Jump to content

Talk:Washington Mutual/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Unexplained deletion of my photo by Citiman

I've put it back; the deletion was most impolite. In the future, please discuss here first before you go around deleting other people's photos, especially well-done ones. It's not like it was one of those bad photos shot on an overcast day or into the sun or something. --Coolcaesar 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this an ad?

I'm not going to go through and edit right now, but the tone of parts of this article strike me as if they were written by the WaMu public relations staff. It talks about how unique and friendly the "Occasio" branches are. It claims that people across the United States are excited that the company is calling itself WaMu. It touts the advantages of their free chacking. I think this could probably use some work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not my leg (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Amen to that Sagittarian Milky Way 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
i chopped out the bit about people being excited about the name change to wamu since it was uncited and silly.Harlock jds 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire article seems pretty generous to "WAMU". For example, there's no mention of the current trouble they're in for manipulating prices in the wake of the mortgage crisis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.16.115 (talk • contribs)

find articles/reports about the trouble and add it. as long as it's cited it's no problem. -- harlock_jds (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Their ads are racist

In all of Washington Mutual's commercials the members of the "banker's pen" are shown in contrast to the hip cool young guy, Bill. There are about 20 white bankers and everyone without exception is white. Bill is black. If there where just a few black or Asian in the bankers pen or Bill was white the ad would not be racist. But the implication here is that white men are boring and money-grubbing while blacks are hip, cool and generous. Numerous writers on the web back this up and have started a boycott. From the article: "The bank's current television commercials emphasize the difference between Washington Mutual and other banks. A "Bankers Pen" urges increased fees and squeezing customers for every penny possible, while a younger spokesman, Bill, emphasizes friendliness over profits. Many bloggers have denounced the ads as racist since all banker's pen members are white while Bill, the younger, friendly spokesman, is black." http://viewtank.blogspot.com/2006/03/washington-mutual-commercials-funny-or.html http://greensickle.com/2006/06/washington_mutual_advertising_1.html http://viewtank.blogspot.com/2006/03/washington-mutual-commercials-funny-or.html

--Jon in California 19 August 2007

Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. Furthermore, that perspective is original research and probably does not comply with the neutral point of view policy. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Coolcaesar 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, blogs are a source when I say, "blogs have denounced...". They would not be a source for a fact, unless that fact is that I claim blogs claim a certain thing. See the difference?
I wish I could find a more credible citation but there is no NAACP for white people. These ads are classic reverse racism and plenty of people agree with me. Too bad this other side of the argument can not be voiced in the wikipedia article. --Jon in California
You can find blogs that claim EVERYTHING under the sun... that's why they are not considered a valid source. FOr example i could start a blog (or more than one blog) that said "George W Bush has stinky feet" and then add to the GWB article that 'Blogs claim that George W Bush has stinky feet'
If this critisim or boycot is widespread it will be picked up by the 'real' media... Till it is it's not noteable enough to be included. harlock_jds 11:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wamu.svg

Image:Wamu.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Add about thier loss in the mortgage crisis?

Should we add about how much they were exposed to the morgage crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.180.155 (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I think that's reasonable... especially after the indymac failure alot of the speculation is that wamu may very well be next... right or wrong we should list how exposed they are -71.232.179.236 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) This bank is likely to have run real soon. T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.144.3 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be removed. Washington Mutual did not send someone over to a high school in Taiwan to copy their logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.107.9 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC) The section simply stated the fact without any judgment on who copied whose.GnomeKnight (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough to be included in the aticle. Now if wamu was trying to stop the school from using the logo (or vice versa) it would be notable enough but just the fact they look like each other? I don't think so. At the very least a non 1'st party source should be provided as a reference to show notability and to avoid original research. harlock_jds (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

They don't "look like" another. They are identical except color. I'd assume that WaMu didn't copy it from the school, but the school stole it from WaMu 30-something years ago. WaMu should've used their financial muscle to sue the school to the very last penny the school has until they stop using it. CalifKing (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Is there someone out there who knows when WaMu started using it's current logo? CalifKing (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the notability (look alike logos are not uncommon) and don't think this should be added until we have a reliable source talking about the similarity (instead of just a first party source that required the reader to make his own judgment which is close to original research) harlock_jds (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Do not add again. 207.172.176.168 (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rosangela1985/Whoo hoo!

