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

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=86316&tid=320702&mid=320702&tof=1&frt=2

En USA dan por hecho que aunque Bonderman aun conserve su posición no será la fuerza dominante empujando el EC. Prefieren que sea Appaloosa.

Tb hay miedos de que algunos de los top investors representen los intereses de JPM (entre bastidores) y por eso de la negativa de Weil a su formación.

Lo unico positivo de momento para nosotros será su formación cuando sea oficial, del resultado ya iremos sacando conclusiones.
Que siga el culebrón...

Respuesta a mi post:
Again, Bonderman is now PARTNER with the FDIC and Starwood, that alone represents a conflict in the D.C. case I should think. And Bonderman has billions of dollars in investments tied into who knows how many deals, it would be difficult to even estimate how many are linked to JPM in some way.

IMO it doesn't matter in the least. According to filings, Bonderman hasn't sold squat, and will reap a huge harvest should WMI be successful, he may not be openly verbose about the whole thing out of deference to his "partners", but that's just business to a guy like him, he will still happily cash in his chips when the time comes.

Thinking Bonderman is somehow going to lead the charge, is as naive as thinking that Weil was on our side as well. To these uber-wealthy folk, we are ants invading their picnic.

Históricamente el patrimonio de la familia Rockefeller, desde hace ya mucho tiempo, ha preferido fragmentarse para no llamar tanto la atención en toda su magnitud.

¿Por qué no pensar (que no es una creencia es un hecho) que JPM, el "banco de la familia Rockefeller" tenga muchos "descendientes"? Decenas o ¿cientos? de descendientes en forma de sociedades, dueñas de acciones, que solapan un trust, una asociación económica, consorcio... con control horizontal o vertical.

Visto así, las aparentes contradicciones en los intereses de cada quién cobran otro sentido más lógico.

No nos olvidemos que estos estilos para los negocios no son nuevos: la vieja Standard Oil se conformaron en muchas empresas independientes que seguían siendo de Rockefeller. De la Standard Oil surgieron empresas como: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Amoco, Sohio, Atlantic Richfield y muchas empresas más pequeñas pero eso sí, con un mismo interés y dominando el sector en todos los aspectos.

JPM, así como la vieja Standard, tampoco es estéril, tiene sus muchos descendientes totalmente configurados hacia un fin común.

Un post que me ha parecido interesante de ihub. Es largo pero hace hincapie en varios puntos interesantes........

Wamu TRUTH...

PLEASE READ THESE COURT DOCUMENTS.....

JPMorgan admits that the FDIC took over a solvent bank in one of the latest court documents...

I'm enclosing a few more documents filed through the BK court in regards to a declaration of Thomas M. Blake (http://www.crai.com/ProfessionalStaff/listingdetails.aspx?id=1276 ).

The declaration can be found in 103-4.pdf at http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287
Quoting:
12. Based on my review to date, there is no indication that the OTS performed a solvency analysis consistent with the test for insolvency specified in the Bankruptcy Code. There is no indication that the OTS assessed the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI). Nor is there an indication that OTS compared the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI) to the total amount of either company’s respective liabilities. There is no indication that the OTS performed a comprehensive cash flow analysis of WMB (or WMI). Instead, the OTS found that “WMB met the well-capitalized standards through the date of receivership.”8 Thus, without a thorough analysis of the assets, liabilities and capital of WMI and WMB, it is not possible to come to a reliable conclusion concerning the financial solvency of either entity, whether on a consolidated or stand-alone basis.

Here is another document that says as of August 14, 2008:
"We propose to decapitalize WMBfsb by returning $20 billion of capital to its parent. The $20 billion will include the master note of approximately $7 billion, proceeds from $3.5 billion of Discount Notes and cash generated through additional wholesale deposits and advances from FHLB Seattle. We propose the payment of at least $10 billion by September 30, 2008 and the remaining $10 billion through December 2009."

"The net balance sheet of WMBfsb will be approximately $34 billion to $36 billion after Project Fillmore. The leverage ratio will decrease to 25% from 62%. A well-capitalized institution requires an 8% or higher leverage ratio."

Read reference page 45 of DOCUMENT 103-1.pdf from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287

Enclosed is a link to the affidavit of Doreen Logan who is the Controller/ Assistant Treasurer of Wamu who states that there was no liquidity problems;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%20Ex.%20D%20to%20Affidavit%20of%20Doreen%20Logan%20%28%201%20/07-3/08%20Account%20Statements%29%20A-46%20...&btnG=Search

Remember, WMBfsb was also taken from the holding company and sold to JMorgan/Chase with all of the other assets for only $1.88bil.....

Please, take some time and read these documents. They are a bit long but well worth the read. Don't you wonder why the main stream media doesn't mention the suppose "failure" of the largest financial institution in America? Wamu was a 100+ year old company.....Here is a link to all documents filed through the BK Court;

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu

Jamie Dimon planted "moles" in Wamu??? JPMorgan committed corporate fraud???

