How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Lane Your Own Question
Category: Finance
Satisfied Customers: 12454
Experience:  Law Degree, specialization in Tax Law and Corporate Law, CFP and MBA, Providing Financial & Tax advice since 1986
Type Your Finance Question Here...
Lane is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

It is my understanding that originally "Washington Mutual Bank,

This answer was rated:

It is my understanding that originally "Washington Mutual Bank, F.A." and "Washington Mutual Bank" were two separate legal entities: the first, a federal association, the second, a savings and loan association and that each had its own separate federal employee identification number. It is my further understanding that at some point in time the two companies merged with "Washington Mutual Bank, F.A." being the surviving entity. Then it is my understanding that a name change occurred resulting in the entity being known simply as "Washington Mutual Bank". After the name change, was "Washington Mutual Bank" a federal association or a savings and loan association? Also, where can one obtain the federal employee identification for each entity? Thank-you.

rakhivasavada :

Dear Friend,

rakhivasavada :

Hello and welcome. Thank you for using Just Answer.

rakhivasavada :

Yes, you are correct. Washington Mutual, Inc., abbreviated to WaMu, was a savings bank holding company and the former owner of Washington Mutual Bank, which was the United States' largest savings and loan association until its collapse in 2008. On Thursday, September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) seized Washington Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed it into receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The OTS took the action due to the withdrawal of $16.7 billion in deposits during a 9-day bank run (amounting to 9% of the deposits it had held on June 30, 2008). The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries (minus unsecured debt and equity claims) to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, which JPMorgan Chase had been planning to acquire as part of a confidential plan internally nicknamed Project West.

rakhivasavada :

You will find ALL the details at the following link which is an excellent reference.

rakhivasavada :

You will find all your queries resolved like Federal employee identification, and any other such details from FDIC. Their contact details are as under:

rakhivasavada :

Hope this helps.

Please rate this positively if this helps as this is the only way we get credit for assisting you. Alternatively, feel absolutely free to revert with further queries.

Warm Regards....

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Thanx for the response but unfortunately I already possessed this somewhat generic info. I will attempt to explain further. I am involved with a Massachusetts nominee real estate trust whose former trustees executed a mortgage in favor of "Washington Mutual Bank, a federal association" ("WaMuFA") on June 22, 2007. It is my understanding that WaMUFA did not legally exist on that date, having previously merged with "Washington Mutual Bank" ("WaMu"). Yet JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (continues) to claim that the mortgage is valid while I believe the same to be unsecured. The confusion in all of this lies in first, the purported merger of the two entities by which it is again my understanding, that WaMuFA was the surviving entity, and second, the change of name from WaMuFA to just WaMu. It is my further understanding that once it became just WaMu it could not legally continue to operate as a federal association, but only as a savings and loan thrift. WaMuFA would then, at best, XXXXX XXXXX a "d/b/a" which again, raises questions as to the validity and enforceability of the aforesaid security interest. I am therefore seeking any information (including the separate employee identification number for WaMu; I already have it for WaMuFA and the holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc.) or leads which will point me in the right direction. Thank-you.

Hi, please don't shoot the messenger here, but the trade names you are using do relate DIRECTLY to the actual existing entities.

Thee actual corporation, WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC (the exact name as in its charter) had operations covering the span of time you describe.

Any mortgages executed, whether in receivership, or purchased by another entity, must be honored under the state's controlling statutes for those conveyances and encumbrances.

The entity operated under federal ID no. 91-1653725 throughout the time you described.

See these (from the 10-Q covering the period) operating results covering the time span from 01-01-2007 through 06-30-2008:





Three Months Ended
June 30,
Six Months Ended
June 30,

2008 2007 2008 2007

(in millions, except per share amounts)

Interest Income

Loans held for sale

$52 $421 $138 $984

Loans held in portfolio

3,604 3,786 7,559 7,686

Available-for-sale securities

335 351 691 682

Trading assets

117 108 233 221

Other interest and dividend income

94 82 171 183

Total interest income

4,202 4,748 8,792 9,756

Interest Expense


1,115 1,723 2,443 3,495


791 991 1,878 2,146

Total interest expense

1,906 2,714 4,321 5,641

Net interest income

2,296 2,034 4,471 4,115

Provision for loan losses

5,913 372 9,423 606

Net interest income (expense) after provision for loan losses

(3,617) 1,662 (4,952) 3,509

Noninterest Income

Revenue from sales and servicing of home mortgage loans

(109) 300 302 425

Revenue from sales and servicing of consumer loans

159 403 407 846

Depositor and other retail banking fees

767 720 1,470 1,385

Credit card fees

177 183 358 355

Securities fees and commissions

64 70 122 131

Insurance income

32 29 63 58

Loss on trading assets

(305) (145) (521) (253)

Gain (loss) on other available-for-sale securities

(402) 7 (384) 41

Gain (loss) on extinguishment of borrowings

100 (14) 113 (7)

Other income

78 205 199 318

Total noninterest income

561 1,758 2,129 3,299

Noninterest Expense

Compensation and benefits

939 977 1,853 1,979

Occupancy and equipment

460 354 818 731

Telecommunications and outsourced information services

123 132 253 261

Depositor and other retail banking losses

61 58 124 119

Advertising and promotion

103 113 208 211

Professional fees

57 55 96 93

Foreclosed asset expense

217 56 372 95

Other expense

443 393 831 755

Total noninterest expense

2,403 2,138 4,555 4,244

Minority interest expense

75 42 151 85

Income (loss) before income taxes

(5,534) 1,240 (7,529) 2,479

Income taxes

(2,206) 410 (3,063) 865

Net Income (Loss)

