|
|
|
|
|
|
by retube
4551 days ago
|
|
|
His point is that the majority of the fine levied (80%) against JPM was in relation to WaMu and Bear Stearns behaviour BEFORE JPM bought them. The real crazy tho is that JPM _knew_ that some potentiually dodgy stuff had been going on at WaMu/BS and sought assurance from the regulators that they would not be held liable if they bought these two firms - which they were basically doing as a favour for the US Gov. Then the regulators fucked them anyway. |
|
|
Not doubting you, but can you provide more substantiation / detail on that assertion, please? What kind of assurances were given, and when? And more to the point: were they contractual assurances, or were they not? I highly doubt that JPM went into the deal blind, and even more so, that they would have taken on any significant risk of open-ended liabilities on the basis of a handshake.
And they certainly didn't go into the deal as a "favor" to anyone -- they did it to save their tender, pink skins, knowing full well what the future liabilities would likely be.