Help would be appreciated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

about the only help i can think of is to question the notability of the campaign and how worthy it is to be an actual article and to find references for a lot of the opinions in the article.harlock_jds (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

help. seemingly lost image while copyediting

after doing edit "05:17, 18 September 2008 68.173.2.68 (Talk) (11,359 bytes) (→Acquisitions: more copyedit)" i find the image is gone. comparing versions, i can't see what i changed that would affect image itself. perhaps i'm bug-eyed.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The image needed two more brackets to close the wikilink you created, in addition to the two brackets needed to close the image. It is fixed now.
--JKeene (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandals in the past few days deleted information about WaMu's acquisition history. This is very useful information when trying to track down old corporations. However, subsequent edits changed things around a lot. I'm not as proficient in efficient editing of Wikipedia, otherwise I'd simply fix this myself. Anyone else able to take a stab at reverting the losses caused by vandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.119 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

new article about new ceo alan fishman

as a part of deredlinking the wamu article I did the most minimal of new bios for their new ceo Alan H. Fishman. Please make a note of it (and improve it as you can). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Switch

Can anyone talk about why they switched from the usual Blue visa debit/credit cards to the Gold Mastercards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.206.75 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2006

The answer to that is Visa had a number of security problems earlier that year and Washington Mutual decided to switch to mastercard not only for security purposes, but to also bring a fresh look into the new Wamu Free Checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.226.100 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2006

WAMU

Someone redirected WAMU (the radio station in Washington DC) to Washington Mutual. Initially this isn't a bad thing, since WAMU is Washington Mutual's NYSE code, but it's also the only name for the radio station, WAMU. I cannot access the radio station now. See my comments on the talk page for redirections and WAMU:

WAMU is the only name American University's radio station goes by. By redirecting that name exclusively to Washington Mutual, users cannot access the information they want, such as when I went looking for WAMU (the readio station) in Wikipedia. Denying users access to the information they seek does not make finding information any easier. Instead, it goes against Wikipedia's original aim, and any database's aim for that matter. In a Google search, WAMU as a radio station is displayed second, which suggests that at least by the standard of online bibliometrics, American University's radio station is reasonably well searched. At the very least, users should be directed to a page from which to choose their ultimate destination. Destitute 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I just looked into Alexa.com, which measures web traffic, which is not a very good indicator of network analysis. Bibliometrics, the standard used for deciding the rank of webpages in an Internet search is a far better gauge of information control. Destitute 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add too that WAMU is the 5th highest rated Public Radio Station in the country, as well as the higest rated shows in DC [1]. What's more, the person deleted the radio station article altogether! Destitute 07:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As is currently stands, there is a "hatnote" at the top of the article directing readers to the radio station article. At this time, in which the bank is prominently featured in the news, it it the ideal. However, in the future, where the bank's significance fades into history, it might be best to fix the redirect. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FDIC Seizure and JPMorgan Buyout

CNBC is reporting tonight, Sept 25, that WaMu is being seized by the FDIC and will be sold to JPMorgan. Its just hitting the wire now, so I couldn't find a source to cite.WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, reference added. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238415586576687.htmlWhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
and the CNBC article for further information http://www.cnbc.com/id/26893741 they are also reporting on tv that JPMorgan is buying the entire bank, not just the deposits and branches as first reported though I haven't seen a typed report on it yet. Not sure how to reflect this new information or if it should be held off till more details are published. Sven (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it usually the Office of Thrift Supervision that closes insolvent banks? I noted that in the infobox. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It is the responsibility of the chartering agency of the failing bank to shut it down. For example, should a nationally-chartered bank fail (this does not include savings and loans), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would shut the failure down. First Priority Bank in Bradenton, FL was shut down by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation because that bank was a Florida-chartered bank. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

per: Reuters, the OTS has seized Wamu, and the FDIC is the receiver.LorenzoB (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo is correct. I also added a note that this is called the largest US bank failure in history. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable "transactions":

There are too many unanswered questions only when WAMU opens its book could be reveal the whole truth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.108.184 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This buyout will likely affect CD holders

