Washington Mutual Inc. (WM)

All Comments on WM

  • commenter
    hunter
    Oct 05 09:01 AM
    Who Is Now Number One in the Banking Industry? [view article]
    The best thing for the banking public may be for Wachovia to remain independent. If Wachovia is bought competition will lessen and that will be bad for the consumer. I too hope Wachovia will take advantage of the rescue bill and the relaxation of mark to market accounting rules. Wachvovia has a very profitable retail bank and their customer satisfaction reviews are among the highest in the industry. With the rescue package passed Wachovia can overcome its mtg woes and earn itself out of this mess. If Wachovia employees truly care about their company they should do what airline industry employees have done and take pay cuts to ensure their future. Wachovia's Sr MGRs should take the lead in salary cuts and take back ownership and make their company great again. Reply
  • commenter
    DING-EE
    Oct 05 07:14 AM
    My Website
    Who Is Now Number One in the Banking Industry? [view article]
    In section 101,the very last subsection it is written
    (e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT.—In making
    purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary
    shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent
    unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in
    a program established under this section, including by
    preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at
    a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the
    asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets
    acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of as
    sets from a financial institution in conservatorship or
    receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings
    under title 11, United States Code.
    Let the "unjust enrichment" begin.
    sincerely,X     Reply
  • commenter
    Ishortyou
    Oct 04 08:45 PM
    Who Is Now Number One in the Banking Industry? [view article]
    Now that the 'bail out' plan came through, Wachovia needs fast to take advantage of it, it needs to sell its toxic loan portafolio from its banking subsidiaries around 122 billion if not more to the government close to even cost prices and take serious advantage of the tax break plan and remediate their banking book of business. They also need to contact their customers that did the run on the bank like chickens without head to bring their deposits back and reassure them that they are ok and there is not reason to panic because of the talking heads of FOX news and rest of media and the incompetence of the FDIC. This strategy will demonstrate to the public that the current 'bail out' plan is working and that Wachovia is the first product of it. Reply
  • commenter
    dixie
    Oct 04 07:32 PM
    Who Is Now Number One in the Banking Industry? [view article]
    JPM will earn goodwill when they decide to make Washington Mutual's shareholders part of the, "family."

    There is a belief in the market Chase "stole", WM's assets with the assistance of the FDIC in order to painlessly bolster their own capital position.     Reply
  • commenter
    Anthony M.
    Freed
    Oct 04 01:37 AM
    My Website
    Was WaMu Worth It? [view article]
    You are right - I was not clear. Don't worry, my wife gave me crap for it. Anyway, i had already submitted it without the option to edit - as I did in the post on my site - so here it is:

    "The rapidly evaporating market value of WaMu's assets left over after JP Morgans cherry-picking is indicative of the biggest problem the nation faces in deciding how best to deal with the mortgage backed securities (MBS) and other toxic instruments that are pulling world markets into recession: How much is this stuff worth?"

    First of all, WaMu's assets could be worth less than originally disclosed based on the lack of quality displayed by the assets held in bankruptcy. In the terms of the deal with JPMorgan, as "negotiated" by the FDIC in what has been purported to be an illegal action by the government in favor of JP Morgan, the same set of assumptions were applied to all of the assets when determining their value."

    "That means JP Morgan, who already anticipates the writedown of tens of billions from WaMu alone, can safely expect WaMu will provide them with tens of billions more as we enter this new age of "preemptive" bank failures."

    Hope that clarifies it for you. Thanks...
    Reply
  • commenter
    nyka
    Oct 03 08:00 PM
    My Website
    Triple B Coming to NYC: The Effects of Recent Bank Consolidations [view article]
    This article fails to pass the "Who cares?" test. Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 07:41 PM
    Was WaMu Worth It? [view article]
    Either the author is confused or I am. What do the holding company assets (not taken over by the FDIC) have to do with the subsidiary bank assets taken over by the FDIC and gifted to JPM? Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 07:27 PM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    "Now, this is an amazingly bad deal for the US taxpayer. Especially since the US obviously could have gotten a much better one."

