Washington Mutual Inc. (WM)

All Comments on WM

  • 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
  • commenter
    chinooking
    Oct 03 09:03 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    does citi still get the bonds now ,or does wells ? Reply
  • commenter
    LittleRebel
    Oct 03 08:30 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    It is OK Diane. It is now Wachovia & WellsFargo, which has always been rumored that the two banks would merge. It has finally happened and they will be very very competitive with BofA. Reply
  • commenter
    pedroperez
    Oct 03 07:18 AM
    Paulson and Bernanke: A Conspiracy of Dunces [view article]
    Now you may closed the book on Wachovia. Reply
  • commenter
    knightmine
    Oct 03 06:44 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    I agree 100%. And the same can be said for Merrill Lynch vs. Lehman Brothers. I own preferred stock in both and I have two very different outcomes. Reply
  • commenter
    Ishortyou
    Oct 03 06:32 AM
    Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout? [view article]
    Stop whining about the tax payer money, do you think is it any better than Social Security? tax payer money that taxpayers will never see in the rest of their lifespan, or what about medicare? or wellfare? do you think that taxpayer money is soundly managed? or what about other government expenses and payrollls? well think again. Wachovia got rid off the prior toxic risky wasted bank subsidiaries and kept the good ones. Now it can start from scratch to build a new banking subsidiary with safe practice together with its remaining good outstanding subsidiaries. The current subsidiaries of Wachovia make it look like “Merrill Lynch without the toxic risky waste”, good job from management it separated the good bank from the bad bank overnight, plus its CEO Bob Steel is one of the top rated mutual fund managers. Wachovia will keep the valuable human resources and the talent that have expirience in the banking business saving them for the new banking subsidiary. Buying the municipal bonds or the auction rate securities will give the inflow of cash as long as its hold even to maturity. Some investors are taking money away from Hedge Funds going wild and putting that money into accounts manage by people that know what they are doing, Bob Steel is one of those people that know what they are doing, dont be surprise some of this money will go to Wachovia subsidiaries. Earnings will be adjusted accordingly, like simple arithmetics they will manage its expenses vs its earnings to come ahead in capital and start piling up cash (saving cash a hard job for most of us that live on debt), this new cash will give them the jump start of a new banking subsidiary without even thinking about to sell its remaining subsidiaries.Forgot to mention that Wachovia owns a hudge Insurance subsidiary which is making money and has sound book of business. Lehman debt is bonds most of them senior, as bankrupt as Lehman is those bonds get paid. ARS are Municipal Bonds as bonds they get paid, hold into maturity they get paid in principal, those ARS are cash flow. Preferred dividends will get paid accordingly because the holding company does not own the banking subsidiaries anymore so modification are going to be made. Getting rid off the toxic waste risky bank related subsidiaries is a good strategy and converting the remaining broker one to a new bank subsidiary with clean sheets is a good one too.
    Reply
  • commenter
    lepso
    Oct 03 06:17 AM
    Paulson and Bernanke: A Conspiracy of Dunces [view article]
    The bottom up plan is the only one that makes sense. Some pencil to the paper could tell you. It would also reduce the voters' revolt who are mad as hell. The elected parties would fell safer and vote for it. The Banks could impliment the process but the Fed would provide the finances and the strict control. The toxic paper could simply be written down and the holders of these papers feel the pain. Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 01:28 AM
    Government As Investment Manager Is Not Reassuring [view article]
    ILongyou

    I had the same thought.     Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 01:23 AM
    How Does the WaMu Failure Compare? [view article]
    Well, if you are a one-issue voter, and the credit crisis is your issue, there was only one satisfactory candidate in either party, Mitt Romney. Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 01:09 AM
    Irate Icahn - Fast Money Recap (9/19/08) [view article]
    Just another comment on TWA. The major problem they had was a massively underfunded pension plan. Congress had just passed a law giving the PBGC a lien, with the same status as a tax lien (meaning, prior to everyone else), against the shareholders equity of any company they had to cover pension benefits for. This was a complicated area, not well covered in the financial statements, and it took a few years for accountants and acquirors to understand it. We always felt that if Icahn had understood this issue he would have avoided TWA as we did. It ultimately proved their downfall, along with recalcitrant unions, and the reason he couldn't turn them around. Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Oct 03 12:47 AM
    Irate Icahn - Fast Money Recap (9/19/08) [view article]
    Crocodilian

    TWA was Icahns first real mistake. My company looked at acquiring TWA before Icahn went in and decided not to make a try for it because they had too many real problems. We concluded they were going to go broke no matter who bought them. After he bought his position we proposed a management solution to him which he turned down because he thought he could turn it around himself, and is sort of fiendish about cost control. I don't deny he was a greenmailer in some deals before it was illegal, but most of his deals pre-TWA benefitted all participants. He was, and probably still is, a very good investor with a very good eye for value.

    People tend to forget that Icahn was originally a bond trader. In that business you make $ million trades constantly on verbal agreements. If you go back on one of those agreements no one will trade with you. That tends to instill a certain amount of integrity in a person.     Reply
  • commenter
    Atavist
    Oct 02 05:50 PM
    Was WaMu Worth It? [view article]
    This is hysterical crap. Reply
  • commenter
    uncle frank
    Oct 02 05:34 PM
    Was WaMu Worth It? [view article]
    Only the "tough" can survive under the new 11 laws and I think this is one reason they are in chap 11.. The opther reason wamu is doing the 11 in Delaware is that they have plans to continue on as a bank after the dust settles. Had they filed in the west this would hinder their future ability to reorganize as a bank . Washington State is " Home Port for WAMU". Reply
  • commenter
    James Cullen
    Oct 02 05:27 PM
    My Website
    Fortis Fails: Who's Next? [view article]
    I am not a paid "scaremonger"... and object to any comments suggesting that.

    All I'm trying to show is that leverage is high in European banks - this isn't intrinsically bad, but is worth noting... Now, the assets being leveraged absolutely matter, but the idea that a bank won't have problems because it has been around forever is not logical - see also: Barings, mid-1700s to 1995.     Reply
  • commenter
    madasiwannab
    e
    Oct 02 05:18 PM
    What Happened to the Fed's $1.816 Trillion Lifeline? [view article]
    The damage was already done to both of these guys months ago. The shorts were already bought into both WB and WM long before the ban. What finally brought them down was long selling due to lack of confidence and fear.

    It wasn't a secret that both of these guys were bloated with loan portfolio's in the two hardest hit areas, Florida and California. Once WM fell, it was only a matter of time before WB followed.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: