assistance of the FDIC in the back pocket of JPM.
To me the real court battle should be why the bankrupcy ever had to occur in the first place and the valuations should be based on if WAMU were granted the same TARP funds the others were given where would that put our company today? Not where we are now.
Now I understand that to protect oneself from totaly failure they had to do something so they filed for C11 for protection, I get that, and here we are today from all of that. But the JPM defenders have us all thinking that the only monies we should get is the $4Billion but that is not where my head is at here.
We should be looking for total damages for causing and taking over a solvent company illegally, not some bankrupcy hearing and case. I am sorry I am not at all concerned about this bankrupcy court case as most of you are here, but I assume that is because it is the first important thing to be concerened over to get us to the next level of claims and court battles over what I believe to be the real court trial or case. I am here to have things put back straight again the way they were prior to Sept. 2008. Not simply to win something in a bankrupcy case.
JPM and their defenders have changed this game into what they want it to be about, not the real issue to me. Sorry for airing this but I think none of what we speak about here should even have come to pass, but we are where we are now.
I leave you all with one question, where would WAMU be if we had received the same TARP funds four days later, to assist in our bad mortage loans situation? Does anyone have a clue on this? I do not, but can guess that we would be in great shape without issue.
Giving JPM, GS, AIG and the rest the opportunity to survive and be profitable tells me they had it out for us from the get go and did so illegally as we were solvent at the start and should not be in this position of defending that position today.
Hey I appreciate that reply, kind of thinking the same way but I don't really know when something is really considered overboard in manipulation of a PPS on any security, usually involved major buying or selling or should I say fake buying and selling with phantom shares which happens every day in the market. Regards.
A lot of folks on this board are thinking that release of this POR will cause the PPS to drop on Monday so my question is this, is that in any way considered improper conduct by a legal beagle to accommodate or cause to occur a stock price drop, knowingly? or otherwise?
Can the release of this POR draft be seen as a manipulation of a stock price seeing as how all concerned know this is still a traded security in it's current state? Would it be considered an act of legal misconduct to assist in driving the price further down in this case or is there a precedent for such language with no recourse to any litagation over the written negative implications in the POR concerning PPS value? Any attorney's here know if this POR language is considered at least borderline in attempting to mislead or lower the value of the PPS for regular shareholders here?
I would like to see a trial by jury. Mr. Dimon on the stand is asked the following questions:
Attorney:Mr. Dimon do you fell purchasing WAMU for $1.9 Billion was a good deal for JPM?
Mr. Dimon: Uh yes?
Attorney:Mr. Dimon did you know WAMU was a solvent bank with over $50 Billion is assets when you purchased it for $1.9 Billion?
Mr. Dimon: Uh yes?
Attorney: During the last year has JPM made any money on all these bad loans WAMU had outstanding on their books?
Mr. Dimaon: Uh yes?
Attorney: Mr. Dimon did you or the FDIC determine WAMU was failing and did anyone from JPM join WAMU to assist in it's magical failure?
Mr. Dimon: Uh yes?
Attorney: Mr. Dimon do you believe the FDIC and JPM knowing that TARP funds would be available to all major banks with bad loans in the next four days that you did not really have to take over something that really was not failing and would not have failed had you two not conspired to take your actions?
Mr. Dimon: Uh yes we could have waited but then I would have not made my billions with this steal, er I mean deal.
Attorney: Your honor I rest my case.
How about simply "MDA". eom.
Yes that post holds a lot of merit in that for all we know Weil is doing exactly what we need, make it appear he is on the enemies side in things when all the while his tact is to get all he can for everyone. He knows this poor "POR" will not be accepted but he had to put something out there to chew on and battle over. He knows that it will not get accepted but that may be part of his overall tactic here as well. Great post from the Y board indeed.
FDIC knows this smells and they do not want any part in agreeing or disagreeing on the subject at hand. They are in a lose-lose situation. They know the facts and they also know the public and Judge know the facts, they cannot put themselves in another precarious situation now. I think they remain silent here and let JPM and the lawyers take the heat. Is it me or is the former WAMU management agreeing with this POR or does anyone know? Where are they today? Are they fighting or joining this POR? Can someone fill me in on that aspect please, thank you in advance for any info to that regards.
