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 JacKatMtn
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by wonderworld
If all banks went under today the FDIC does not have the money to protect us. What then?
The failure was initially projected by the FDIC to cost the DIF between $4 billion and $8 billion, 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.. The decline in the insurance fund's balance 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.
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." The statutory basis for this claim is less than clear. Congress, in 1987, passed a non-binding resolution to this effect , but there appear to be no laws strictly binding the government to make good on any insurance liabilities unmet by the FDIC.