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.
Looks like a short squeeze to me. EOM
On a brighter note Chase used the term, "ATM Machine" in one of their own commercials. I think that speaks volumes about their competence level.
WHERE DID THE HEARING DETAILS GO?!?!?!!
Walk Walk Walk...
Down it goes...
Down into my belly...
Yum Yum Yum...
I wonder how much better a price I can get before the "S" hits the "F" tommorrow.
Buying to help the short squeeze that will ultimately arise from this.
Monday - Open up. Morning dip. Power hour. Trade sideways.
Tuesday - Open up. Morning dip. Power hour. Trade sideways.
Wednesday - Open up. Morning dip. Power hour. Trade sideways.
Thursday - Open up. Morning dip. Power hour. Trade sideways.
Friday - Craziness.
.50!!!!
...and hardly anyone will ask...and it will go up and up...
It'll be exciting to say the least. Finally there will be some meat to these hearings. The stay is pretty big, but I don't see the PPS going up too much because of it, the outcome is kind of expected. The SJ could be huge either way though. To be sure I'll be keeping my finger on the e-trade trigger just in case something goes kablooey.
I don't beleive it. I JUST sold my LEHMQ shares yesterday. Man that sucks. Good thing I still have WAMUQ/PQ.
So aside from the opportunity for the judge to tell the FDIC that they can blow it out their a**, I really don't see anything on the docket that is of great importance. The rest seems like assured appointment of Quinn and the regular 'ol debtor claim objection matters. Am I missing something here?
Why? The U's are looking to be a better deal all the time. Why get 10X when you could get 24X to 48X? I think that's why we were seeing a selloff of the P's yesterday.
Jamie Dimon - Treasury Secretary!?
I breifly skimmed to see if this had been posted or not, but I can't do the search fuction and make sure that it wasn't. Anyway, this was a WOW moment for me!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/jamie-dimon-treasury-secr_n_368218.html
As far as I can tell, this only let's Moody's off the hook. They merely came to an inside agreement. The squeeze is still on for everyone else.
Here's IRS Reg 1.212-1(g)
Fees for services of investment counsel, custodial fees, clerical help, office rent, and similar expenses paid or incurred by a taxpayer in connection with investments held by him are deductible under section 212 only if (1) they are paid or incurred by the taxpayer for the production or collection of income or for the management, conservation, or maintenance of investments held by him for the production of income; and (2) they are ordinary and necessary under all the circumstances, having regard of the type of investment and to the relation of the taxpayer to such investment.
I would say it probably fits the 2% floor category
Yeah. PQ just spiked up to 90. I don't really expect it to last the entire day, judging from all the other non-event days.
I've got the bulk of my ROTH IRA on this, so not much tax for me. Not gloating or anything...OK, gloating a little bit. ;)
Hmmm. I think I'm missing something. And it's not that I'm saying you're wrong, I probably just don't understand banking that well.
Now I understand that the dividends payable creates a liability if dividends have been declared, I'm just having trouble with the leveraging part.
My understanding is that for every $100 of deposits, the money supply expands to $1,000 if the reserve is set to 10%. That's because $900 gets lent out deposited into another bank, which in turn lends out $810, which in turn lends out $729, $656, etc.
I guess, as an aspiring accountant, I can't really wrap my head around the journal entries for the scenarios you are describing. I get about this far:
Dr. Cash 4B
Cr. Preferred Stock 4B
Dr. Dividend declared 280M
Cr. Dividens Payable 280M (a true liablity)
What I don't understand is the 40b part. As I see it, they can only lend out 3.6B (90%), and therefore, if I were to acquire 40b, I would have to borrow it, which doesn't really translate into liquidity as you've described it.
So, reiterating, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying that I don't understand. I'm not being facetious in any way. I've seen this idea of leveraging in previous posts, but I never got it then either. Can someone spell it out for me?
Thanks,
Dear Santa,
Please make WAMUQ/WAMPQ explode before the holidays so I don't have reveal how poor I am by having to give out hastily crafted gifts made of glue, tongue depressors, and glitter. Also, if it's not too much trouble, please put some coal in Mr. Dimons stockings. The cookies and milk will be on your left as you come out of fireplace.
Thanks,
Sorry. I don't know what the tax situation is.
Does anyone have a good narrative on the tax facts?
I don't read it that way. Reading through the original objection , I interperet the language this way:
Exhibit A:
We want to expunge all of the previously amended claims so there isn't any duplication. We don't dispute any of the validity of these claims but we reserve our right to dispute them in the future.
Exhibit B:
These claims have no merit. Looking through our books and records, we cannot find any evidence of WMI owing these parties
Exhibit C:
These are duplicate claims. Please expunge them.
Here is the link to the original:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090928000000000006.pdf
Gosh! They've taken a beating this month! I hope we had something to do with that! :)
Listened to the proceeding in its entirety on my cell phone while clumsily holding it up to my ear and trying to work.