Money in CDs is FDIC insured, but there is no guarantee that the new bank, JP Morgan, will be willing to pay the same rates on CDs that WaMU did. WaMu was paying out high rates on their CDs, as much as 5% for 1 year CDs, while JP Morgan pays about 3%. It is quite likely that JP Morgan will not pay the 5%, and CD holders will have to decide whether to accept the new rate, or pull the money out. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the best source I can find on this change so far, http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html Nothing about what happens to CD holders yet. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Coming from the JPMorgan Chase article, I noticed that there isn't any mention at all of Washington Mutual's acquisition history. I don't think a flow chart is necessary. Still, I do know they acquired Great Western Bank and H. F. Ahmanson & Co. here in California. Did they make any other major acquisitions? Could someone add those little tidbits of information and flesh it out a little? I'm only going by memory here, and I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. 76.95.102.22 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this link will help a little? http://investors.wamu.com/irweblinkx/mna.aspx?iid=102028 76.95.102.22 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

article is way ahead of reality (and unsourced comments)

1. 3rd sentence of lede. unsourced. has it's stock really been delisted?

2. important to note that alhtough jpmorganchase has acquired operational function of bank, name of WaMu and many other things are not changing overnight. see [[2]] and [[3]] specifically in the press release, "Chase expects to convert Washington Mutual’s consumer banking, home lending and credit card businesses to the Chase brand and technology platforms over the next two years."

3. don't have time to research, but time line seems out of whack. "JPMorgan Chase purchased WaMu's assets and qualified financial contracts for $1.9 billion. At the same time, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed WaMu and made the FDIC receiver. The transaction, arranged by the FDIC, does not require drawing from the FDIC insurance fund.[13]" i suspect this is out of sequence. i would expect that the sequence is first (1) FDIC seizes and takes control as receiver and then (2) JPMorganChase acquires. otherwise, there would be no need for FDIC to get involved.

4. important to note "Excluded from the transaction are the senior unsecured debt, subordinated debt, and preferred stock of Washington Mutual’s banks. JPMorgan Chase will not be acquiring any assets or liabilities of the banks’ parent holding company (WM) or the holding company’s non-bank subsidiaries." (from [[4]] no mention of exclusion of "equity." would be somewhat unusual to take "ownership" of a corporation and not "own" the equity shares issued (since that is what evidences ownership).

much of entire article (primary older language) is unscourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • To item 4, the receiver can strip out whatever it wishes to make a new solvent entity suitable to a new owner. So the FDIC took out the unsecured liabilities, except the deposits, and extinghished the equity, and handed the rest to JPMorgen Chase. See the citations from the OTC and FDIC announcements. It all happened overnight, so the bank was open under new management the next day. The other stuff mentions has been fixed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

summary to lead, etc.

I think some of the "summary" section should be moved up to the lead, with the detailed stuff in that section scattered to e.g. WaMu#Subprime mortgage crisis. I'll probably do some of that shortly. --an odd name 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have spread it out myself, but the info was either unsourced or repetitive. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Largest bank failure in US history

If we're going to make a substantial note of its size, should we try to find if it is, in fact, the largest bank failure in all of history? The reasoning here is that the notability of a bank failure is based on relative size. A statement of relative size ("largest") should be used in such a way as to compare it to the broadest group possible where it is still true. For example, this is the largest bank failure in Wahsington state history, but we would prefer to say US history since it is a more prescient example of scale. If this is in fact the largest bank failure ever, we should say that it is. Huadpe (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

we don't need to find anything only report what it citeable harlock_jds (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What's with Lehman Brothers? Their assets had twice the size of WaMu's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.229.59 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Semi Protection shall be added to this article to prevent vandilism from new or unregistered users such as the one made in the last few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayorofrosharon (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Usually, we try to reserve protection for cases in which there is a substantial amount of vandalism or other unwanted edits to a page. Looking at the page history, the pace of edits seems to be pretty decent, so I don't think there's a real need for it at this time. Since this article is currently linked from the Main Page, it's got a number of people monitoring it, so any problematic edits get dealt with pretty quickly. However, if vandalism does seem to become an issue, you can request protection on RFPP, which is watched by lots of admins and will get you a fairly quick response. In any case, if you have any concerns or questions, you're welcome to raise them on my talk page. —Slowking Man (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any explanation of what the logo is supposed to be? I can't tell if it's a book or wheat. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

article continues to be AHEAD OF REALITY

in lede -

"Washington Mutual, Inc. (abbreviated to WaMu) (NYSE: WM) was a bank holding company that was in business from 1889 to 2008"

"The holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for bankruptcy September 26, 2008"

which type of bankruptcy? liquidation under chapter 7 OR proctection under chapter 11 of u.s. bankruptcy code?

company continues to exist; is probably only being delisted from NYSE and shifting to PINK SHEETS as i write. even after shifting to PINK SHEETS, company will continue to be and "IS" and not a "WAS" for quite some time as it winds its way through bankruptcy.

wikipedia editors: don't get ahead of story.