Dragon right on, not approved means to me NOT APPROVED.
Johnny yes "under the not yet approved plan" should be the wording here, not under the plan, it is not yet approved by anyone but those whom drafted it. And by the way it is a draft without any balance sheet. Nice getting paid as a fake lawyer without doing you're work, must be nice, where do I sign up to do that and help rich crooks?
EC needs to bring a gun to this knife fight. End of story.
Let's do some math here, JPM paid $1.9 billion did JPM over the last year make more than $1.9 billion from their purchase? Answer is I believe yes they did. What amount over $1.9 billion dollars did they make during the last year with their purchase? Anyone know? Whatever that amount is proves even without the other information we already know that WAMU was not insolvent at all and JPM made profit from the purchase they made from a supposed insolvent firm. It's so ridiculous it's insane and JPM is sitting back like the cat who swallowed the canary here. Where the heck is justice serves here? Judge Walrath needs to grow a set quick.
The joinder should assist the approved EC in their overall efforts but not deter from it or voice other mixed signals in the process. This needs to be a concerted effort not a mixed bag of who's on first, who speaks for whom and so forth. Now if a separate lawsuit needs to be filed by members of this joinder they can do so but not get mixed up in calling itself another EC committee. I agree Judge has a tough enough time than to deal with both of these parties. GLTA here.
Travelmile, I will liken my comments on your post and apply it to the current health care debate going on. The Government in it's infinite wisdome is telling us the health care system in broken and we need to fix it. Well in reality as with WAMU there were certain aspects of their business doing very well and others not so well. So instead of our Government repairing just the portion of the uninsured in our country they want to revamp and take over the whole system, just like FDIC and JPM did with WAMU.
Oh dear WAMU your in deep trouble we can fix you up by buying you at a golden price only offered to JPM via FDIC. So in essence you are correct that the Government and JPM worked together to finalize this crooked deal. Hard to fight against that I agree. Where I fail to agree is in a courtroom still in America there is justice being served everyday, and in this particular courtroom with this Honorable Judge companies do not get away with such illegal ethics or actions. It has been proven in this courtroom no matter who you are you don't get away with much.
So you're arguement does hold water as in our Government will take over our entire health care system even though only a small portion requires some fixing. FDIC and JPM decided the whole of WAMU was failing so we must take it over, giving basic common shareholders no voice, no choice. So that alone with no consideration of the investors or investment community combined with the few days thereafter issuing TARP funds to their good big bank buddies smells to high heaven as an gift to JPM. No way around making that pig smell good. I think you are correct for the most part in your comments as is Fish but I for one believe that justice will prevail for shareholders here. May take awhile longer but the Judge can stop all this BS very soon.
One thing you learn in life is you do not let things fester along, you nip them in the bud and this has gone on way too long and festered way too much, so it's time for the Judge to do her nipping. GLTA here.
JPM reminds me a bit of Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons. "I'll pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today" Remember? Jamie me boy it's due now.
Oldie but a goodie showing how JPM is making money on WAMU loans.
May 26 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. stands to reap a $29 billion windfall thanks to an accounting rule that lets the second-biggest U.S. bank transform bad loans it purchased from Washington Mutual Inc. into income.
Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp. and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. are also poised to benefit from taking over home lenders Wachovia Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. and National City Corp., regulatory filings show. The deals provide a combined $56 billion in so-called accretable yield, the difference between the value of the loans on the banks’ balance sheets and the cash flow they’re expected to produce.
Faced with the highest U.S. unemployment in 25 years and a surging foreclosure rate, the lenders are seizing on a four- year-old rule aimed at standardizing how they book acquired loans that have deteriorated in credit quality. By applying the measure to mortgages and commercial loans that lost value during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the banks will wring revenue from the wreckage, said Robert Willens, a former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. executive who runs a tax and accounting consulting firm in New York.
