InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 60
Posts 8911
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 06/20/2008

Re: jackson227 post# 69439

Wednesday, 05/06/2009 10:56:31 AM

Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:56:31 AM

Post# of 733173
That is true to a degree. I guess the easiest way to look at it is...

Let's suppose the JPM/FDIC basically admit that what they did was wrong (they won't) but for the sake of argument they do, or the court rules that they did. The argument from both of them would be "Well here is the value of the assets we purchased (insert dollar amount here)at the time we purchased them. Here is what what we actually paid for it. And the difference of which is what we would be prepared to compensate for"

Basically what Wamu should be entitled to is the fair market value of the assets it had taken. What people on here are wanting is for JPM to pay for the difference between the stock price pre seizure and post, under the assumption that the stock price would not have gone as low as it did if Wamu would have been allowed to sell the banking division at its fair market value.

So keeping all that in mind, any potential settlement could be for just the difference in fair market value, or less, certainly not more.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent COOP News