Wamu WKN 893906 News !

Official Committee of Equity Security Holders First Deposition Notice to Appaloosa Management L.P.
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110323000000000003.pdf

...wenn rosen schlafende hunde (gorillas) weckt und laut rumtönt, dann setzt es nen satz heiße ohren!

guggst du:
www.chilloutzone.net/video/perfekt-geweckt--3.html

Hedge-Fund Lawyers Still on Washington Mutual’s Pay List

blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/03/23/...ngton-mutuals-pay-list/

Federal regulators are blaming Wall Street's biggest firms for the collapse of five institutions at the heart of the nation's credit-union industry and are seeking to recoup tens of billions of dollars in losses on securities that doomed the five.


In one of the broadest accusations that Wall Street helped cripple financial institutions during the crisis, the National Credit Union Administration, or NCUA, has threatened to sue several investment banks unless they refund over $50 billion of mortgage-backed securities sold to the five institutions, called wholesale credit unions.

The NCUA is accusing Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch unit, Citigroup Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. of misrepresenting the risks of the bonds to wholesale credit unions, which loaded up on the bonds in their role of investing on behalf of retail credit unions, according to people familiar with the situation.

Regulators seized the five wholesale credit unions in 2009 and 2010, inheriting a pile of battered bonds now worth only about $25 billion, or half of their face value.

The wholesale credit unions, also known as corporate credit unions, are at the heart of the nation's credit-union system. They not only invest customer deposits but also provide services such as check clearing for nearly 8,000 "retail" credit unions—member-owned cooperatives that act somewhat like banks for firefighters, teachers and other workers who have something in common.

online.wsj.com/article/....html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_business

Zinsen nachträglich seit 09/2008 auf die Mrd. von $ bekommen müßte!!!WOW....

dass die Amiland heute sich gegenseitig die wamuqs verkaufen...meine die MM´s ...mit Absicht rote Balken...

The organization is at significant risk in its Option ARM and Hybrid portfolio of payment shock created by abnormally low Start -- or teaser -- rates, and aggressively low underwriting rates. ... It is our contention that in the upwardly sloping rate environment and expected flattening of housing appreciation, we are putting borrowers into homes that they simply cannot afford.
Around that same time, CEO Killinger wrote an email acknowledging the housing market was losing its head. "I have never seen such a high risk housing market as market after market thinks they are unique and for whatever reason are not likely to experience price declines. This typically signifies a bubble."

What's weird about this comment is that by making loans it knew borrowers could not afford, WaMu was basically assuming that it, too, for whatever reason, was unique. WaMu was the bubble that WaMu was warning about. This is a common theme in the FDIC's complaint: WaMu's downfall may have been caused more by hubris than stupidity.

Here's another example. In a 2004 internal email, Killinger noted (emphasis mine):

We believe the pendulum has swung a little too far to the side of risk management over the last couple of years. It is important that we all focus on growth initiatives and risk taking. Above average creation of shareholder value requires significant risk taking.
Since when? The only thing that requires significant risk-taking is significant risk.

Creating above-average shareholder value involves exploiting a market niche and securing that niche with a moat. That's it. Anyone can take risk. Only good businesses generate above-average value.

Moving on to exhibit No. 3: By June 2006, Killinger's bearish view was evident. "We expect the housing market to be weak for quite some time as we unwind the speculative bubble. ... A collapse in the housing market would significantly increase our credit costs," he said in a memo.

The strategy? "Our plans for the next three years include reducing interest rate risk and replacing that risk with greater credit risk." Why? "Wall Street appears to assign higher P/Es to companies embracing credit risk and penalizes companies with higher interest rate and operating risks," he wrote.

This kind of attitude is sadly rife among public companies, but consistently leads to the same outcome. Running your company with the goal of pleasing Wall Street is the most reliable way to ensure your shareholders' misery. A decision to take on more risk should have only come if it made good business sense. And it clearly didn't -- Killinger admitted credit costs were already increasing.

There are dozens more examples of WaMu's executives' misdeeds in the FDIC's complaint. And the report makes it clear that not only did WaMu's leaders utterly fail at risk management, but they did so while being fully aware of it. They knew homeowners couldn't afford their loans. They knew housing was a bubble. They knew it was a house of cards. Yet they kept pushing along. It's like former Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) Chuck Prince's infamous quote: "As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance."

But you have to ask why. It's difficult to know that, but Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner makes as good an argument as anyone: "Killinger took home $88 million in the seven years preceding the collapse of the bank. ... [He] apparently designed a gimme-gimme culture fueled by reckless urgency and deceit. He hasn't returned a dime of his compensation."