--68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the bank should be declassified from "defunct" back to active, as I saw a representative at my school today (September 29, 2008) and she was trying to get students to open accounts. This is clearly not the work of a defunct bank.

Travishayes89 (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears all of your critique has been accomodated by editors at this point, except the type of bankruptcy. I can report that a lot of editors cannot understand the concept of "subsidiary" "receivership" "merger" and "holding company," and regularly conflate all of these concepts into an incoherent bubble. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Article should be split in two

Because of recent events - there are now two business entities going by the name "Washington Mutual":

  1. Washington Mutual, Inc. - A holding company currently in U.S. bankruptcy court
  2. Washington Mutual Savings Bank - A division of JPMorgan Chase

They are no longer the same company and this article is confused (and confusing) in writing about them as the same company. - Davodd (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There are probably a couple of dozen entities by the name, invisible until just two of them (and their subsidiaries and properties), Washington Mutual Bank and Washington Mutual Bank FSB were sent away to JPMorgan Chase. Be aware that the holding company may not have come into existence when Washington Mutual Savings Bank demutualized in 1983, and it may take some effort and reading of Securities and Exchange Commission filings to understand the development of the holding company separate from the bank subsidiaries. I believe that Washington Mutual Bank FSB came about during the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis, when several failed banks were merged into WaMu with FDIC or FSLIC assistance. I have not determined if the FSB was held by the other Bank at the time of receivership, or by the Holding company. I found a 1995 SEC filing showing that the two were held directly by the holding company. I believe that some mergers had interesting and complicated mergers of the other bank company's holding companies and their subsidiary banks.
    All of the citations to create a new article are available for you to set a new article up. I don't think anyone is going to hold you back. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one am for the splitting of the article into two, one for Washington Mutual, Inc. and and the other for Washington Mutual Savings Bank. The one for the Savings Bank can stay around until the takeover by Chase is complete. From what I heard from the woman who was at my school yesterday, it won't be for a while that "WaMu" will be known as "Chase". -- Travishayes89 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a point to this. What exactly are you going to fill a Washington Mutual Inc article with, exactly? Just because they are legally distinct entities does not mean each entity must have its own encyclopedia article, especially when one single narrative would function just as well or even better. hateless 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that if the current article would be split, the Washington Mutual Savings Bank would be the larger article and Washington Mutual, Inc. would be stub-like. I don't have a problem with that, especially since it might make things a bit clearer. One thing I would insist, however, is that - unlike the merge template which says "disambiguation" - "Washington Mutual" should redirect to Washington Mutual Savings Bank and there should be a hatnote on top of Washington Mutual Savings Bank directing readers to the parent corporation article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A stub with no potential for growth (any growth will duplicate the article for WMSB, since WMSB and WM Inc as encyclopedia topics are irrevocably linked) does not seem like a wise split to me. If clarity is the issue, then clarification should be made in the lede of this article, not tucked away into another article. hateless 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely it has potential to grow into a decent sized respectable article. Its just that now the split-proposed article is mostly about the subsidiary bank. If clarity can be taken care of at the beginning of the article, fine. But as the article currently stands, the need for explanations are found throughout the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note as I state above it is WMB, (Washington Mutual Bank, and Washington Mutual Bank FSB) -- no "savings" in the current names of the two banks in question. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No split. Think about how people use the encyclopedia. People who want to know about the entity once it has been integrated in Chase will naturally go to a Chase article (and of course there will be links from this article there). However, most interested readers will want to know about what happened when it was independent, and those readers want to understand the holding company and the bank, whose activities were hand-in-glove. Editorial judgment about such issues is based on use, not some abstract logical principal of corporate law. Bongomatic (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I, ck135667, agree that the Washington mutual artical should not be split, The Name WaMu will be replabed with Chase Within a Few Years. As having edited articles on technology this is alwasys a hard decision wether to split, but the bank devison of wamu was purchaced by chace and all assets ar being covered bu the FDIC, also the loans and morgage devison will be covered by the goverment bailout plan. Please Do Not Splid Wikipedia Articles Unless There Are Actual Name Changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck135667 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • not yet: It's too soon after the events. People will be looking for Washington Mutual or WaMu for a while until Chase completes the digestion of the company. I think we should leave it alone for now. Chadlupkes (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No Split the initial premise put forth by Davodd is false:
  1. Washington Mutual, Inc. - A holding company currently in U.S. bankruptcy court, still exists
  2. Washington Mutual Savings Bank - Was seized by the OTS, handed to the FDIC, and its assets sold to Chase on 25 September 2008, the bank entity ceased to exist as a legal entity on 25 September 2008 see [5] and [6] —Cliffb (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing / incomplete information

