Iggy wrote:DoingHomework's post should make everyone suspect who hangs around this forum.
Chase is not the knight in shining armor. They did no one a favor. Taking over WAMU was a business decision that benefitted Chase. Chase is a business with an objective to make money and to continue making money. It is not a person with compassionate, empathetic nor philanthropic ideals.
There is a protocol to follow when any business makes changes. High on the list of priorities is communication and facilitation. Chase failed miserably. Beware of anyone claiming they have only their good experience behind them motivating their defense of Chase.
Why care to defend them in light of the circumstances described here? Chase clearly messed up this time. This involved a campaign over weeks of time and several employees. This is a clear cut example of how they blew it. Why attempt to delute this incident? What is your true motive here? Why defend a company if you don't represent them?
I am not a decoy. And I hope my post did not come across as implying Chase is a great company. They have problems just like any other. But they have treated me well over the years so I can attest that it is possible to have a good experience with them.
As for them treating the acquisition of WaMu as a calculated business decision, I think that is inaccurate. The banking system was in disarray a year ago and probably still is. Government regulators were scrambling to prevent a collapse and were making all sorts of deals behind the scenes. I don't think most people realize how close to the brink we were.
The strong banks, Chase among them, literally did save the US financial system. That does not necessarily make them the good guys. Perhaps they were in a position to help only because they had been evil and screwed all their customers previously. I would not argue with that.
If you know how this kind of thing works you would know that there is usually months of due diligence involved before a takeover occurs. Much of that was skipped in this instance because of the urgency of saving the US financial system. What you got was more of a "shoot from the hip" situation and far less preparation than would normally have occured.
But, the fact is, if BofA had not stepped in and taken Merrill, if AIG had been allowed to fail, if big banks like WaMu had collapsed and not been taken over by companies like Chase, you would have been in far worse shape than you are, we all would have.
We have about 10% unemployment now and have spent enormous amounts to prop up the economy. The market is down a lot as are real estate prices. Probably more paper value has evaporated over the last year or so than in the history of the country. And yet, we have survived. Few in the know, looking back on what happened a year ago, would argue that had firms like BofA and Chase not stepped in, we almost certainly would have slipped into a true depression. Do they deserve some return for taking the risk they did? I think they do but if you disagree then your opinion matters as much as mine.
So, if you want to think that my message means I somehow work for Chase, that is your choice, and frankly I don't really care. But the reality is I was only saying that it could have been much worse for you and the rest of us.