The fact is a lot of these managers walked away from their fallen companies very, very rich men. Even after their stock-based compensation became worthless, years of accumulated cash bonuses tied to bubble-fueled profits left them wealthier than most of us can ever imagine. From their personal perspective, mindful recklessness may have been a rational move.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns B of A preferred. The Fool owns shares of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure

www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/03/23/...o-run-a-bank.aspx

ihub    
Quote:Fried Frank no longer represents Aurelius, it said in a recent filing. But it continues to represent the other three hedge funds. And even though its clients have fallen from the fold, Fried Frank is still on the list of favored firms that merit a special mention in Washington Mutual’s Chapter 11 plan under a section that lists who gets to send their bills to the company.



That says it all.  ;)

www.welt.de/finanzen/immobilien/...ah-Chef-Aktie-sackt-ab.html

Verdacht auf Insiderhandel
(2) Drucken Bewerten 16:50
BaFin ermittelt gegen Gagfah-Chef – Aktie sackt ab

Die Börsenaufsicht nimmt die Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Gagfah unter die Lupe. Ihr Geschäftsführer ist angeblich in Insidergeschäfte verwickelt.

Die Aktie des Immobilienkonzerns Gagfah ist eingebrochen. Zwar meldete Deutschlands größtes börsennotiertes Wohnungsunternehmen am Mittwoch für 2010 einen Ergebnisanstieg; das im Börsensegment MDax notierte Papier wurde aber durch einen Bericht über Ermittlungen gegen Gagfah-Geschäftsführer William Brennan belastet. Kurz vor Mittag lag die Aktie 6,7 Prozent im Minus.
Baufinanzierung Service
Wie viel Haus können Sie sich leisten? Dieser Rechner gibt Ihnen die Antwort.

Am Morgen hatte die in Luxemburg residierende Gagfah S.A. mitgeteilt, dass das Ergebnis vor Zinsen und Steuern von 237 Millionen Euro im Vorjahr auf 348 Millionen Euro gestiegen sei. Allerdings sei das Ergebnis aus der Vermietung um rund 26 Millionen Euro auf 460,1 Millionen Euro gesunken. Der Rückgang ist den Angaben zufolge vor allem auf das um durchschnittlich 9.700 Wohnungen kleinere Portfolio zurückzuführen. So verkaufte der Konzern im Jahr 2010 Wohnungen im Gesamtwert von 473,2 Millionen Euro. Das Unternehmen will für 2010 eine Dividende in Höhe von 0,10 Euro je Aktie zahlen.

Die Gagfah, deren Zentrale in Mülheim angesiedelt ist, war in den vergangenen Wochen stark unter Druck geraten. Die Stadt Dresden will eine Millionenklage gegen den Immobilienkonzern noch in diesem Monat einreichen. Die Stadtverwaltung wirft Gagfah vor, beim Weiterverkauf von Wohnungen den Mieterschutz nicht eingehalten zu haben.



Zuletzt war von Forderungen in Höhe von 1,06 Milliarden Euro plus Zinsen die Rede, die von dem Immobilienkonzern wegen Vertragsverletzungen eingefordert werden sollen. Der Stadtrat berät in seiner Sitzung am Donnerstag über die Klage.

Nach einem Bericht des „Handelsblatts„ ermittelt die Börsenaufsicht BaFin gegen Geschäftsführer Brennan wegen des Verdachts auf Insiderhandel. Brennan hatte den Angaben zufolge am 3. Februar Gagfah-Aktien im Wert von 4,7 Millionen Euro verkauft. Vier Wochen später wurde die Klage der Stadt Dresden bekannt. Die BaFin bestätigte die Ermittlungen.
Anzeige

Eine Gagfah-Sprecherin sagte der Zeitung, dass Brennan zwar seit längerem von den Recherchen der Stadt Dresden wisse. Die Stadt habe jedoch nicht erkennen lassen, dass sie Forderungen in erheblicher Größenordnung geltend machen würde, sagte sie. Davon habe das Unternehmen erst kurz vor dem 4. März erfahren.

Die Gagfah wurde 2004 vom US-Hedgefonds Fortress für 3,5 Milliarden Euro übernommen. Brennan kam 2009 zu dem Unternehmen. Der Gagfah wurde in verschiedenen Medienberichten vorgeworfen, ihre mehr als 160.000 Wohnungen in ganz Deutschland verkommen zu lassen. Das Unternehmen bestreitet die Vorwürfe.

Odin

Ich habe gerade eine Anfrage bekommen. Cat lässt fragen ob sie einen Kollegen einbinden soll um einen Professionellen Film a la Michael Moore zu drehen?