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090501000000000002.pdf

Wamu's claims against JPMorgan/Chase;

http://wmish.com/doc/gov/0603/JPM_V_WMI_-_ANSWER.PDF

Debtors seek the Rule 2004 examination of the following Knowledgeable Parties: "

"The Regulators"
FDIC - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver for WMB and in its corporate
capacity,
OTS - Office of Thrift Supervision
OCC - Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Federal Reserve - Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Treasury Department - U.S. Department of the Treasury
SEC - U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Paulson - former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr

"The Rating Agencies"
Moody's - Moody's Investors Service
S&P - Standard and Poor's Corporation ("S&P")

"The WaMu Suitors"
Banco Santander - Banco Santander, S.A.
Toronto-Dominion - Toronto-Dominion Bank
TD Bank - TD Bank, N.A.
Wells Fargo - Wells Fargo, N.A.

"The Banks"
FHLB-SF - Federal Home Loan Bank-San Francisco
FHLB- Seattle - Federal Home Loan Bank-Seattle
Goldman Sachs - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

"The JPMC Professionals"
PWC - PricewaterhouseCoopers
Equale - Equale & Associates
Holt - Richard F. Holt
Horne - David Horne, LLC

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091214000000000008.pdf

Please read this article;
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/banking-finance/2009/12/07/why-federal-regulators-closed-washington-mutual/index.html

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/12/14/daily18.html

KTS9 Interviews Kirsten Grind "How Washington Mutual Could Have Survived..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HW7JjnoqGo

Radio Interview by David Ross;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx-BNk4QnTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lra79RZztrM

I'm also enclosing another link that quotes Judge Hughes from a case against the FDIC that was wrapped up on August 24, 2005; http://blog.kir.com/archives/2005/08/judge_hughes_ha.asp

"The record shows that the swap was the only reason for this suit. It also shows that the FDIC knew that it had no factual or legal basis for its claims, and that its cases here and in Washington were shams."

As usual, Judge Hughes is acerbic in his opinion regarding the FDIC's conduct, noting in particular that FDIC officials "lied about it all under oath" and they "discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists."

"It's hard to find a word that captures the essence of the FDIC's bringing this action. Irresponsible is close. Arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative, extortionate, and abusive all fit."

Judge Hughes concluded that Hurwitz and Maxxam "will recover their costs because the record reveals corrupt individuals within a corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it, bringing this litigation."

The Biggest Banking Heist in World History: Washington Mutual
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13894

Please read this descriptive complaint that was submitted to the SEC from Apex Venture Advisors
Mike Stathis Managing Principal on October 7, 2008 in regards to the manipulation that occurred;

http://www.avaresearch.com/files/20090930175434.pdf

http://wamuequity.org
http://wamuqd.com
http://www.wamu-shareholders-resources.com/wamued.html
http://www.wamucoup.com
http://wamustory.com

Qué fuerte!! Esto sería un documento de JP Morgan echando mierda al FDIC justificando que lo poco que pagaron (1.9 billones) fue porque el FDIC no hizo sus deberes, ¿no?

En cualquier caso es una buena noticia porque indica que ALGUIEN va a tener que pagar los platos rotos.

¿quién será?

Al hilo de lo de Bonderman la pregunta que nos tendríamos que hacer es:
- ¿en caso de que todo vaya bien y no lo perdamos todo estamos aquí pagar un 1$ este año o ganar 8$ dentro de 5 años? ¿qué haría Bonderman?

Parece increíble, pero hace 9 o 10 meses nos preguntabamos si era negocio comprar en 4 o 5 dólares las preferentes, quizas resulte igual de INCREIBLE preguntaos dentro de algún tiempo como diablos no compramos comunes por menos de 20 centavos...

Yo Tengo Fé.

Dodge

Si, fe no falta, pero en los últimos comentarios se esta insinuando que para recibir el premio gordo cabría la posibilidad de que fuese mas rentable entrar en el macrojuicio de largo plazo y la verdad quizas a Bonderman le de igual esperar 5 años para que le compensen pero yo no me veo posteando aqui todo ese tiempo con nuevas esperanzas de revalorizar las acciones por una indemnización por sentencia, teniendo en consideración que hace bastantes meses postee un comentario aparecido en esas fechas sobre un banco que demandó a un regulador en un juicio por incautación y que después de 18 años estaba pendiente de emitir sentencia imagino que por las apelaciones realizadas.

Sobre el comentario de ayer o anteayer en el que se comentó que no se sabría el nombre de los que formaría el E.C., adjunto el de Chemtura que se oficializó en Acta judicial con los 7 representantes en 29.12.09.

¿Porque va a ser diferente en Wamu?

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911233/0911233091229000000000011.pdf

o el de General Growth

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911977/0911977090908000000000004.pdf