“It will benefit these guys dramatically,” Willens said. “There’s a great chance they’ll be able to record very substantial gains going forward.”
JPMorgan rose $2.13, or 6.2 percent, to $36.54 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Wells Fargo gained 1.3 percent to $25.65 and PNC Financial climbed 5 percent to $43.25. Bank of America fell 9 cents to $10.98.
Purchase Accounting
When JPMorgan bought WaMu out of receivership last September for $1.9 billion, the New York-based bank used purchase accounting, which allows it to record impaired loans at fair value, marking down $118.2 billion of assets by 25 percent. Now, as borrowers pay their debts, the bank says it may gain $29.1 billion over the life of the loans in income before taxes and expenses.
The purchase-accounting rule, known as Statement of Position 03-3, provides banks with an incentive to mark down loans they acquire as aggressively as possible, said Gerard Cassidy, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Portland, Maine.
“One of the beauties of purchase accounting is after you mark down your assets, you accrete them back in,” Cassidy said. “Those transactions should be favorable over the long run.”
JPMorgan bought WaMu’s deposits and loans after regulators seized the Seattle-based thrift in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. JPMorgan took a $29.4 billion writedown on WaMu’s holdings, mostly for option adjustable-rate mortgages and home- equity loans.
‘Price Judgment’
“We marked the portfolio based on a number of factors, including housing-price judgment at the time,” said JPMorgan spokesman Thomas Kelly. “The accretion is driven by prevailing interest rates.”
JPMorgan said first-quarter gains from the WaMu loans resulted in $1.26 billion in interest income and left the bank with an accretable-yield balance that could result in additional income of $29.1 billion.
The difference in accretable yield from bank to bank is due to the amount of impaired loans, the credit quality of the acquired assets and the state of the economy when the deals were completed. Rising and falling interest rates also affect accretable yield for portfolios with adjustable-rate loans.
It’s difficult to gauge how much the yield will add to total revenue because banks don’t disclose the expenses that chisel away at the figure. The income is also booked over the life of the loans, rather than in a lump sum, and banks don’t spell out how long that is, Willens said.
Wachovia ARMs
Wells Fargo arranged the $12.7 billion purchase of Wachovia in October, as the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank was sinking from $122 billion in option ARMs. As of March 31, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo had marked down $93 billion of impaired Wachovia loans by 37 percent. The expected cash flow was $70.3 billion.
The Wachovia loans added $561 million to the bank’s first- quarter interest income, leaving Wells Fargo with a remaining accretable yield of almost $10 billion.
Government efforts to reduce mortgage rates and stabilize the housing market may make it easier for borrowers to repay loans and for banks to realize the accretable yield on their books. With mortgage rates below 5 percent, originations surged 71 percent in the first quarter from the fourth, a pace that may accelerate during 2009, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance in Bethesda, Maryland.
Recapturing Writedowns
Wells Fargo, the biggest U.S. mortgage originator, doubled home loans in the first quarter from the previous three months, in part through refinancing Wachovia loans.
“To the extent that the customers’ experience is better or we can modify the loans, and the loans become more current, that could help recapture some of the writedown,” Wells Fargo Chief Financial Officer Howard Atkins said in an April 22 interview.
Banks still face the risk that defaults may exceed expectations and lead to further writedowns on their purchased loans. Foreclosure filings in the U.S. rose to a record for the second straight month in April, climbing 32 percent from a year earlier to more than 342,000, data compiled by Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc. show.
The companies bought by Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, PNC and Bank of America were among the biggest lenders in states with the highest foreclosure rates, including California, Florida and Ohio. Housing prices tumbled the most on record in the first quarter, leaving an increasing number of borrowers owing more in mortgage payments than their homes are worth, according to Zillow.com, an online property data company.
Accretable Yield
“We’ve still got a lot of downside to work through this year and probably through at least part of next,” said William Schwartz, a credit analyst at DBRS Inc. in New York. “If I were them, I wouldn’t be claiming any victory yet.”
