It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Washington Mutual sues FDIC for over $13 billion

page: 2
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I suppose I've never heard anyone mention what I'm going to say next:

What if those that authored and administered the financially engineering collapsing of the world's economies and currencies.....were also the same ones that benefitted in the end with advance knowledge of all 'events' put in place by all the very people they put in office to 'administer' it?

If I was a Trillionare, and crooked, first I'd have to hide that dough I created at leasure in Holding Corporations, Trusts, Hard Assets such as gold, silver, diamonds, oil, land and other commodities. I would then have to hide it offshore or in sovereign city states answerable to no govt. I smartly created to conceal my transactions and unimagined 'financial' wealth. I suppose having too much currency floating around would be expensive for me since I know that every time I create more currency, I create more debt inherently creating inflation. I'd rather own and control the 'natural resources' of the world and pay for it with that colorful paper I create which is nothing more than paper to me.

When I crash the worlds currencies, I'll just grab what's remaining of the worlds natural resources. I'll have no competition since I've indebted all the nations of the world with my IMF, WORLD BANK, Bank for International Settlements, Central banks and depositories of the world....bah humbug....I own the game.....I declare myself king of the world....silly humans always sell out their fellow man for fame fortune or blackmail if necessary.

I suppose they deserve their demise since they were 'agent' to it. I didn't force their hand. I didn't choose their leader....I gave them two choices...."Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." Father knows best I guess...everyone either bows or cowers to me so I suppose it's good to be king? I don't feel like a king. I'm truely unworthy to inherit the crown of corruption. Can't get no satisfaction, maybe another false flag op is in order here. I don't love myself, no one loves me or let alone knows me since I've been imprisoned by guards my whole life, I'm a stranger unto myself I suppose. All this negative energy makes me want to act out in anger and destroy my fellow man. How can I respect others when I don't respect myself? How can I love another when I've never learned to love myself or even explore who "I" am as an 'individual'.

_____________________________________________________________
So the drama goes on and the people are beginning to see their true reflections in the mirror. Their sounding off though no one seems to care. They weren't aware they never had representation...only interpretation from the very medias their masters manipulate.

We all have a choice. Freedom is not free. Right to Revolution and Power resides with the people, not their authority figures of whom do not work for their constituents.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were a great start....too bad it was overturned by the Statutory interpretation of law authored by those same 'authorities'.

One can only enslave the 'other' if the other consents their will to the One, or through fear or lack of knowledge of being enslaved at all.

Which is it now? You still have a choice to claim your independence and sovereignty. No human has a 'right' to take that from you unless you grant it. Why do you grant your will to anothers cause? Does it serve you, make you whole? People don't seem very happy these days. Perhaps they've lost sight of themselves and each other. Divided and Conquered? Too whom's agenda and to what purpose?

Are you to be 'handled' by the 'design' of another? Look deep inside for those answers. Intuition does wonders for the soul of man. If something doesn't make sense, it was not 'designed' to and therefor is an enemy of 'truth'; the very substance of knowledge and wisdom.




[edit on 22-3-2009 by Perseus Apex]




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
TOXIC ASSETS?


That term always gets me. TOXIC ASSETS. That's such a contradiction.
That's wordsmithing. I wonder who came up with that phrase.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Toxic assets are illiquid assets, in other words assets that are almost impossible to collect. Why do you not understand


Equity=liabilities+assets



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



assets Look up assets at Dictionary.com 1531, from Anglo-Fr. asetz (singular), from O.Fr. assez "enough," from V.L. *ad satis "to sufficiency," from L. ad- "to" + satis "enough." Beginning as a legal term, "sufficient estate" (to satisfy debts and legacies), it passed into general use; meaning "any property that theoretically can be converted to ready money" is from 1583. Asset is a 19c. artificial singular.


www.etymonline.com...

Etymology is a favorite hobby of mine!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 


Nice lecture!


