And everyone is going to bail out because of what the examiner said.
If we look back at some of the shoddy activity we discovered (wasn't there proof of emails to and from JPM and FDIC concerning WaMu?) the ball should still be in our court. I think this is just a bad referee call that needs to be challenged.
It seems like I keep waiting for the judge to come out and say "JPM, you were and are wrong."
I never thought that commons would see anything, which is why I didn't bother with them. But for preferred stock shareholders this is outrageous.
Something else I want to know is this: How can we be certain that this examiner wasn't approached by a representative of JPM with a significant amount of money in order to make sure his report said certain things?
This whole thing - the fire sale, the litigation, the examiner - seems a little pre-planned and set up if you ask me. Too much momentum was in WaMu's court, and now they're saying JPM gets the ball when we haven't lost possession.
