Calm down, bucko! I didn’t bring up your early-2007 rating changes on National City (NCC) to engage in any after-the-fact scorekeeping. Sorry if I offended. I certainly had my share of forgettable calls when I was on the sell-side—and even more of them last year.
Rather, I was making the point that, if you thought Nat City was overestimating its capital levels in early 2007 after the First Franklin deal closed, and that its pending buybacks were a bad idea, you sure didn’t mention it at the time. It’s easy to look back now and say the company shouldn’t have bought back all that stock. Everyone agrees, even National City. It would have been helpful if you’d made the point at the time. Otherwise, all you’re doing is engaging in 20-20 hindsight. Or is there a note that you published on this issue in early 2007 that I haven’t seen?
Beyond that, I’m glad to see that you agree with me that the company was robustly profitable on a GAAP basis in 2006, and that you have no argument with my defense of the company’s dividend hikes.
This is all I have to say on the topic--time to get back to work! I'll give you the last word.
Tom Brown is head of BankStocks.com.