JPMorgan Buys Failed WaMu Assets for $1.9 Billion

Originally posted by Mainer

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.

This should make you more nervous. Either persons on Wall Street are getting fed insider information that we do not have. Or the market is behaving completely irrationally. By all logic and understanding the markets should have been tanking today, futures pointed to it, common sense pointed to it. The Nations largest bank failure occurred just before this trading session. The capital markets are completely dry.

The market is either being manipulated or has lost all grounding. Either is a bad thing.

Nope, doesn't make me nervous at all. In fact, I'm glad that investors for once aren't panicking like Chicken Little, running around screaming the sky is falling like some of the members of ATS do.

The Dow closed UP 121 points largely on investor hopes that an agreement would be reached this weekend with the bailout package.

articles.moneycentral.msn.com...

Now you might be right about Wall Street being privvy to more information than what we have, but I think it's more along the lines of they know that both Democrat and Republican parties are finally working together for once at trying to save the economy, and they have faith that something positive will happen. And I applaud them for that.

The only thing I'm really disappointed with is that it took the near-collapse of our entire financial system before our lawmakers could stop their petty bickering and start working together for once.

reply to post by seabisquit

TextMorgan is an elitist and the next big thing will be a bank "holiday" and when they reopen you own pennies on the dollar. A banker on Noory last night claimed that JPMChase holds $90 Trillion in bad derivitives with only $100 B in assets, so do the math.

JPMChase is owned by who the controlling shareholders are.
Is no one out there figured out just how they conceal their ownership?

I'll explain below:

Exhibit 1:
Lets look at JPMorgan ownership as stated on Yahoo Finance. They only publish a fraction of the true ownership of JPMorgans shares.

finance.yahoo.com...

As seen above:
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 71%

Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 157,667,999 4.59 $5,409,589,045 30-Jun-08
AXA 140,498,887 4.09 $4,820,516,812 30-Jun-08
STATE STREET CORPORATION 131,086,954 3.81 $4,497,593,391 30-Jun-08
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 107,840,912 3.14 $3,700,021,690 30-Jun-08
FMR LLC 97,127,149 2.83 $3,332,432,482 30-Jun-08
DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS, LP 74,560,855 2.17 $2,558,182,935 30-Jun-08
MORGAN STANLEY 55,908,016 1.63 $1,918,204,028 30-Jun-08
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 54,224,873 1.58 $1,860,455,392 30-Jun-08
Capital Research Global Investors 51,293,900 1.49 $1,759,893,709 30-Jun-08
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION 42,740,560 1.24 $1,466,428,613 30-Jun-08

The institutions above are controlled by Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg etc. yet they are only disclosing a small fraction of their TRUE ownership.

WHO OWNS THE REST?
Only 34% of the stocks ownership is disclosed publicly.
Add up the total percentages of ownership listed in the above link.
Where is the 'disclosure' of who owns the other 64% of stock in JPMorgan.
Its the same international banksters that own the remaining 64% of shares!!

They don't want you to know this.

Do you really have to ask why?

The guys own and manipulate the worlds entire financial system.

reply to post by mybigunit


please, dont spread fasle information. WAMU deposits were bought by JPMorgan...meaning no deposits are affected, below or above 100,000.

No FDIC intervention to cover anything.


To all WAMU depositors this is nothing but a bank change name..

now, for people holding WAMU stocks, they are wiped out...

WASHINGTON: The CEO of failed Washington Mutual Inc., on the job only a few weeks before the largest U.S. thrift was seized by the government and sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co., is entitled to more than $13 million in severance and bonus pay. Alan H. Fishman signed an agreement that provides around $6 million in cash severance and retention of his signing bonus of $7.5 million if he were to leave his job, according to a company filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

www.iht.com...

The guy works there for less than a month, the bank goes under and he goes out the door with more than twenty million dollars!






[edit on 26-9-2008 by skyshow]

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Alright, you can keep responding to my posts, but as you have made it abundantly clear, you do not understand what you are talking about in this thread. So this is the last post I am going to be responding to you with in this thread. Good luck to you.