Er ist eh Produzent und er ist Pre Aktionär und auch nicht untätig.

Hier mal die Abstimmung damit ich was in der Hand habe ob es sich lohnt.

Der Film würde etwas Kohle kosten aber auch nicht die Welt. Wir haben auch noch etwas über von UIE was wir verwenden könnten. Näheres gibt es wenn die Abstimmung positiv ist und wir noch einige Infos mehr haben was die Idee zum reifen bringen würde. Einzelheiten bespreche ich dann in der Gruppe wenn es gewollt ist.

Hier mal die Abstimmung. (Bitte ab und zu mal Posten) 1 bis 3 Tage lang!

http://www.ariva.de/forum/voting/view.m?votingid=8000

www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110323000000000003.pdf

“This is not the first time that they’ve used their balance sheet to gain market share,” said Moshe Orenbuch, an analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York. “They have enough capital that they don’t have to shy away from clients. They can take on a large commitment.” Orenbuch rates JPMorgan “outperform.”

Dimon’s only possible competition on a transaction that large would be Goldman Sachs, led by CEO Lloyd Blankfein, or Morgan Stanley, “and Jamie’s going to feel more comfortable where his capital is,” said Paul Miller, a former examiner for the Federal Reserve bank of Philadelphia and analyst with FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. “This gives Jamie Dimon a huge advantage out there.”

Goldman, Citigroup

Goldman Sachs, the fifth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, has less than half the common equity of JPMorgan with $70 billion while Morgan Stanley has about $48 billion, according to Bove. Rivals including Citigroup Inc. and Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America Corp. have been hobbled by soured mortgage investments and losses from other consumer loans, Bove and Miller said.

Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan’s Jennifer Zuccarelli and Pen Pendleton of Morgan Stanley, the sixth-largest U.S. bank, declined to comment.

JPMorgan agreed to buy Bear Stearns amid the credit crisis in March 2008, helping the investment bank avert a bankruptcy that could have further damaged the U.S. economy. Later that year, Dimon bought Washington Mutual for $1.9 billion after the Seattle-based thrift was seized by federal regulators.

Dimon, who’s been CEO since the end of 2005, maintained profits throughout the financial crisis. After graduating from Harvard Business School in 1982, he went to work for family friend and mentor Sanford Weill. Together, the two built the firm that became Citigroup, now the third-largest U.S. bank.

Bank One

Dimon was fired by Weill in 1998 and in 2000 was hired to run Bank One, a regional lender in Ohio that was acquired by JPMorgan in 2004.

JPMorgan, which was third behind Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley in M&A advisory for 2010, is leading the league tables this year. The bank’s North American M&A operation is run by Jim Woolery and Chris Ventresca.

Its investment bank, run by Jes Staley, ranked No. 1 for the third year in a row among the 20 highest-paid investment advisers in 2010, collecting $4.14 billion in fees for M&A as well as debt and equity underwriting, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Andrew O’Brien, JPMorgan’s co-head of syndicated and leveraged finance, put together the package for Dallas-based AT&T.

“JPMorgan can now go around to the biggest corporations in the world and say, ‘Look at what I did, look at how I protected my customer,’” Bove said. “They have enormous advantages in the market.

www.moneynews.com/InvestingAnalysis/...-T/2011/03/23/id/390488

doch mich interessierts ich sprech für mich alleine  ! brauch dazu keinen !
ich weis gern wo die milch besser schmeckt und reperaturen günstiger sind den diese sachen brauchen wir auch fast täglich

ich meine damit, dass ich das investierte Geld nicht brauch und aus Überzeugung weil es positiv enden wird, wann auch immer, nachkaufen werde!

mein Invest ist schon lange abgeschrieben...ich würde so gerne noch nachkaufen und kann im moment nicht...hoffe dass der Kurs die nächsten 8tage noch so niedrig bleibt..

hat einen Herzschrittmacher nötig

aber in ihrem gsa (global settlement agreement) haben wmi und jpm die schlechteste lösung gewählt.

sie haben vereinbart, das jpm die etwa 500 mio zahlungen behalten kann (mit der begründung, das wmb als agent für wmi die klage durchgebracht hat, völlig hirnrissig, aber bitte) und wmi die 320 mio für die dimeqs bezahlt.

ohne jetzt auf die rechtmässigkeit der forderung von jpm einzugehen, wmi hätte bei einer anderen abwicklung die möglichkeit gehabt, die 180 mio des steueranteils zu "verdienen".

nochmal, bei der jetzigen lösung erhält jpm 500 mio, muss 180 mio steuen bezahlen, und behält 320 mio. wmi muss 320 mio bezahlen.