It would be useful to have:

  • a tabular view of the assets and liabilities of the bank by category and amount in each category, and a tag to see which were acquired (assets) / assumed (liabilities) by JPM Chase.
  • information on the quantum and nature of derivative exposure of the bank and whether the rights / obligations have been acquired / assumed by JPM Chase.
  • information no the quantum and nature of the liabilities and other (non-bank) assets of the holding company and what, if anything at all, creditors will be trying to divide in the Chapter 11.

Does anyone know these things? I haven't seen any information on this in the business press (Bloomberg, WSJ). Bongomatic (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 11 Proceedings.

I have looked at the CH11 filings, and am keeping up with the court case via Pacer. I think it's premature to say that the stock is worthless. I think it's possible they will withdraw from CH11. According to Appendix A of the initial voluntary Ch11 filing, they list assets of $33B, and debt of $8B. Anybody want to verify that, be my guest.............z

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zardiw (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many more than you looking at that was well. Its starting to look like WAMU was not insolvent when broken up by the FDIC making the siezure a huge abuse of power...as if anything the FED/Congress has done this year isn't.

Particlebry (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. An actual source is needed for this, including URL, title, page number, etc. Superm401 - Talk 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Insolvency is not just about having a positive net worth. It is also about the ability to meet financial obligations right now.
    The subsidiary banks, Washington Mutual Bank, and Washington Mutual FSB were undergoing a bank run, and had lost billions in deposits over the prior 10 days, and this showed every likelihood of continuing. The bank was not insolvent, but headed in that direction, and the agency that closed the bank Office of Thrift Supervision is empowered to act in such occasions, before the net worth of the bank is zero. You can look it up. The HOLDING company m;ay not have been insolvent, but it needed protection from the demands of its creditors after it lost its primary asset, the two banks, and lost the value of the money lent to the bank by the holding company in the form of unsecured debt. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Template

Please Do Not Remove The Bankruptcy Template In The Header Of The Wamu Article Untill After the The Transition, Including name change form WaMu to JP Morgan Chase & Co. Is Complete. Tis Incluse But is Not Limmited To, The Chase Name On all Local WaMu Branches, Bank Documents, Debit and/or Credit Cards, Checks, ATMs, and The WaMu Website. Thank You. --Koman90 (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The template is superfluous - text in the lede more clearly states the information.
    The transition is complete. JP Morgan Chase completely owns the subsidiary bank corporations, no matter that the name is on the door or stationary.
    It is the Washington Mutual holding company that used to own the banks that has filed bankruptcy, and the holding company has nothing to do with JP Morgan Chase.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The transition is not complete to the standartds mentioned--Koman90 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

33 billion?

How were the figures "$33 billion assets, and $8 billion debt" for the holding company determined? I looked at the two sources given ([7] and [8]), but I don't see them in either. Superm401 - Talk 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • You're looking at the wrong sources. Here:
    Chasan, Emily (2009-09-27). "WaMu files bankruptcy petition in Delaware". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-09-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"[X] holding company"

User:141.156.72.198 identified the holding company as a "thrift holding company", a term I couldn't find in the US code. I did find "savings bank holding company", which the holding company appears to be (see 12 USC 1841(l)). However, after reading the statute, I am not clear whether "savings bank holding companies" are included or excluded from the general definition of "bank holding companies". Anyone know? If so, please comment here or make appropriate changes in the article (including target of the wikilink).

Thanks, Bongomatic (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

JPMorgan Chase moves to raise capital may have triggered so called run on Washington Mutual

Bankers are traditionally tight lipped. They disclose only public information that they are forced to disclose. If a banker says anything publicly that can be said to have a down side for the bank, it can inspire his depositors and his creditors to all line up at the door at once. And this is what has happened with Washington Mutual.