Are you a *controller* or one of the people fed up with society?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perseus Apex

What if those that authored and administered the financially engineering collapsing of the world's economies and currencies.....were also the same ones that benefitted in the end with advance knowledge of all 'events' put in place by all the very people they put in office to 'administer' it?


I have to wonder if this is actually engineered at all. Is this whole mess a conspiracy of evil genius? Or aspect of human nature that happened to work in concert? After all, we all breathe, but it is difficult to say that we all conspire to breathe. Something that happens in concert need not be organized. Like riots. Like herds of wildebeest fleeing lions. They dont sit down and work out the details ahead of time, and yet the whole thing looks rather orchestrated as it is playing out.

The human mind is predisposed to see meaning, even when there is none. Purpose in the random. To recognize faces, and put a human element into things that are clearly not related. Like the pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich that we interpret as the Virgin Mary. Or Jesus on a piece of toast.

< br />
It really isnt so different from what you are saying, that there is something in human nature that allows these situations to play out the same way, over and over again in history.

The only thing I am suggesting that is different is that we should consider that there is no genius at play here, evil or otherwise. Only a tragic flaw in human nature that time and time again leads us to situations where the distribution of wealth becomes incredibly unequal, and once this inequality becomes great enough, those with wealth rig the system to suit their own ends. Not conspiratorially, they are working against each other as well as against the mass of humanity, but because those who get to that level of the game naturally share a mindset of the kind of rules the game must make into law to provide them a better chance to maintain their elevated position.

And perhaps the reason it all collapses is also due to human nature. A different element of it. The facet of human nature that makes us incredibly poor at seeing and acting in accordance with our long term best interests rather than prioritizing our short run benefit. If these supposed geniuses could see longer term, and plan that way, and act in coordination, they would see that this huge imbalance of resources always results in a collapse of the system. Our natural economic model is pyramid shaped, with the mass of humanity at the bottom forming a broad and solid base. Extract too much from the bottom and shift it to the top and the whole mess comes down around you.

A conspiracy of genius would make certain that there were limits to how much was extracted. Never taking more than the bottom could spare for stability's sake, but never allowing enough accumulation of wealth at the bottom for upward movement that might dislodge those at the apex. Thats not what we see. We see mad rushes to shift resources upward, and equally mad collapses. Ending in either revolution or economic collapse. I see no genius here. I see only human nature, with no strategy past the grabbing of resources and hording them as quickly as one can.

The fact that there will be those who benefit from this is not evidence that they planned it. There are those who would seek benefit in any human tragedy. They are just opportunists. If not those particular people, there would be others to fill their shoes. It was certain that there would be winners in this crisis. Because there always are in situations like this. Opportunism is another one of humanities greatest strengths, and sometimes tragic failings.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I understand that. I, as most people of my gneration learned in high school, that equity = liability + assets. It's just the phrase toxic assets. It's funny together. It just doesn't feel like it belongs.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Good point. The CEO’s want one last golden parachute! Their debts have been wiped away. Assets all bought by JPMorgan Chase..



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


That is a very good point. The shareholders are not blaming the CEO's they hired that ran their company, their investment, into the ground. Those CEO's that engaged in the risky lending. Those CEO's that rejected a deal to sell the company at $8 dollars a share in March of 2008. Those CEO's that walked away rich while the company collapsed behind them.

en.wikipedia.org...


WaMu pressed sales agents to pump out loans while disregarding borrowers’ incomes and assets. WaMu set up a system of dubious legality that enabled real estate agents to collect fees of more than $10,000 for bringing in borrowers, sometimes making the agents more beholden to WaMu than they were to their clients. Variable-rate loans — Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages (Option ARMs) in particular — were especially attractive because they carried higher fees than other loans, and allowed WaMu to book profits on interest payments that borrowers deferred. As WaMu was selling many of its loans to investors, it did not worry about defaults.[6][18]