    Very good! You got this one. Following on the WM deal you would think the people at FDIC could remember the deal they did a week before wiping out the bondholders.

    Of course, I also think the Chairman of the FDIC has been so bad people would be able to get her name right. Its Sheila Bair, not Blair. Lets make sure we get rid of the right person.     Reply
  • commenter
    carey_jim
    Oct 03 12:29 PM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    Some people call this gangster capitalism. Whatever you call it, it's been going on from the beginning.

    It would be surprising if it was not percolating along as usual now also.     Reply
  • commenter
    swaps
    Oct 03 10:40 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    Wachovia, WAMU were like large beached whales caught in the outgoing tide.

    So bigger whales farther out in the deeper water are taking over their fallen brothers (or sisters, Diane).

    But what is the point of creating ever bigger whales, any one of which has the expanded capacity to do even greater harm than the smaller ones they absorbed?

    Let's change metaphors now and call these bigger whales in the deeper water ships. How long can these ships continue to take on water before they sink too?

    As I have said before, one of the major trends causing the financial calamity - other than fraud and unbridaled greed- is that the investment-bank led destruction of jobs through foreign outsourcing, combined with deliberately open borders to bring in cheap foreign labor, has caused wage stagflation.

    But the usury system requires ever inflating wages so that borrowers can keep up with usury payments. Otherwise, the lenders would eventually soak up all the money. That is the role of the "inflation fighting Fed": to continually inflate money supply. It has done so admirably, driving the value of a dollar down to a nickle since 1913. (Don't argue that government causes inflation because it could not do so unless the privately-owned Fed accomodates guvmint and prints the money that the government then borrows, agreeing to pay back interest. Ralistically, the government turned over the money printing operation to the central bank.).

    The banking system needs inflation to keep the system running.
    But the current wage stagflation has hit that need head on and it was the banks that are caving in, due to the resulting deflation.

    The Fed can inflate all it wants and pump that into the lenders - but it does no good. The borrowers wallets have to be inflated and they aren't. so banking appears to be doomed ala 1929 - 1933.

    Bank A is not loaning to Bank B because Bank A knows that when Bank B gives the money to Company C to build inventory, Company C's customers can't get money from Bank D to buy the product because of tighter lending standards, so Company C won't be able to pay back to Bank B who will not be able to pay back Bank A.

    The situation is so simple to figure out. And impossible to solve without the entire economy shrinking its balance sheets, with all the accompanying pain.

    Reply
  • commenter
    more
    information
    please...
    Oct 03 09:52 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    I guess Diane's article could have had an impact today, had recent events not made the content absolutely worthless. Maybe "Withholding this kind of information" is necessary, because disclosing information that has yet to become applicable to reality, is common sense. Reply
  • commenter
    connorport
    Oct 03 09:24 AM
    My Website
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    These bondholders should be bearing some losses like the rest of us at this time. Whats next? Lets bail out all the people who have margin calls at this time so noone can lose. I say let these banks fail and all the people who have purchased beyond there means in the greed filled country we live in get a lesson in spending. This is the most rediculous crap i have ever heard of. Let the weak fall and the stronger rise from the ashes. Still noone is helping the little guy here! Reply
  • commenter
    User 274096
    Oct 03 09:20 AM
    My Website
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    Is there an indication here that Citibank is not as strong as it is looking from outside ? Seems like Wells Fargo can offer a better deal with no Government support. Was Citi trying to extort money from Government ? Or is Citi genuinely cannot absorb the Wachovia ? Reply
  • commenter
    chinooking
    Oct 03 09:15 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    cool ,,,,,,,,long wfc Reply
  • commenter
    Big Al45
    Oct 03 09:13 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    Its all good. The Citi/FDIC deal is dead.

    WFC will mark down Wachovia's toxic crap and sell it to the taxpayers after the ballout is approved today. Saint Warren wouldn't have let WFC buy WB unless he knew that Congress would approve the deal.

    As far as favoritism goes, that the way Wall Street has always worked (along with nepotism and family contacts.) Who knows - maybe Sheila Bair (or UMASS) was holding Wachovia bonds.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: