It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by mybigunit
I read what you wrote. And I read every post following that. But if you can, and if you feel moved, please explain why you would say that folks would lose deposits when nothing as such had been reported. You didn't credit your observations to the opinion of newscasters. I understand that it's breaking news, so should you.
Originally posted by dreamsnatcher
Grim, please don't make JPMorgan seem like a hero or some great company. They bought 300 billion in assets for 1.9 billion. Would you give me all your money for .05 on the dollar and think that was a good deal? They are absolutely laying the pipe to everyone of us and we think they care. I hate JPMorgan and will not have an account there no matter how big they are, I'd rather buy money orders at 7-11 than bank at Chase or Bank of America.
My gut feeling is that if they pass the 700B plan JPMorgan will then sell all of the questionable loans to the GOV and pocket 200B from us sheeple. Thats just a guess and since I understand how corrupt these people are and how little they care for us consumers as people any chance they get to take my milk money they will. But hey its just business.
Originally posted by SUNRAY06
I see that JP Morgan is listed as one of the owners of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK..so lets see How does this work..they lend themselves the money and we get to pay for it...MADNESS
[edit on 26-9-2008 by SUNRAY06]
Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by camain
Same thing was going to happen when WaMu went over within the week. Their stocks were plummeting and their status was downgraded from junk bond to an even LOWER junk bond status. They were ready to fail. When they did, JPmorgan would have bought it for an equal or even lesser price.
Also, they didn't completely buy WaMu, just a significant piece. They picked up the banking sector of WaMu and left the FDIC to deal with the lending sector.
Originally posted by dreamsnatcher
reply to post by SUNRAY06
And who is asking for the 700B anyway? My guess FDIC.
The Paulson Plan
Bad News For The Bailout
Brian Wingfield and Josh Zumbrun 09.23.08, 6:39 PM ET
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill seem determined to work together to pass a bill that will get the credit markets churning again. But will they do it this week, as some had hoped just a few days ago? Don't count on it.
"Do I expect to pass something this week?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., mused to reporters Tuesday. "I expect to pass something as soon as we can. I think it's important that we get it done right, not get it done fast."
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says his office has gotten "close to zero" calls in support of the $700 billion plan proposed by the administration. He doubts it'll happen immediately either. "I don't think it has to be a week" he says. "If we do it right, then we need to take as long as it needs."
The more Congress examines the Bush administration's bailout plan, the hazier its outcome gets. At a Senate Banking Committee hearing Tuesday, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained of being rushed to pass legislation or else risk financial meltdown.
"The secretary and the administration need to know that what they have sent to us is not acceptable," says Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn. The committee's top Republican, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, says he's concerned about its cost and whether it will even work.
In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Wow. If it wants to see a bailout bill passed soon, the administration's going to have to come up with some hard answers to hard questions. Public support for it already seems to be waning. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday, 44% of those surveyed oppose the administration's plan, up from 37% Monday.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who testified before the Senate committee Tuesday, will get a chance to fine tune their answers Wednesday afternoon, when they appear before the House Financial Services Committee.
A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says she is optimistic that the House will pass a bill this week. But that doesn't mean the Senate, which is by nature more sluggish than its larger counterpart on the other side of Capitol Hill, will be so quick to act.
"They will act first," says Sen. Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Many of our members today were just beginning to have interaction with Secretary Paulson."
Dodd proposed his own counter-proposal to Paulson's plan earlier this week. Among other things, it calls for limits on executive compensation at troubled firms and for the Treasury to take a contingent equity stake in those firms. On Tuesday, Paulson rebuffed both ideas, as it might discourage firms from participating in the bailout program.
Those things aside, lawmakers have plenty of other concerns with Treasury's proposal. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested the bailout be doled out perhaps $150 billion at a time, instead of $700 billion all at once. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., says it has an initial cost of $2,300 for every man, woman and child in the country. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., calls it a "financial socialism and it's un-American."
Dodd says that in speaking with his Senate colleagues, all are agreed on three issues: that a bailout bill include some oversight accountability for the Treasury, protection for taxpayers and that it address the continuing foreclosure problem.
He also points to one other concern: Paulson, the bill's chief architect, is scheduled to leave office in just four months.
"I'm not about to give a $700 billion appropriation to a secretary I don't know yet," says Dodd.
--Senior writer Liz Moyer contributed to this article.
Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. raised $10 billion in a stock sale to cover writedowns and losses after taking on deposits and branches of Washington Mutual Inc., the biggest U.S. savings and loan, for $1.9 billion.he shares were sold for $40.50, or 6.8 percent less than yesterday's closing price of $43.46. New York-based JPMorgan sold 246.9 million shares, according to a statement today.
JPMorgan, now the largest U.S. bank by deposits, said the capital infusion would offset an estimated $8 billion of credit provisions, writedowns and losses in the third quarter. The WaMu acquisition will force JPMorgan to set aside an additional $2 billion to cover bad loans on the failed thrift's books. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said the deal would boost earnings per share by 50 cents in 2009.
JPMorgan is adding $176 billion in mortgage-related assets and will write down the value of those securities and other portfolios by $31 billion, the company said. The bank will pay $1.9 billion to the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as part of the deal. The bank said it may sell another 37 million shares to cover excess demand.
Originally posted by sos37
As of 1:29 p.m. CST the Dow was UP 30 points, not down. In fact, it has not been down anywhere close to what was predicted (300 to 400 points I believe on the 2nd page). And a deal on the bailout still has not been reached.
reply to post by jackinthebox
And is it not true that there are only five countries left in the world that do not have a Rothschild dominated central bank? Iran, North Korea (where is Kim?), Cuba, Libya, and Sudan.
TextThere is validity to your point for sure. When you look at all of the financial crisis over the past 100 years theres always a power grab the big taking out the small. I totally agree. Heres one thing though and that is Lehman had a part of the FED and it went under. This is my only flaw in your theory. Jp Morgan is a FED bank and so is Citi and yes they are still going strong B of A though Im not sure if they are a FED bank or not.
Well it was JP Morgan who started rumors to start the panic of 1907 which led to the creation of the FED. The FED since then has really done the opposite of its intention since then. They CAUSE these problems though credit extensions and retractions leaving not enough money in the supply to pay all the debt with interest. Complicated and I dont feel like explaining it no offense.