$(3,328)$830 $(4,466)$1,614

Net Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stockholders

$(6,689)$822 $(7,892)$1,599

Earnings Per Common Share:


$(6.58)$0.95 $(8.43)$1.83


(6.58) 0.92 (8.43) 1.78

Dividends declared per common share

0.01 0.55 0.16 1.09

Basic weighted average number of common shares outstanding (in thousands)

1,016,081 868,968 936,502 871,876

Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding (in thousands)

1,016,081 893,090 936,502 896,304

As a follow-up, here's the balance sheet for the same period:

And again, as mentioned before, the debt bing valid is really an unrelated issue to Washington Mutual's status at the time. Mortgages are debts to the debtors and assets to the Mortgagors ... just because the mortgagor may have changed (again, this could be a a new owner of the asset (the receivable, the mortgage), a receiver (a governing body), a Real Estate investment trust or pool, etc. ... doesn't mean the obligation has removed.

Here's the balance sheet for the same period:




June 30,
December 31,

(dollars in millions)


Cash and cash equivalents

$7,235 $9,560

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell

2,750 1,877

Trading assets (including securities pledged of zero and $388)

2,308 2,768

Available-for-sale securities, total amortized cost of $25,756 and $27,789:

Mortgage-backed securities (including securities pledged of $121 and $1,221)

18,241 19,249

Investment securities (including securities pledged of $112 and $3,078)

6,134 8,291

Total available-for-sale securities

24,375 27,540

Loans held for sale

1,877 5,403

Loans held in portfolio

239,627 244,386

Allowance for loan losses

(8,456) (2,571)

Loans held in portfolio, net

231,171 241,815

Investment in Federal Home Loan Banks

3,498 3,351

Mortgage servicing rights

6,175 6,278


7,284 7,287

Other assets

23,058 22,034

Total assets

$309,731 $327,913



Noninterest-bearing deposits

$31,112 $30,389

Interest-bearing deposits

150,811 151,537

Total deposits

181,923 181,926

Federal funds purchased and commercial paper

75 2,003

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase

214 4,148

Advances from Federal Home Loan Banks

58,363 63,852

Other borrowings

30,590 38,958

Other liabilities

8,566 8,523

Minority interests

3,914 3,919

Total liabilities

283,645 303,329

Stockholders' Equity

Preferred stock

3,392 3,392

Common stock, no par value: 3,000,000,000 shares authorized, 1,705,343,797 and 869,036,088 shares issued and outstanding

Capital surplus – common stock

12,916 2,630

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

(1,079) (359)

Retained earnings

10,857 18,921

Total stockholders' equity

26,086 24,584

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity

$309,731 $327,913
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I am guess I am missing something here. No doubt that "Washington Mutual, Inc." ("WMI") was a publicly traded holding company back then and that at one point WaMu and WaMuFA were each banking subsidiaries of WMI. However, merely because WMI existed means nothing as WaMU and WaMuFA were legally separate entities, not only from each other but WMI as well since initially each had federal employee tax numbers. The question becomes whether WaMuFA had a federal employee tax number and was legally operating as an entity independent of the others on June 22, 2007, or was it merely a "d/b/a", or nothing at all? Don't get me wrong: simply because WaMuFA may not have existed back then doesn't mean that the debt disappears. Someone may have an action for money "loaned and received", but not security for that debt. Again, I appreciate your patience with my ongoing explanation.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Validity of a security interest is a state law issue.

From Black's law Dictionary: A security interest is a property interest created by agreement or by operation of law over assets to secure the performance of an obligation, usually the payment of a debt.

The validity of that security interest and it's ability to be transferred intact is a separate issue from the solvency of the originating mortgagor, as long as the security interest itself is valid and perfected.

In law, perfection relates to the additional steps required to be taken in relation to a security interest in order to make it effective against third parties and/or to retain its effectiveness in the event of default by the grantor of the security interest.

Again, I provided the Washington Mutual information as an aside (to help distinguish between trade names and registered entities)

But in terms of your statement, "It is my further understanding that once it became just WaMu it could not legally continue to operate as a federal association, but only as a savings and loan thrift. WaMuFA would then, at best, XXXXX XXXXX a "d/b/a" which again, raises questions as to the validity and enforceability of the aforesaid security interest." I must completely disagree.

The validity of any secured transaction, a security interest being the interest itself, is a separate issue from the financial status, solvency, or even existence, of the originating mortgagor at some date subsequent to the origination.

What you should do is get with a good debtor/creditor lawyer and see if the steps needed (statutes very by state) were take to perfect this security interest, thereby making it enforceable and freely transferable.

Among other things (again verying by state):

1. possession of the collateral
2. statutory registration or filing, and
3. notice to the debtor or a holder of funds

The Washington Mutual issue is proverbially, "barking up the wrong tree." :)

Hope this helps


Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Thanx for the advice. I guess we will leave it at that.

You're welcome.

It MAY be worth checking the security interest against the checklist of things needed to perfect in your state.

(Especially given the dysfunction going on in the banking industry at the time)

But it will turn on the validity of the interest, rather than the status of the maker.

Here's a link to a way possibility to look for a DC lawyer in your area:

Hopefully this has helped.


Positive feedback appreciated. (It's the only way they'll pay us here).
Category: Finance
Satisfied Customers: 12454
Experience: Law Degree, specialization in Tax Law and Corporate Law, CFP and MBA, Providing Financial & Tax advice since 1986
Lane and 2 other Finance Specialists are ready to help you