Originally posted by SUNRAY06
www.save-a-patriot.org...

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]

Here's how it all works but it takes a quick history lesson:

Who killed Lincoln? Kennedy?

Focusing on the US, there have been 3 central banks owned by the Rothschilds.

The first was called "Bank of the United States" and was completely controlled by the Rothschilds, this bank's charter was defeated by President Andrew Jackson in 1832.

President Jackson was so celebrated for this achievement that on his tombstone is engraved the words:

"I killed the bank"

The second central bank was again named "Bank of the United States" and was chartered during President Buchanan’s presidency as he was a southern state supporter.

The southern states seceded as their cotton crop was intimately tied to England’s cotton industry and thus was the gateway for the Rothschild’s to assert their influence over America.

Shortly thereafter, to the Rothschild’s disdain, Abraham Lincoln was elected president. He needed funding for the war between the north and south and approached the "Bank of the United States" for a loan.

The bank offer d their loans to President Lincoln…at 24% to 35% interest, making it impossible for him to repay or borrow for that matter.


So Lincoln authorized and printed constitutionally authorized interest free money and ordered it to be considered as legal tender. Over $400,000,000.00 of this currency was issued.

Lincoln was successful in ending the charter of the "Bank of the United States" with the help of Russian Czar Alexander the second, whom was at the time the only other major country to resist the Rothschild’s banking influence. He believed in defeating their efforts so much that he sent some of his warships to dock in New York’s harbor and stated any attack by the south would result in his country fighting for the North of the United States.


Shortly thereafter, Mr. Booth killed Mr. Lincoln.


Fast forward to 1913

President Woodrow Wilson enacted the Federal Reserve Banking act, establishing the current version of the Rothschild’s international banking controlled empire.

(If you need any more proof of Wilsons connection to the Rothschild’s, why not see who is the most recent dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of public and international affairs: wws.princeton.edu...)


Fast forward to June 4th 1963,

President John F. Kennedy signed presidential Executive order 11110 which was designed to strip the Federal Reserve of its power to loan money to the United States Government with interest.

Over $4 Billion in $2 and $5 denomination notes were put into circulation from the now newly authorized power given to the US Treasury department whom was issuing these notes backed by US Silver. The notes almost looked like the Federal Reserve (Rothschild) notes, but the Fed note says “Federal Reserve Note” and the US note says “United States Note” (And we’re nicknamed Kennedy bills). The Federal Reserve note has a green seal and serial number and the US notes had red seals and red serial numbers.


Just 5 months later, President Kennedy is assassinated (November 22, 1963)


The first action as newly sworn in President Lyndon B. Johnson was the removal of Kennedy notes from circulation and the vetoing of executive order 11110.


TODAY

Having their power increased century by century, the Rothschild Empire which includes such intermarried families as the Rockefellers, Warburgs etc… have maintained complete control over the international political and financial scene.

The current financial crisis is a carefully engineered scheme to consolidate into a more easily controllable conglomerate the varied financial institutions under one “roof”


JP Morgan (a Rothschild bank) is acquiring Washington Mutual among other banks….


Goldman Sachs…well: Helen Sachs (Grandaughter of Goldman Sachs co-founder Joseph Sachs) married Nathan Straus Jr. (Grandson of Lazarus Straus who headed R.H. Macy & Co.)...Nathan Straus Jr.'s first cousin (also grandson of Lazarus Straus) Roger William Straus Married Gladys Guggenheim (Grandson of Meyer Guggenheim)...Meyer Guggenheim's daughter is Cora Guggenheim.Cora Guggenheim married Louis F. Rothschild...

So you have the Rothschild-Guggenheim-Straus-Sachs connection.



You see…we are but mere pawns in a game that was started before our great grandfather’s time.


There is no “control” by any government but that which is allowed by those that control the money.


The golden rule: He who controls the gold makes the rules.


