Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

EL VOLUMEN real negociado son 200 titulos.
Los de google finance fallan mas que una escopeta de feria
edito en google finance tambien salen 200 titulso

Manzana me puedes pasar la pagina a traves de la cual es los volumenes reales negociados???pues entonces como se explica la fluctuacion de la accion al final se baja solo puede ser porque se van poniendo ordenes limitadas mas bajas pero si no vende nadie como baja???????es que esto es el colmo.no se si venerandos simpsons ptolomeos y los otros otcanos pueden dar una explicacion

Today was a great day for me to confirm that we still have many negotiation chips left on the table and, more importantly, to confirm that we have players on our side we can trust. What I was most excited about was to learn that EC is seeking the appointment of an independent examiner:

“Susman said the proposed settlement with JPMorgan and the FDIC remains of great concern to equity holders, who plan to seek the appointment of an independent examiner in the bankruptcy case.” -
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/WaMu-shareholders-can-pursue-apf-2025952229.html?x=0&.v=3
According her statement, EC is skipping a request to appoint a trustee and requesting an examiner. Either a trustee or an examiner will probably be significantly beneficial to equity for I believe there are enough assets and litigation values to be distributed to common holders that are not disclosed by the current MOR. Anyway, here is the passage I posted in the past about trustee and examiner:
“If Trustee is appointed, the trustee takes possession of property, takes over management of business, and may propose reorganization plan.
According to 1104 (a), Trustee is appointed when fraud, dishonesty, gross mismanagement of current management is present. I think we have good grounds for requesting appointment of Trustee.
Trustee is appointed when anything indicating appointment is in the best interest of debtors, creditors, and shareholders.
EC can further request an appointment of Examiner according to 1104 (a) if Trustee is not doing its job.”

Based on my DD, an appointment of a trustee is rare and an appointment of an examiner is even less. To appoint a trustee, EC must have a clear case of fraud, dishonesty, and/or gross mismanagement of current management is present. To appoint a trustee, EC must have even a stronger case, and to plan to seek the appointment, it must believe it already has or will have enough evidence.

So what evidence will EC present to get an appointment of an examiner? My guesses are (please feel free of add or subtract):
1. Solomon valuation of the WMI assets
2. Conflict of interest of the current WMI BOD
3. Conflict of interest of the WMI lawyers
4. Lack of interest to pursue $4B summary judgement
5. Lack of interest to pursue JPM discovery
6. Lack of interest to pursue asset list 3.1a

Based on the recent development:

1. I can trust the EC chair at this time because of the fact EC is changing (or forced to change) the law firm Rosen does not like and trying to boot off.

2. I believe that the EC chair will pursue the full litigations to maximize the settlement amount because he only owns post seizure commons and no preffereds.

3. I can trust Susman at this time because Rosen is trying to boot him off as he made it clear that he would look for a conflict of interest to boot Susman. Susman also made it clear today that EC is looking for an appointment of an examiner, a potential nightmare for EDIC and JPMC.

4. I regained my trust to the judge today because her ruling today was fair ( I did not like it when she said that the parties made an effort to come up with a global understanding on 3/12 with a tone of a relief)

I will close my rambling by quoting the statement by the EC chair:
“Please be apprised that the Committee is unable to discuss strategy or its intended course of action, but please be assured that the Committee takes its duty to shareholders very seriously and will take all reasonable and appropriate actions to represent the interests of shareholders.” http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Official-Committee-of-Equity-prnews-2026466711.html?x=0

--This is my speculation and my opinion only. This is not an investment advice.-

Joder. O sea, que te quedarían unos 15.000 E en acciones. por que no te planteas vender p.ej. 1/3 de las acciones? Mas que nada lo digo para recuperar algo, para el caso de que se fueran a 0. De todas formas, tampoco es mala idea esperar a ver si suben (que solo por la especulacion subiran seguramente), y entonces soltar algo de lastre (si quieres, claro). Tb te lo puedes jugar todo a una carta, eso depende de lo que tu quieras, pq la decision final es tuya (no lo olvides).

Saenz yo no especulo a corto normalmente, pero si lleva una pérdida del 70%. Vender ahora 1/3 para que?
No se explicamelo igual hay algo que no se sobre especulación.
Si es por cortar las pérdidas, ya se le pasó el arroz.

Como ya he dicho antes, es por no quedarse sin nada en el caso de que dieran 0 por las comunes. Prefiero perder 45.000 y al menos quedarme con 5.000, a perder 50.000 y quedarme a 0, aun a riesgo de ganar menos.

Yo si hubiese dado el paso de jugarme esa cantidad, siendo total o parcialmente mi disponibilidad financiera, con esta pérdida del 70%.
1º Evaluaría la situación
2º Una vez tomada la decisión o sigo con todo o lo retiro todo pero no sacaría parte salvo una necesidad urgente de ese dinero.
Las cosas bajo mi punto de vista estan favorables a una subida y no creo que sea progresiva, esta acción te puede ganar un 50% en una semana, ya lo ha hecho otras veces.

No, si ya he dicho que tiene tiempo de esperar a que suba. A lo que me referia es a que yo en su lugar estaria con la caña preparada para salirme parcialmente (un 30% p.ej.), y asi cubrirme las espaldas.