Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-29-2008, 10:07 AM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
The FDIC was involved. They seized WAMU. JP Morgan then did the deal with the FDIC. Fortunately for us taxpayers, JP Morgan took on the assets and paid FDIC for them. It didn't have to happen that way - FDIC might have been stuck with it.

Audrey
True. WAMU had no choice, they were insolvent. Obviously the ONLY bank that has any interest was Chase, it fits a void they have in certain markets. Rather than stick FDIC with the bill, and stay out of the mess, Chase got to "pick the bones", and take only the assets they wanted. It's not like WAMU had any leverage to bargain with.

Bottom line, we can talk all we want about how dumb a lot of Wall Streeters are, but I would NOT include Jamie Dimon in tha group......
__________________

__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-29-2008, 10:32 AM   #42
Recycles dryer sheets
Canadian Grunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
And you're original claim was wrong, wrong, wrong -- I said it three times and you keep on insisting you're right, even after painfully explaining the first or second time how wrong you were. It's kind of exasperating to me, especially when you make assumptions that are made out of thin air.

In what world do you live in where assets become liabilities on a bank's balance sheet? A bank makes a loan -- that's an asset on the bank's balance sheet. If the loan becomes delinquent or "charged-off", that's still an asset that has been written-down or marked-down. Mortgage backed securities are assets on the balance sheet of the bank. On the other hand, equity claims and bondholders of debt issued by WaMu are liabilities. These liabilities were not acquired or assumed by JP Morgan. All of the "deposit liabilities" were acquired. And the assets were acquired as well -- no assets were left behind according to the press release.

The only thing you proved is that you stubbornly cling to an understanding that makes no sense and are prone to engage in ad homenim.

We will find out over the course of this restructuring that the Fed has guaranteed a floor for the transaction, thus, some liabilities were not transferred although JP Morgan will still have them on their books. If I give you $5.00 worth of debt and guarantee $2.00 worth of that debt are you on the hook for all the $5.00 worth of debt or only the $3.00 that is not guaranteed? They just did the same thing for City Bank and JP Morgan when they bought Bear Stearns. Understand? Some debt was cleaved.

This is my point. Accounting is subjective.
__________________

__________________
it's the journey that matters
Canadian Grunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2008, 12:20 PM   #43
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Grunt View Post
We will find out over the course of this restructuring that the Fed has guaranteed a floor for the transaction, thus, some liabilities were not transferred although JP Morgan will still have them on their books. If I give you $5.00 worth of debt and guarantee $2.00 worth of that debt are you on the hook for all the $5.00 worth of debt or only the $3.00 that is not guaranteed? They just did the same thing for City Bank and JP Morgan when they bought Bear Stearns. Understand? Some debt was cleaved.

This is my point. Accounting is subjective.
Let's try to use conventional terms understood by bankers, regulators and accountants, please. First, an IOU from a Bank, like a deposit account or bonds issued by the bank, is a liability on the balance sheet of the bank. An IOU to the bank from a borrower or a mortgage-back security (e.g a collaterialized debt obligation) is an asset on the bank's balance sheet. Banks use deposit liabilities to fund assets, and the spread they receive is how that earn most of their income. Secondly, it's not the Fed (commonly understood to mean the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Bank of New York for these extraordinary cases), but the FDIC involved in WaMu. So, what happened to AIG or Bear Stearns with the Fed, is not really transferrable to what the FDIC does with insured depository institutions, whether thrifts like WaMu or a commercial bank like Wachovia.

Your post, I'm sorry to say, is incomprehendible to me. I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about someone issuing debt, i.e. like a bond to the public? If you issue debt, you're on the hook for the entire amount. I know of no legal or finance construct where the issuer of debt is both the obligor and the guarantor -- makes no sense to say that you both owe $5 and guarantee the payment of $5.

So, I presume that what you mean is that if a bank purchases a $5 million mortgage backed security, which is an asset on the bank's balance sheet, or if it holds a portfolio of $5 million subprime loans that it issued to a group of borrowers who have credit problems, the value of that asset has been marked-down to $3million because of the housing down-turn and market phobia. If you further mean that JP Morgan received credit protection from the FDIC for further potential deteriation in that asset, well that's simply not the deal I've read about in the newspaper for JP Morgan's acquisition of the whole bank of WaMu, in a "closed-bank" transaction, where WaMu actually failed and was placed in FDIC receivership.