To quote Mayer Rothschild: “Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”


To quote his wife Gutle Rothschild: “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none”




Thanks for reading....

reply to post by burth179


You seem like you honestly are interested in how this stuff works, so I suggest that you not read about it on this site. Read books on the subject, take a listen to what the market is saying (JPmorgan is up to 48 dollars a share today), or look at what the experts are saying.

www.nytimes.com...

A great article to get a REALISTIC and applicable understanding of why JPmorgan knows this situation is a win for them.

Some analysts do say this isn't a great deal for the short term, and to an extent they are right. Fortunately, business isn't about planning for the next year, its about planning down the road.

This deal will almost definately be a benefit to the company. JPmorgan, unlike many companies, aren't raising capital to fill up holes on their book, but expanding and letting the company grow. Dimon knows a rule of the world, "nothing ventured, nothing earned." Most companies are on the defense right now, but not JPmorgan, and thats why when this all blows over, JPmorgan will be THEE stock to have on your portfolio.

Banks like Wachovia and such face possible extinction, but JPmorgan will almost certainly ride this crisis out.

Originally posted by grimreaper797


Some analysts do say this isn't a great deal for the short term, and to an extent they are right. Fortunately, business isn't about planning for the next year, its about planning down the road.

This deal will almost definately be a benefit to the company. JPmorgan, unlike many companies, aren't raising capital to fill up holes on their book, but expanding and letting the company grow. Dimon knows a rule of the world, "nothing ventured, nothing earned." Most companies are on the defense right now, but not JPmorgan, and thats why when this all blows over, JPmorgan will be THEE stock to have on your portfolio.

Banks like Wachovia and such face possible extinction, but JPmorgan will almost certainly ride this crisis out.

It's nice to see some folks understand the real reasons behind this engineered "crisis".

JP Morgan is not in "survival" mode any more than the Federal Reserve is in debt to anyone...lol

Your right this is a long term consolidation and control move by the family owned banking empires, doing what any ultra powerful entity would do and thats anything to maintain and strengthen their power.

To quote Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's chief executive: "We're in favour of what the government is doing, but we're not relying on what the government is doing. We would've done it anyway".

Sure they would of.....as if the government would have been able to stop them....lol.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by DisabledVet]

reply to post by DisabledVet


Its quite simple. Either A. these banks were run by CEO's who decided to get rich quick or B. they were run by idiots and a couple banks knew this would happen and now will try to almost completely monopolize the banking market if they can.

I personally think its a combination of both a and b. The greedy get rich, and a few monopolize the market to the best degree that they can.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by DisabledVet

 

Its quite simple. Either A. these banks were run by CEO's who decided to get rich quick or B. they were run by idiots and a couple banks knew this would happen and now will try to almost completely monopolize the banking market if they can.

I personally think its a combination of both a and b. The greedy get rich, and a few monopolize the market to the best degree that they can.

It's sad that I could even get away with this comment, but given the current state of the world: Would you expect anything less from these CEO's?

Rare...well sadly almost non existent is the truly honorable man in a position of power or authority who governs with honesty, compassion and integrity.

while we expose the crooked crooks for who they are, and point out the folly...don't you folks go and give out any stars now. Did anyone see my last post? Have you folks forgotten to add a star when you read something of significance?

Or is $20,000,000.00 of no signifacance anymore?

For anyone that was at ALL familiar with Washington Mutual, this does NOT come as a surprise.

They bought out much larger (but more conservative) Savings and Loans, in order to become the worlds largest. We had banked at one of those for years, when "Wa-MU" took them over (running up millions in debt of course).

Literally every time my wife or myself would go into our local branch, they would try to talk us into a new mortgage on our property. They kept saying things like, "We can give you 100% of the value, with no income statements" and silly things like that.

I personally knew a man who had been unemployed for 5 months that re-financed his home with Wa-MU for $520,00. He had no possible way of paying that loan back. No responsible lending organization would have even considered making a loan to someone like that. And this was at the height of the California Real Estate bubble.