PNC closed its $3.9 billion acquisition of National City on Dec. 31, after the Cleveland-based bank racked up more than $4 billion in losses tied to subprime loans. PNC, based in Pittsburgh, marked down $19.3 billion of impaired loans by 38 percent, or $7.4 billion, and said it expected to recoup half of the writedown. After gaining $213 million in interest income in the first quarter and making some adjustments, the company has an accretable-yield balance of $2.9 billion.
“We’re just being prudent,” PNC Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson said in a May 19 interview.
‘Huge Cushion’
Johnson said he expects the entire accretable yield to result in earnings. The company has taken into “consideration everything that can go wrong with the economy,” he said.
Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, has potential purchase-accounting income of $14.1 billion, including $627 million of gains from Merrill Lynch & Co. and the rest from Countrywide. Bank of America bought subprime lender Countrywide in July, two months before the financial crisis forced Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy and WaMu into receivership.
As market losses deepened, Bank of America had to reduce the returns it expected the impaired loans to produce from an original estimate of $19.6 billion.
“The Countrywide marks in hindsight weren’t nearly as aggressive,” said Jason Goldberg, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York, who has “equal weight” investment ratings on Bank of America and PNC and “overweight” recommendations for Wells Fargo and JPMorgan.
Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski declined to comment.
The discounted assets purchased by JPMorgan and Wells Fargo make the stocks more attractive because they will spur an acceleration in profit growth, said Chris Armbruster, an analyst at Al Frank Asset Management Inc. in Laguna Beach, California.
“There’s definitely going to be some marks that were taken that were too extreme,” said Armbruster, whose firm oversees about $375 million. “It gives them a huge cushion or buffer to smooth out earnings.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Ari Levy in San Francisco at alevy5@bloomberg.net; Elizabeth Hester in New York at ehester@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: May 26, 2009 16:21 EDT
Hair just one point, I use the 411 info too but get charged on my monthly bill for doing so. eom.
So even though history has borne out that most of the loans WAMU let out there JPM has made profits on those loans because they are being paid back in the majority. So now that history has played out it is a mute point on the bad loans and association with WAMU failure.
Nice timing on the news releases, EC about 3:28 p.m. and Senate Inquiry around 3:46 p.m. not much time for folks before the close to take notice until now and the jump up at days end. Good omen here folks IMHO. People read these in a.m. and buy in seeing the late run today. Even without new buyers this bodes well for all. Good job EC, and Senate it's about freaking time someone paid attention to rich crooks for a change.
And the buyer is exactly???? No one?
From the Yahoo Board, best advice I have after reading this is reverse everything, put WAMU back into business and admit your mistake and give back the money plus interest plus criminal charges, nothing less, Read Below:
LAST FRIDAY JPM LAWYERS AGREED: WAMU WAS A SOLVENT BANK ?!?! 15-Mar-10 03:40 pm My personal request to the Equity Committee - do whatever is possible to block this proposed settlement and refuse any further offers – I for one, as a shareholder, want my day in court. In fact, I say start with day JPM’s Lawyer pleaded with the Honorable Mary Walrath, in that plea the lawyer stated (paraphrase):
“Your honor, there is no deposit, the management ran the bank into the ground, if there is a deposit of that size, of 4 billion, then the bank would not have been seized.”
We now have JPM and FDIC adimitting (in no uncertain terms) there is a deposit.
I ASK YOU:
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT FOR A SOLVENT BANK ?
HOW ??????????
Coming up now on Cavuto JPM Chase and the Tarp Monies, if they stole or lied they will be caught, FBN channel tune in now. Next segment coming up.
They said they would be ready to submit the documentation by the 26th. I assume that is this month, that is what I heard.
The second tax refund the FDIC gets a piece of this for what reason exactly? Being a good faith crook and co-conspirator in all of this or what? The criminally took over a solvent company and had JPM pay practically nothing for the WAMU assets, so they reap the benefits of the second tax refund, for what? Payoff? For this alone the settlement offer or statement should be rejected by all here. Ridiculous to swallow.