This is sharply contrasted to the deal with Wachovia, an "open bank" deal, where the shareholders were not wiped out, and there is some credit protection (in the form of loss protection) for "bad assets" on the balance sheet of Wachovia. Credit protection has been extended by the FDIC but the FDIC is taking an equity piece in the transaction as the quid pro quo for its credit protection, known in the trade as "covered asset loss protection.

You assumed too many things and confused transactions made by the Fed for an investment bank and insurance company with FDIC transactions for insured depository banks.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2008, 09:09 PM   #44
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Grunt View Post
We will find out over the course of this restructuring that the Fed has guaranteed a floor for the transaction, thus, some liabilities were not transferred although JP Morgan will still have them on their books.
Canadian, please go back and see my original post on the (#5 in the thread), and go out and read the OTS, FDIC, and finally the JP Morgan Chase materials about the transaction. There was no guaranteed floor (unlike the Citibank/Wachovia setup and unlike the BSC takeover).

To summarize:
JPM bought the banking portion of WAMU. This included the physical assets (banks) as well as the assets on the books (mortgages, HELOC's, credit card, etc.) Note that these are the ASSETS portion of the deal. They also assumed the deposits and secured liabilities of the banking sub. These are the LIABILITIES from the deal. So, what LIABILITIES weren't picked up?

From the JPM press conference materials:

Quote:
Transaction does not include:
�� Assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual Inc. (Holding Company)
�� Unsecured senior debt, subordinated debt and preferred of
Washington Mutual’s banks
What this means in layman's terms is the stock, preferred stock, and unsecured bonds were not assumed by JPM, and the stockholders/bondholders will be fighting for whatever scraps are leftover.

Also from the materials:
$1.9bn cash payable to FDIC (in "Consideration")

Now here's where it gets interesting. JPM took WAMU's asset base (i.e. those wonderful mortgages/option arms, and heloc's, etc, which were on WAMU's books @ $296 billion and immediately wrote them down by approximately $31 billion. Because of this, their own capital ratio's would have been impacted with WAMU's assets and liabilities on their books. (Before the acquisition their (JPM) Tier I capital ratio as of 6/30/2008 was 9.2.) This is the reason it was necessary for them to do the $8 Billion announced (actual done was $10 Billion) in stock equity the following morning. After the acquisition and WITH an assumed $8 Billion in new equity raised, their Tier I ratio would be 8.3. Thus, you can see the negative impact of the WAMU assets.

So why did they do this? (Opinion only, so standard disclaimers apply)
1. Increases the # of branches by 2/3
2. Instantly gives them a major west coast and Florida deposit base
3. Provides a big base in area's with higher growth rates in population
4. Take all/most? of the medicine (ie asset write-down) on acquisition to allow for more positive impact to income statement later.

If you are unclear about what any of this means, please feel free to ask.
__________________
copyright1997reloaded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2008, 10:01 PM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Gotadimple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,761
Just adding info for those who aren't reading the Seattle papers:

* Jamie Dimon believes he got a good deal, but admits it could result in significant losses if they can't reconstruct the loans.
* Washington Mutual, Inc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last Friday in Delaware, and is due in court this Friday to explain the need to the judge. "In its filings, WaMu said it had about $8 billion in debt and $32 billion in assets. . ."

-- Rita
__________________
Only got A dimple, would have preferred 2!
Gotadimple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2008, 10:11 PM   #46
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Copyright, excellent description of the WaMu transaction, although I'm sure the subordinated debt, senior debt, preferred equity were not at the holding company level.

I would add 2 other reasons for JP Morgan to purchase WaMu (disclaimers also apply here) : (1) recent regulatory changes by the banking regulators which permit booking of "goodwill" to regulatory capital for these transactions; (2) JP Morgan wants to grow and be the dominant universal bank.
__________________

__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Washington Mutual Cut to Junk by S&P Helena FIRE and Money 2 09-15-2008 08:19 PM
Washington Mutual godoftrading Stock Picking and Market Strategy 15 08-09-2008 08:53 PM
Washington Mutual Bank CuppaJoe Other topics 14 05-01-2008 06:31 PM
Happy Holidays! Still haven't purchased a... Mary_From_Georgia Young Dreamers 22 01-01-2008 06:07 AM
Re: Things purchased that were truly useful wabmester Other topics 47 03-21-2006 05:03 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.