Several ariticles I read last night detail how JPMorgan Chase got a call from the FDIC a week before the transaction that stripped the bank of it's principle assets and left them to seek protection under chapter 11. They contacted organizations until they got a group of ten firms in a room to talk to about raising capital to acquire a very large bank. It's also said that they soft peddaled in ongoing negotiations for the purchase of Washington Mutual because they knew things were getting worse for the troubled institution.

There's also a good bit of information out there on the nature of the run and the "terrified customer" It's thought by some that these were very large accounts held by very wealthy depositors and institutions and the withdrawals were in very large chunks. There were no lines at the bank. There was no general consumer level depositor panic. And no lines were observed at the bank machines on the day of the seizure. So the only people who were really in the know about how bad things were were those with accounts large enough to be very concerned and financial insiders.

I'll be gathering up the articles that support this view as I find them and posting them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamook (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It was well known that Washington Mutual was in trouble in July 2008, and months earlier; it had been losing money for six months by then. After the IndyMac bank failure and take-over, Washington Mutual holding company's much diminished stock value dropped a third. The Washington Mutual Bank's difficulties were not a secret, especialy to Office of Thrift Supervision the the FDIC. Washington Mutual Bank offered 5% APR Certificates of Deposit in August, in a market where 3.5% APR and less was more typical. This drew "hot money" to the bank, and also was an indicator that the bank was desperate to maintain its deposit base. The bank was cited as a bank of concern for some time by multiple business media articles. The FDIC's efforts in September 2008 to avoid having to payout from its insurance fund are nothing compared to the prior five years of Washington Mutual Bank's mortgage operations that led to the bank's precarious financial status. One indicator--among many--is that the share price was trading mid-July at less than 1/10 of the previous value a year earlier. An example of investor worries is this Reuters media quote from July 15, 2008.

    Shares of Washington Mutual closed down $1.72 at $3.23 on the New York Stock Exchange, but rose to $3.56 in after-hours trading after the thrift's statement. The shares' 52-week high is $42.93, set last July 16.

Source: Reuters (July 15, 2008) WaMu says well-capitalized after shares sink
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Change in Washington Mutual Policy

I would like to point out something that caught myself and my wife off guard with the "Funds Availability Policy" that is now in effect. For the number of years we have been with Washington Mutual they always had an immediate availability policy, if I made a deposit, regardless of which type, the funds could be accessed immediately. They have now switched to a "Three Business Day" policy, and any deposits are held for those 3 days. My wife and I made a deposit on Friday, a cash deposit, and noticed the receipt now showed a "Current Balance" and a "Available Balance", we called WaMu and asked them about this and they said the funds would be available on the following Tuesday, and this change in policy took place in September and it effects all forms of deposits, even cash. I questioned the fact it effects cash and the representative simply said that it is the new policy.

What is disturbing about this change is that Washington Mutual/Chase made zero effort to notify the customer. They have our E-mail, Mailing Address, Phone Number, and even the Message Center via the Online Banking feature, ATM Message Screens, and the Reps at the bank. I asked the representative of any other changes we should be aware of and they said they would "notify the customer of any important changes in banking policy". I guess it will be interesting to see what they classify as important in the future, and how they notify the customer. I for one consider when I can access my money pretty important. 209.40.64.194 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Typically the bank in its account agreements retains the right to change account withdrawal policies without notice. This is standard stuff, and is so that banks can survive potential bank runs or payment difficulties from correspondent banks. Dig up your original account agreement that you signed when you opened the account. Federal law may give banks the right to do this as well. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not doubt they have the right to change the policy. I was just shocked at not being notified by the bank, they have been great at notifing us of changes until this point. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE split

This article takes FOREVER to load on my computer. Imagine those who still use PCs from like, 1998 or their iPhones trying to read this article. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take any longer to render than most articles on Wikipedia like United States or California, and this article is actually far shorter than those articles. You must be using Windows 98 on an ancient 486 over a dial-up connection. There's no need to split the article. All that would do is create a huge mess (articles when split have a terrible habit of drifting apart because few editors have the time or energy to keep them synchronized). Under your criteria, 2/3rds of the articles on Wikipedia would have to be split, which makes no sense.
Take a look at the gargantuan mess in Law school, Law school in the United States, Legal education, Legal education in the United States, and Juris Doctor, to see why premature splits are a REALLY BAD IDEA. Do you have the time, energy or interest to fix that? I think not. Would you have the time, energy, or interest to keep a Washington Mutual Bank article in sync with a Washington Mutual article (so that the content in each makes sense in relation to the other)? I think not.
Get with the 21st century and buy a computer with a Pentium. And get a DSL, cable or satellite connection. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything I have is 21st century, thank you very much. I was speaking on behalf of those who do have old computers (and thanks to the economy, can't get new stuff) or use devices like the iPhone or Blackberry that make editing or reading rather difficult. But forgive me if I sounded annoying asking the question in the first place. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey... maybe we need to settle down a bit. I don't think anyone means any harm; we're all trying to help out. We need to assume good faith and see what we can do to help things along. Crackthewhip says that it's loading pretty slowly on his browser. I'm personally not convinced that article length would do it alone - I do wonder if we really need to have all those images in the article, though. Does it help things to have three different WaMu branch photographs, and can we trim that down?

