irgendwelche gedanken zu diesem text von ihub?
I just got back from Vegas yesterday. There are 3 branches there that were formerly WAMU and when Chase took over, the sign in the front was changed to CHASE, then a few weeks ago, a temporary cover was put on the signs that had WAMU logo on it. Now they are replaced with permanent WAMU signs. Check it out while you're there. One is on Sahara Blvd. I don't know what this means but I don't know why they would put the WAMU sign back up if the company is BK.
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/...060747&nextmsgid=42061538
dieser text ist leider schon vom ihub-mod gelöscht worden.
warum?
dieser text hat mit dem thema zu tun, also warum löschen?
und warum sollte chase die WaMu-reklameschilder wieder aufstellen?
--------------------------------------------------
folgendes wurde schon mal von body1 und janwiencierz gepostet, aber der kommentar von ihub sagt vieles aus. (und viele haben es einfach nicht beachtet...)
es ist ein Q10 bericht von JPM und die schlechten nachrichten für die JPM-aktionäre stehen ganz unten, in der hoffung, dass sie überlesen werden. JPM weist schonmal darauf hin, dass es wegen den laufenden prozessen, zu nicht unerheblicher schaden auf JPM zukommen kann... die schlechten nachrichten stehen meistens unten zwischen den zeilen....
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42035708
hier der Q10 bericht:
investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/...ingID=950123-09-3840
leute, liest euch die letzten zeilen sorgsam durch und bildet eure eigene meinung...
hier der ihub-text:
From the JPM 10Q
Re-Posted from a Wamuq Post on IHUB
The company is forced to report all of it's assets and liabilities to the stock holders. But liabilities that stem from litigations are hard to weigh, so they end up in the foot notes of the balance sheet and don't get reflected in the collumns of numbers people look at to get the "At a glance" evalutaion.
Early in the litigation process the company would simply report that it has become involved in a litigation and give enough information to let the stock holders know the important dates of when they found out about it. But as the litigation progresses, a company might be forced to admit the possibility that it might not fare well in the courts and there might be a judgment so significant it may affect the balance sheet.
They make this admission with a piece of boiler plate at the end of a bare bones statement about court actions and dates.
Below are the 10-Q statements from JPM about the WAMU litigations from last May and last August. In May the statement simply listed actions and dates. But in August the company felt compelled to ad the statement about the uncertainty of the outcome and potential for a negative impact on earnings for the period.
It's RELEVANT The company will design such statements very carefully to understate the risks and show itself firmly in control. But it's admitting here that it's not in control of the outcome. And the impact could be significant to the balance sheet.
In MAY JPM said:
Washington Mutual Litigations. On September 26, 2008, following JPMorgan Chase's acquisition from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") of substantially all of the assets and specified liabilities of Washington Mutual
Bank, Henderson Nevada ("Washington Mutual Bank"), Washington Mutual Bank's parent holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WMI") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WMI Investment Corp. (together, the "Debtors") both commenced cases under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Case"). In the Bankruptcy Case, the Debtors have asserted rights and interests in certain assets. The assets in dispute include principally the following:
(a) approximately $4 billion in Trust Securities contributed by WMI to Washington
Mutual Bank;
(b) the right to tax refunds arising from overpayments attributable to operations of Washington Mutual Bank and its subsidiaries;
(c) the right to goodwill judgments that arise from pending and prior litigation;
(d) ownership of assets of certain trusts supporting deferred compensation arrangements covering the former and current employees of Washington Mutual Bank and its subsidiaries; (e) ownership of and other rights in approximately $4 billion that WMI contends is a deposit account at a subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank; and
(f) ownership of and rights in various other contracts and other assets (collectively, the "Disputed Assets"). On December 30, 2008, the Debtors also submitted claims in the FDIC Receivership for, among other things, ownership of the Disputed Assets. On January 23, 2009, the FDIC, as Receiver, disallowed the Debtors' claims. On March 20, 2009, the Debtors filed an action against the FDIC in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court Action"), challenging the FDIC's disallowance of the Debtors claims, claiming ownership of the Disputed Assets, and seeking money damages from the FDIC. JPMorgan Chase was not named as a party to the District Court Action. On March 24, 2009, JPMorgan Chase commenced an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Case against the Debtors and (for interpleader purposes only) the FDIC seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief determining JPMorgan Chase's legal title to and beneficial interest in the Disputed Assets. The Debtors have until May 22, 2009 to answer, respond or otherwise move against JPMorgan Chase's complaint. In addition, on March 30, 2009, JPMorgan Chase filed a motion to intervene in the District Court action to protect its interests in that proceeding. On April 30, 2009, the FDIC filed papers in support of JPMorgan Chase's intervention and the Debtors opposed that motion. On April 27, 2009, the Debtors commenced a separate adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Case against JPMorgan Chase, seeking turnover of the same $4 billion in purported deposit funds and recovery for alleged unjust enrichment for
failure to turnover the funds. On April 29, the Official Creditors Committee of Unsecured Creditors of WMI moved to intervene in this adversary proceeding.
