InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

ReikoBlack

04/12/15 9:33 PM

#420029 RE: dugit69 #420024

You and Royal need to crack open a dictionary and LEARN what an indemnity is.
icon url

BigBang

04/13/15 5:07 AM

#420048 RE: dugit69 #420024

"big mortgage settlement, we had to give those up"

Is it possible that he's referring to the $13 billion dollar settlement ("big mortgage settlement ") which allowed in part for consumer mortgage relief. They thought they were indemnified ("robust indemnities") against any possible loses associated with the WAMU takeover.
icon url

Donotunderstand

04/13/15 9:40 AM

#420062 RE: dugit69 #420024

this lack of immunity had to do with the bad MBS private label paper sold by WaMu to F and F

sorry
icon url

W3Research

04/13/15 9:40 AM

#420063 RE: dugit69 #420024

D69, This is the interpretation most here think is correct ...

I believe Dimon confirms AZ’s Unicorn Theory!

Dimon's statement, "And in the WaMu case, we thought we had robust indemnities from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the WaMu receivership, but as part of our negotiations with the Department of Justice that led to our big mortgage settlement, we had to give those up".

I believe Dimon’s statement confirms AZ’s unicorn theory that JPMorgan assumed that FDIC would give them and their cronies the $100’s of Billion’s of assets owned by Washington Mutual. I believe Dimon thought he had robust indemnities given by FDIC for the assets taken from the Holding Company but later found this to be incorrect. Susman argued the Holding Company’s legal rights thus saving equity. During our mandatory mediation the Department of Justice was also forcing a separate negotiation with JPMorgan to return big mortgages back to FDIC-R. POR7 approved along with JPMorgan mortgage settlement.

Holding Company’s assets will be coming back to equity through the FDIC-R, as soon as an entity can be set in place to properly service the assets, which is the second part of AZ’s theory.