Now, there's already a proposal to split the article into two - one for the bank and one for the holding company. The discussion thread is found here. I hope you will contribute to that discussion, if you have not done so already. X-Kal (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article loads fine on my system. As for the branch problem, what happened is that my near-perfect picture of the then-new WaMu branch in San Jose was the only picture of a WaMu branch in the article for a long time. Then editors from New York and Illinois added in photos suffering from major problems. Both photos are shot at odd angles and apparently on overcast days. The New York photo also suffers from obvious barrel distortion (a known problem with certain types of lenses) and is slightly blurry. The first photo of the WaMu tower is also problematic as it was clearly shot into the sun (when the sun was behind the tower). Normally, the best way to shoot outdoor photos is to shoot on sunny days with the sun to your back or at least to the side so that the sunlight will bounce off the subject and bring out the subject's colors (that's why nearly all MY photos taken from 2006 onward look so nice). I propose deleting all three problematic photos. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The first section of the sidebar is ugly, overlong, and unwieldy. I'd be happy to edit it down to a bite-sized summary, but how is the best way to do so? I want to follow editing guidelines, maybe linking over to a "fate" or JPMC buyout section in the article, but want to know if that is appropriate. Deltwalrus (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you guys give away free cheques for life like WaMu does?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0cg7LkQ2w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.32.86 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bank failures v. Bankruptcies

In this entry and others, WaMu's filing is described as the largest bank failure in history. Technically, I suppose that's true. But the award for largest bankruptcy filing in history goes to Lehman Brothers, whose assets totaled nearly double those of Washington Mutual. I just wanted to point that out. Matt2h (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington Mutual now Chase is worse of a bank

Since the Take of Chase Bank, they have flooded outsourcing jobs outside the US to see work in lower labor countries from India[9], Mexico, Canada, Philippines for wages that pay as low as $.25 cents an hour. If it impossible to speak to anybody working in the US that works for Chase Bank and Chase is really hurting the economy by hiring outsource labor. They even wasted $500 million to give all the former Washington Mutual banks a new look that really made customers paid for the make over. I miss Washington Mutual even though they weren't perfect but better than Chase bank[10][11]. It's a sad story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.234.143 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29812823. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm

If the Washington Mutual crisis had not been created by the FDIC, in September of 2008, congress would not have passed the $700 billion rescue fund, called TARP It was a classic Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm 1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others 2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights 3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis After TARP the government seized new powers over the economy. It dramatically expanded the regulatory powers of the Federal Reserve and injected a trillion dollars of inflationary credit into the banking system. It partially nationalized the biggest banks. It appropriated $700bn with which to intervene in the economy. It made General Motors and Chrysler wards of the federal government. It wrote a bail-out bill giving the secretary of the treasury extraordinary powers that could not be reviewed by courts or other government agencies.” Was this a conspiracy put in motion by the elites? I don’t know, but a lot of fingers sure point in that direction. “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” Franklin D. Roosevelt quote

--Scoutandus (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Currently" may no longer be current

A paragraph in Washington_Mutual#Seizure by OTS and FDIC starts with 

Currently, shareholders are fighting ...

thus not indicating the time to which Currently is actually referring. Unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia, I'll ask, then, if Currently is referring to the time indicated in the introductory paragraphs of the page? Could the time be reconstructed from the page's history, viz. when the paragraph was added with this wording? GeorgBauhaus (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What were the results of shareholder, bankruptcy, & other lawsuits?

The page describes in (probably too much) detail how lawsuits began regarding the failure of WaMu, but there is little or no information about how those lawsuits progressed or were resolved. Gnuish (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Mutual/Archive_1&oldid=1171115415"