bei einer lösung mit der bezahlung der summe an wmi, und der spende der 500 mio an jpm (dieselbe lösung wie bei den steuerrückvergütungen) hätte aber wmi die mögöichkeit gehabt, ihre steuerverluste mit den zu zahlenden steuern zu verrechnen, und damit etwa 180 mio zu "verdienen". jpm kann das nicht, sie haben keine verluste.

oder nur von wmi gestohlene, grins.

diese verhandlungs"erfolge" solten also die möglichkeit geben, gegen alvarez&marshal, insbesondere gegen kosturos, vorzugehen.

zu fordern wäre

- eine ablösung von a&m
- eine rückforderung der bezahlten honorare
- eine schadensersatzklage entweder wegen fahrlässigkeit oder wegen vorsätzlichen betrugs

frag mal bei den spezialisten von united usa an, ob charles brown III da was vor gericht machen kann?

Noenough ist hier unantastbar, das ist halt so!

Ich finde ihn sehr sympathisch.

Ist nicht ganz einfach zu verstehen, da muss man eine bestimmte Art von Humor mögen.

Klar können wir fragen lassen.

Formuliere dein anliegen auf der Page genau unter Kontakt. Auf dem Englischen Part der seite einfach unten auf Contact gehen und eine mail verfassen. English kannste ja.

Da kannste auch im Detail auf alles eingehen.

To those who might say that the current dearth of loans reflects a lack of demand, well, how about deploying that "excess" capital to make meaningful home loan modifications? Such modifications would also be economically useful, as keeping people in their homes instead of putting them through foreclosure could help the real estate market limp a bit more quickly toward recovery. There's no shortage of demand for meaningful loan modifications.

Sponsored Links
And, if it were necessary to attract new investors to make loans, why didn't the Fed make the increased dividends conditional on increasing lending or meaningful modifications? The Fed has the leverage to do either, or even both. (Remember, the reason the Fed has control over the dividends in the first place is that such control was one price of the financial bailout that kept the banking system from failing.)

But the fact that really puts the lie to the idea that higher dividends are necessary to spur lending is the fact that share buybacks are being allowed. As the blog Baseline Scenario explains, buybacks are the equivalent of saying "we have more capital than we know what to do with." A bank can't simultaneously have more capital than it knows what to do with, and also need to attract more money before it can make loans.

Dividend Winners? The Executives, Of Course

Of course, the banks do know what they're doing with buybacks -- enriching their executives, who not coincidentally, make the decision to do the buybacks in the first place. Unlike dividends, share buybacks increase shareholder wealth by increasing the stock price, and thus are not directly taxed. For investors like executives, who have huge amounts of shares, that difference is meaningful. In addition, increased share prices can make executives' stock options more valuable, or earn them bonuses and other types of compensation.

Nonetheless, the executives would have to cash in while the increased share prices last: It's no mystery that future events could wipe out any gain from a buyback -- an impact that paying the cash out as dividends would avoid. And that risk again underscores how much worse allowing buybacks is than allowing dividends.

Drawing the line at Bank of America (BAC) is a positive step, but it's not enough. Bank of America's troubles, a large portion of which can be traced to its acquisition of Countrywide, are so well known that not even the most bullish, want-to-believe investor could swallow stress test results that gave it a clean bill of health. But Countrywide wasn't the only out-of-control lender. Consider what the FDIC says about Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan Chase (JPM) acquired.

So thanks, Fed, for forcing Bank of America to hang onto its capital so that it can perhaps cover its liabilities. But one reality-based decision does not a good policy make.

See full article from DailyFinance: srph.it/gDRiam


www.dailyfinance.com/story/credit/...igger-dividends/19889084/

ich probiers mal

Three years after Jamie Dimon became the nation’s lender of last resort in the rescues of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, he is leading the industry by financing a $20 billion loan to AT&T JPMorgan Chase & Co’s CEO cemented his firm’s spot as the top US mergers-and-acquisitions bank over Goldman Sachs Group with the March 20 announcement that it’s advising AT&T on a $39 billion bid for Deutsche Telekom AG’s US wireless unit, T-Mobile USA. New York-based JPMorgan committed to providing $20 billion to AT&T.

“He wants to win, and he doesn’t want to win by a small amount,” Richard Bove , an analyst for Rochdale Securities, Florida, said.

Dimon, flew to Tokyo on Wednesday to speak with employees and meet clients affected by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Dimon may be the only banker in the US who could complete an unsecured loan as large as the AT&T deal as he wields JPMorgan’s $2.12 trillion in assets.

www.financialexpress.com/news/...t&t-to-be-on-top/766429/0