Now, I'm pretty heavily invested in this stock (relative to my finances), but just to be objective about what I heard today, I'm not sure that I would even want a summary judgement at this point. Yes, the FDIC and JPM have had 13 months to look into this, but at the same time, if they're whining, "we don't KNOW what happened, this accounting is so MYSTICAL!", I think it gives them footing to appeal the summary judgement if the motion were granted. I for one would rather them not come back and say that it was incorrect to adjudicate the matter prematurely. However, in either case, it seems like it will take a lot longer.
Comments/opinions from knowlegable people?
I did.
I did
Sorry to say, but I did not find it in the 10-Q. They may have not booked it yet, but I thought for sure they would have some discosure relating to the case.
I'm a little fuzzy on the 22nd. At a summary judgement, will the judge hear any further arguments? Will there be a ruling on that day or will it take another week of looking at the facts?
Thanks in advance,
I don't know why ya'll are so down on this Dimon guy, he seems pretty darn swell ;)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/themanwhocouldsalvagewallstreet
Complete hearsay.
Not to totally call you out, but it wouldn't actually be recognized for tax purposes until they sold the stock, at least in the US. Oh wait. China. I don't know.
However, where is the link that they wrote it off?!?! Do people really come on the boeard and just say stuff without posting a link?
Oh by the way, did you hear that only the preferred's in Lehman are getting paid? Commons - TOTALLY screwed!
SEE?!?!?
(Actually that might be true) *Cry*
The term goodwill is usually associated in an aquisition in which the purchase price exceeds the fair market value (FMV) of the assets received in consideration. It is considered an intangible asset and actually speaking, it is. It's more like a premium you would pay on a company that has good management or some other "hard to nail down" quality that makes it more valueable than the naked assets would be on the open market.
Negative goodwill is the opposite mathematical equation. it means the assets were purchased for less than their FMV. Now, JPM was required to disclose this in their 10Q for GAAP/SEC purposes (imo), but it seems like a bad move to me to have put the fact in broad daylight by intervening in the case. Talk about greedy. It just goes to show that they went to court to protect the fact that they got way too good a deal. WABOFC's!
(what a bunch of ------- crooks)
Heh... From JPM's 10Q:
JPMorgan Chase acquired the banking operations of Washington Mutual Bank for $1.9 billion. The fair value of the net
assets acquired exceeded the purchase price, which resulted in negative goodwill. In accordance with U.S. GAAP for
business combinations, nonfinancial assets that are not held-for-sale were written down against that negative goodwill. The
negative goodwill that remained after writing down nonfinancial assets was recognized as an extraordinary gain.
With regard to FASB statement No. 5, if JPM's legal team beleived that there was a "more likely than not" chance of a settlement, they would be required to book the contingent liability in their financial states if the loss could be estimated. If the estimate is a range in which no estimate is more likely than the other, the lowest value in that range would be the reportable amount. As we have all seen estimation of the settlement, I have no reason to beleive that it could not be estimated by their legal team.
So, if the above is correct, we should expect to see an actual figure reported by JPM itself on that interim statement tommorrow. It would definately be good news, even if it was in the smallest of amounts.
I don't understand the use of the NOL. Can you clarify that?
Hi all,
New to the board after lurking for a few days and I've enjoyed it. The Lehman issue has me wondering if any of you would like to share any strategies as to some of the significant dates coming up. It seems there will be a summary jusdgement concerning the deposit issue perhaps on the 9th (see below). It seems to me that you would see a huge jump (not the whole jump) in WAMUQ after the decision for the next few days and you might be able to sell off safely before any corrections and catch the Lehman decision on the 15th and possibly pick up some more action there before things start happening again (in court) with WAMU later in the month. Any thoughts? Sorry in advance if this topic has already been discussed.
By the way, could someone point me to a thread for the valuation estimate if the deposit issue is ruled on favorably? I'm merely taking the 4.4b/1.7b approach, but I'm not sophisticated enough to know if that's just plain wrong.
THANKS!
Below is the court transcript reference above.
Exact transcript regarding the date of the $4b turnover action:
MR. ELSBERG: Your Honor, if I might, I was just hoping that I could raise the issue of scheduling a hearing date for the summary judgment motion on the deposit issue, and we would propose, if it works for you -
THE COURT: Have I seen - has the briefing been completed?
MR. ELSBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: When did the notice of completion of briefing get filed?
MR. ELSBERG: We?ll file a notice today. We?re hoping we could just get something on the calendar, if Your Honor is agreeable, for the week of October 12.
THE COURT: Is that the week of - that?s the week before the NCBJ?
MR. ROSEN: I think that?s right, Your Honor. I think it is the following weekend.
MR. SHIEKMAN: Your Honor, could I ask . . . (microphone not recording) the following week?
THE COURT: The following week I?m out.
MR. SHIEKMAN: (Microphone not recording.)
THE COURT: I?m going to ask the parties, I?m going to talk to Ms. Capp, I?m not going to set, but as I understand it, the parties are suggesting then the week of October 25th?
MR. ELSBERG: Or, Your Honor, we would prefer October 12 or if it could be October 8 or 9, and if it can?t be sooner then, yes, the following week.
THE COURT: Well, it can?t be the 9th.
MR. ELSBERG: Okay. We can try to work it out together. We can work it out together.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ELSBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Get a date from Ms. Capp. Thank you.
MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.