Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

El volumen es escaso. Ya hasta hay foreros asuntando al personal. Espero ver una subida considerable y que se quede mas de uno fuera, se lo tienen bien merecido.

Lo de asustar al personal, y lo del truco o trato, creo que fue ayer por la noche ;). Cada uno ya es mayorcito, a estas alturas de la película los que quedan o lo tienen muy claro o son suicidas, o ambas cosas, pero no creo que se asusten.

Saludos

pues si mis comunes no las vendo,espero que no nos acaben dando por.................

mucha suerte a todos

Y a todo esto...donde estara Tonetti? Sera sobrino del examinador? Primo de Susman?

El volumen es tan bajo incluso esta mañana que es detectable la manipulación a fin de que vendan o compren manos débiles. No se puede decir que se mueven por el informe del examinador. Por suerte la mayoría de los que estan comprados ya saben de la A a la Z de este proceso.

Hochberg has a piece of information that I believe is clear indication of the wrongdoing in this case. We know that Hochberg has been looking into the issue of wrongful seizure even though WGM did not file suit on this account. We know there is support of the fact that discussions of WAMU seizure occurred several days, if not weeks, before the actual seizure on Sept. 25th. We know that OTS never issued a capitalization request and never indicated that WAMU was going to fail. FDIC kept pressuring OTS, but was prevented from getting at important documentation as to WAMUs financial condition.

FDIC wanted to seize WAMU, but did not have firepower to show reasonable cause. Then, suddenly a timely run on WAMU deposits gave the FDIC the ammunition it needed to show that WAMU was unstable and likely to fail. They forced OTS to seize the bank and its subs and sell to JPM in a bid that appeared to be planned for a while before the run even started.

So, what about that smoking gun. Well, Hochberg has access to all of those withdrawn deposits in those days leading up to the seizure. Within that run on deposits, I believe, is the smoking gun. It will be easy to trace these withdrawals to the likes of Fannie Mae and very large funds or organizations and that they were mandated by the likely request or recommendation of one individual (Paulson) that was working with some others (Bair and Dimon) to bring down WAMU and help save JPM.

The track of these deposits cannot be hidden and when the individuals that had these funds moved from WAMU are questioned, they will have to give clear, concise answers as to what led to their decision. Some of the transfers to other banks will be easy to prove (leading back to Paulson), while others may not be as clear.

Hochberg will be able to show that these deposits were contrived and that this was the only way that the FDIC was able to seize an otherwise stable and liquid entity. Thus, the seizure should never have taken place. Hochberg will likely recommend this must be litigated which should result in FDIC paying a fair settlement to WMI estate for the value of its improperly taken assets and also damages that were the result of this action. This plays into Bopfan's theory of FDIC responsibility.

I also believe that almost all of this will be redacted from the full report so that we may only have a hint of what is happening behind the scenes. I also think that this will force the FDIC to come to the table with WMI estate and try to work out some kind of deal. Otherwise, the litigation of such corruption could be very detrimental to FDIC and other government entities in a public forum.

As far as DOJ involvement as a result of this information, I have no idea how far they will try to take this against Paulson and the others involved.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2010/11/wamu-examiner-report-due-monday.html?ana=e_sea_rdup

hola max y como lo valoras crees que se sustanciara el latrocinio???