In March 2008, on the same weekend that JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon negotiated the takeover of Bear Stearns, he secretly dispatched members of his team to Seattle to meet with WaMu executives, urging them to consider a quick deal. However, WaMu Chairman and CEO Kerry Killinger rejected JPMorgan Chase's offer that valued WaMu at $8 a share, mostly in stock.[6][18]



Chief executive Alan H. Fishman was flying from New York to Seattle on the day the bank was closed, and eventually received a $7.5 million sign-on bonus and cash severance of $11.6 million after being CEO for 17 days.[27]


The former CEO, Kerry Killinger, was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors before stepping down in April of 2008. It is hard to argue that anyone holds more responsibility for the collapse of this company than he did, and the way American courts interpret law regarding the fiduciary duty a director or officer owes the company makes it a better option for the shareholders to sue the FDIC rather than the ones who are actually responsible for the collapse of WaMu.

www.abanet.org...


Courts are divided on the issue of the scope of directors’ fiduciary duties once a corporation becomes insolvent or enters the vicinity of insolvency. Some courts appear to hold that directors of insolvent corporations no longer have duties to shareholders, see, e.g., FDIC v. Sea Pines Co., 692 F.2d 973, 77 (4th Cir. 1982) (when a corporation becomes insolvent, or in a failing condition, the officers and directors no longer represent the stockholders, but become trustees for the creditors), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 (1983), while other courts, including Delaware, have held that at or near insolvency, irectors’ duties are owed to the corporate enterprise, including both hareholders and creditors, and a board may consider impacts on all orporate constituencies. See, e.g., Equity-Linked Investors, L.P. v. Adams, 705 A.2d 1040 (Del. Ch. 1997).11


Emphasis mine.

The shareholders also reelected the Directors not long before the collapse, further weakening any argument they might make that the Directors or Officers of WaMu had acted irresponsibly or without their consent and approval.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Despite sharp rebukes from shareholders during a question-and-answer session, Washington Mutual's board of directors was reelected, according to a preliminary vote count announced during the meeting.

Killinger, however, announced at the beginning of the meeting that Mary E. Pugh, chair of the finance committee, had resigned from the board.

A shareholder initiative calling for the chairman and chief executive of Washington Mutual to be different people also appeared to be passing, according to Killinger, who holds both jobs. But during a conference call after the meeting, he called the resolution advisory, not mandatory.


They really didnt have anywhere else to sue if they wanted to recoup some of their losses besides the FDIC. So the fact that they ARE suing is no big surprise, and the fact that they are suing the FDIC should surprise no one. There really isnt anyone else to blame other than themselves. And no one sues themselves.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I will be very curious how much JP Morgan manages to "sell" it's WAMU acquisitions for. How much to you want to bet they make 10 times their money back with the "toxic assets" being sold to the government for far more than JPM paid for them.

I for one won't be shocked. There's a reason they bought them up so quick.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes, but selling at a profit is no proof by itself that they orchestrated its collapse.

They bought it so quickly in part because they had already offered to buy it at a much higher price in March. At the time they did buy it, it was the same product available at a much lower price. If you were trying to buy a house in March and made an offer on it, and it was rejected, and then in September that same house became available for much, much less, you would probably snap it right up too if you still were in the market for a house.

The game has also changed since the purchase. Bailout money is available, and the economy is being stimulated and both factors reduce the risk of JPMorgan going under somewhat. So, they can afford to hold onto those assets until the market turns around, or offload the portions of it that are most "toxic" and hold onto those that are likely to increase in value over time.

You would not expect JPMorgan to lose money on the deal. Not when they bought it at a distress sale price. Nor to break even. You would expect that they bought it intending to ride out the crisis and sell when it was more valuable. Thats what every investor intends. Buy a house now at a very low price, and then hold onto it until the housing market turns around and it is worth more than you paid for it.

Being an opportunist is very different from manipulating the market. One is legal the other isnt. If the WaMu stockholders can show that JPMorgan somehow was involved in helping the FDIC to seize the bank, they have a case. Or if they can show that JPMorgan somehow manipulated the market and drove down their stock price and made them collapse that would be a different story. But if they cant show that, they are just like any other entity that gets itself in over its head and has its assets sold to opportunistic investors at a deep discount.

Again, I think that is why they are going after the FDIC. There seems to be more legal ground to stand on by arguing that the seizure was premature. Their argument that the FDIC panicked and seized it too soon because the FDIC was terrified of having its fund drained by its failure is one they may be able to convince a court to accept after the fact, when massive bank failures did not happen, and the FDIC did not collapse under the weight of all the claims. It may end up being a case of the FDIC preventing a disaster that would have proved they were doing the right thing. Or, it might be a case of the FDIC overreacting. I tend to think that it is a little bit of both. The panic in the market was real, and it wasnt only the FDIC that was acting out of fear. And the swift response by the government probably did stave off a sudden crash and massive bank failures.

The more I read about WaMu, the more I feel it would be more of an injustice to reward their horrible judgment and unethical behavior with a settlement. Even if the FDIC did seize them a tad prematurely. This is not some innocent bank caught in the cross fire. This is a criminal who was shot by law enforcement after committing a crime, and we are arguing over whether or not the cop should have used a taser or a gun. Not whether the "victim" was a criminal or an innocent bystander. Sometimes a freaked out cop pulls his gun instead of the taser. Thats the chance you take when you commit a crime. Thats what the court is going to have to decide. Was that drawing of the gun reasonable or not.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Yes, I totally agree, the funny an ironic part is the FDIC is going broke and needs more money to rescue other failing banks .

I expect a lot more bank failures before the end of the year.

If all banks went under today the FDIC does not have the money to protect us. What then?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld

If all banks went under today the FDIC does not have the money to protect us. What then?


Good question. The FDIC has insured an approximate $4.42 trillion dollars. It has on hand around $45.2 billion. Enough to cover 1.01 percent of its exposure.

en.wikipedia.org...


The failure was initially projected by the FDIC to cost the DIF between $4 billion and $8 billion[19], but shortly thereafter the FDIC revised its estimate upward to $8.9 billion. Due to the failures of IndyMac and other banks, the DIF fell in the second quarter of 2008 to $45.2 billion.[20]. The decline in the insurance fund's balance[21] caused the reserve ratio (fund's balance divided by the insured deposits) to fall to 1.01 percent as at 30 June 2008, down from 1.19 percent in the prior quarter.


They do have the "full faith and credit" of the US government. (from the same Wikipedia article used above)


In light of apparent systemic risks facing the banking system, the adequacy of FDIC's financial backing has come into question. Beyond the funds in the Deposit Insurance Fund above and the FDIC's power to charge insurance premia, FDIC insurance is additionally assured by the Federal government. According to the FDIC.gov website (as of January 2009), "FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government". This means that the resources of the United States government stand behind FDIC-insured depositors."[22] The statutory basis for this claim is less than clear. Congress, in 1987, passed a non-binding resolution to this effect [23], but there appear to be no laws strictly binding the government to make good on any insurance liabilities unmet by the FDIC.


But with no laws requiring the government to make good on that claim, you have to sort of wonder what would actually happen. It does help make sense of why giving out so much money in bailouts may seem the better option to the US government. They could have stood to lose a whole lot more if the banks had failed and they had honored the claim the FDIC makes.

I think we all secretly know that if it ever came to it, it is highly unlikely the government COULD meet that obligation in a meaningful way. Even if they just fired up the presses, and gave you the amount, what would that money be worth in terms of purchasing power? I think we all secretly know or suspect that if it came to that kind of situation, you might as well just kiss your money goodbye.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Holy crap!!! 13 billion?!! Oh, wait, in this current environment of a trillion or more in promises, this ain't quite so bad. eh? Heh. Seriously though, I can't even imagine 13 billion. Maybe I could wrap my head around 13 million, but not sure.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join