InvestorsHub Logo

boarddork

12/01/10 8:24 PM

#258235 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

I am so000000 buying tens of thousands more Q's tomorrow. Thanks for helping me along with that.

uzualsuzpect

12/01/10 8:24 PM

#258236 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

Move along tonight brother... Serious, I don't need you or anyone stirring the hornet nest.

welderfred

12/01/10 8:26 PM

#258237 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

I am glad you two have each other , everyone has to have someone . Best wishes on our wamuq .

SlyOne

12/01/10 9:49 PM

#258266 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

Now, Whose to believe your post and DD when you said this:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56955775


Please, please "Keep to your word."
And Please present correct facts remember this board is about 'Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMUQ)'

WMAUQ is not at $.02

longhaulq

12/01/10 9:51 PM

#258268 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

I think you guys were in that production 2 guys 1 cup.

Good things happened today. Hopefully the JMW's eyes are being opened, at least enough for us to have our say tomorrow.

Honestly, I wouldnt be opposed to TPS getting their money first, as long as it helps us down the road- which I believe it will.

JohnnyWinter

12/01/10 11:30 PM

#258306 RE: BullNBear52 #258232

"My bet is and it's been pointed out that the FDIC was getting ticked at the OTS and the cozy relationship they had with Wamu. "


I'd say that your bet is right-on, and although there are still conspiracy theorists that think the FDIC are "the bad guys", the truth is that the OTS was/is completely incompetent, and WaMu should have been seized much earlier. The OTS contends that WaMu was "well-capitalized" up to the receivership, however, the Citi documents, and others like them, show that the "value" of WaMu's reported "assets" were completely inaccurate which was why nobody wanted to touch them (and didn't touch them)outside of receivership.