JPMorgan Chase has until May 27, 2009 to answer, respond to or otherwise move against the Debtor's complaint. On May 1, 2009, the Debtors moved to take discovery from JPMorgan Chase purportedly related to a litigation filed in the 122nd State District Court of Galveston County, Texas (the "Texas Action"). JPMorgan Chase has until May 13, 2009 to oppose WMI's request for discovery. Plaintiffs in the Texas Action are certain holders of WMI common stock and the debt of WMI and Washington Mutual Bank who have sued JPMorgan Chase for unspecified damages arising primarily from JPMorgan Chase's acquisition of substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC at an allegedly too low price. The FDIC intervened in the Texas Action and had it removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
On April 1, 2009, the FDIC moved to have the Texas Action dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
On April 21, 2009, plaintiffs opposed the FDIC's motion and moved to have the Texas Action remanded to state court.
In the August 10-Q they added the boiler plate admitting the possibility of a significant loss Washington Mutual Litigations.
On June 11, 2009, in the action commenced by Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WMI") against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court Action"), the FDIC moved to dismiss all but one of the claims asserted by WMI. In addition, on July 13, 2009, the FDIC filed an amended answer and counterclaims, including counterclaims naming JPMorgan Chase as a defendant. On July 27, 2009, WMI moved to dismiss the counterclaims and to stay the District Court Action. In JPMorgan Chase's adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Case"), on May 29, 2009, WMI and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WMI Investment Corp. (together, the "Debtors") answered that complaint and asserted counterclaims that largely track the claims asserted by WMI against the FDIC in the District Court Action, as well as raise certain intellectual property claims. On June 18, 2009, JPMorgan Chase moved to dismiss the counterclaims. On May 19, 2009, in the Debtors' separate adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Case against JPMorgan Chase seeking turnover of $4 billion in purported deposit funds, Debtors moved for summary judgment. On July 6, 2009, JPMorgan Chase answered the turnover complaint and asserted counterclaims against Debtors and crossclaims against the FDIC. Debtors have moved to dismiss the counterclaims. On July 27, 2009, the Debtors were granted in the Bankruptcy Case leave to take discovery from JPMorgan Chase purportedly related to a litigation filed in the 122nd State District Court of Galveston County, Texas (the "Texas Action"). The FDIC and JPMorgan Chase have both moved to have the Texas Action dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition to the various cases, proceedings and investigations discussed above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or otherwise involved in a number of other legal actions and governmental proceedings arising in connection with their businesses. Additional actions, investigations or proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the cases present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of these pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines, penalties or impact related to each pending matter may be. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm's consolidated financial condition.
und hier die versteckte warnung zwischen den zeilen:
However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, actions and investigations, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves currently accrued by the Firm; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorgan Chase's operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorgan Chase's income for that period.
An der Börse sind 2 mal 2 niemals 4, sondern 5 minus 1.
Man muß nur die Nerven haben, das minus 1 auszuhalten.
Zurück
Weiter