My wife and I chose to sell our vastly inflated in value home for $536,000 (we had purchased it for $160,000 in 1989), and took the cash and bought several acres with a 3,500 sq. ft. brand new home in Kentucky. This cost us $224,000, and the rest of the money went into conservative investments.

Needless to say, we did not purchase any Wa-Mu stock!

Originally posted by OldMedic
For anyone that was at ALL familiar with Washington Mutual, this does NOT come as a surprise.

They bought out much larger (but more conservative) Savings and Loans, in order to become the worlds largest. We had banked at one of those for years, when "Wa-MU" took them over (running up millions in debt of course).

Right, and WAMU became the largest holder of deposits in the US....

Now owned by JP Morgan (Rothschild families empire) and now combined they are the largest holder of US citizens deposits.

It just reeks of engineering.

I wish I had a wrnch big enough to toss into their gears...

I only read through page 1, so please forgive me if this has been posted.

Someone asked what will happen to WaMu account holders, and if they will close, etc. Instead of speculation, how about visiting their website?

www.chase.com...

The branches will remain open, all accounts are safe - future work will be started to change over Wamu accounts to Chase accounts.

reply to post by DisabledVet


LOoks like congress had a wrench big enough to throw in it today Dow down 777 points JPMorgan lost 17% of there value today and so it starts! Still think it was a good idea Grim that JPMorgan took on WAMU?

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Yeah, but your limited short sighted view point into the market is essenital why you prove you do not know the first thing about how the market works.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Also, its still 6 dollars a share up from when I said to buy it the wednesday after lehman brothers collapsed, so yeah, I would say JPmorgan was still a pretty good buy.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Any bank is a good buy, if you can predict which ones will survive..

Morgan and BoA are the safest bets, if they fail we as a country fail.. and I think our Gov would sooner end the Republic before that happened..

Some banks, like National City are doomed, some like Citi if they don't get some kind of capital infusion are doomed, and many investment banks are still teetering, not to mention the horrific scene of international banks like Royal Bank of Scotland which will soon have to be bailed or nationalized, Banco has issues, and another EU bank was nationalized (how it can be nationalized into a fictitious entity I don't know.. essentially the dutch and swiss will own majority shares?)

Anyways, it's a damn good thing Chase took WaMu, and Citi took Wachovia, because the FDIC didn't have enough to insure the accounts.....

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Any bank is a good buy, if you can predict which ones will survive..

Given JPmorgans numbers and such, they are looking more solid than just about any of the banks right now.

Morgan and BoA are the safest bets, if they fail we as a country fail.. and I think our Gov would sooner end the Republic before that happened..

I personally am not putting too much faith in Morgan Stanley. Bank of America, yeah, I can understand that. I don't think they will go.

Some banks, like National City are doomed, some like Citi if they don't get some kind of capital infusion are doomed, and many investment banks are still teetering, not to mention the horrific scene of international banks like Royal Bank of Scotland which will soon have to be bailed or nationalized, Banco has issues, and another EU bank was nationalized (how it can be nationalized into a fictitious entity I don't know.. essentially the dutch and swiss will own majority shares?)

Anyways, it's a damn good thing Chase took WaMu, and Citi took Wachovia, because the FDIC didn't have enough to insure the accounts.....

It is good for JPmorgan that they took the banking from WaMU. I cannot say the same for citi. They don't have the numbers to justify the acquisition of Wachovia's banking and I put my bets on Citi going under and causing a huge crisis, should this bailout bill not go through in the next month or two.

Citigroup could be looking at a potential disaster. JPmorgan acquired WaMu because they could afford to have those assets without the bailout. Citigroup acquired wachovia with idea that the bailout was going to pass. It hasn't and now I'm not sure how citigroup will survive if something doesn't change.

JPmorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, nor Morgan Stanley can afford to buy Citigroup if it does end up going belly up. The FDIC will have to cover all the assets of Wachovia that Citigroup acquired THEN Citigroups accounts, simultaneously. That is a dangerou situation.