H. T. Love

How Do Banks Look?

" The 41% increase in bank fees over 6 years has increased the banks' bottom line"

Whoop! 41% in 6 years? They have a way to go before they catch up with the growth in health care costs. But I know they are working hard on it and will succede with the help of government, or lack of alternatives for the poor smuck on the street. Credit unions might provide a little relief.

HardToLove

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

On Jan 16 07:22 PM petyaczar wrote:

> doubleguns
>
> You are of course right, I refered to this in my comment
>
> "Its a big G/D "Do-loop" in computer speak. a self reinforcing death
> spiral."

Not so. What you refer to is an "infinite loop". A do loop is a valid construct in /many/ languages. The failure comes when the loop is improperly terminated, usually through a coding error or design error (not specifying "boundary conditions" properly, not handling unexpected values, failing to allow for a possible sequencing error, values in the wrong sense - negative when only positive is expected, etc.).

A similar construct is the "while loop" with similar requirements. In most languages the only difference is when the termination test(s) are performed - at the top or at the bottom of the construct (i.e. before values processing of the code in the loop or after processing the code in the loop).

The rest of the comment is good.

HardToLove

><snip>

Citi Needs Up to $10 Billion in New Capital

It's a May 05 article - I don't recall they eliminated his existing work, just not getting any new stuff.

HTL


On Oct 05 09:06 PM Mayascribe wrote:

> SA did not take out every one of Tyler's articles. Or, maybe they
> are beginning to reinstate him?
>
> (Scroll up. He's the author of this article. Found this by accident,
> while helping out [up] a pal.)

Citi Needs Up to $10 Billion in New Capital

I mentioned him today in my e-mail to SA - reminded that a month or so ago they had told me he was "under review".

Maybe SA needs a "tickler file"?

HardToLove


On Oct 05 09:06 PM Mayascribe wrote:

> SA did not take out every one of Tyler's articles. Or, maybe they
> are beginning to reinstate him?
>
> (Scroll up. He's the author of this article. Found this by accident,
> while helping out [up] a pal.)

Bank Reform: One Central Banker that Gets It?

On Sep 24 08:10 PM THofler wrote:

><snip>

> I agree with Volker though. As problematic as the Fed is, it is
> the only adult in the room.

Are you kidding? A privately-held for-profit institution is expected to regulate the actions of other privately-held for-profit institutions? Especially after examining freely available studies on the internet of the history of central banks throughout history?

This is even worse than "the fox guarding the hen house", it's the hen. The hen does what benefits the henhouse.

>
><snip>

HardToLove

Bank Reform: One Central Banker that Gets It?

How is it that the idiots that write and enforce the rules seem to *not* undestand that the purpose of law is to *support* the fabric of society and right behavior by honest and forthright members of that society?

They behave as if the laws are meant to help propagation of "favor" to a few regardless of effect on society overall.

HardToLove

The Coming Consequences of Banking Fraud

And yesterday GE was upgraded with an $18 price target. The usual bounce followed. Several months back, I valued it liberally at $8-$10 at the most. If I were to do that again, with current information, I would be at your price, I'm sure.

The pumping continues.

HardToLove


On Sep 09 01:28 PM Avooch wrote:

> Mr. Kim,
>
> A most provocative article. I've also concluded that the US stocks
> I follow are massively overpriced.
>
> I have GE a buy at $6 vs. its currently $14. And even at $6 that
> is a 18x EBITDA a very very healthy premimum.
>
>
> For some specific fundamental analysis of GE, ABB, ALS, EMR, RBC,
> AMSC and other stocks check out my weblog - linked above.
>
>
> -----------------
> Don't Get Massacred !
>
> Gudovac1941

How to Trade When Government Controls Investment

Agreed. But keep in mind that it's not the government that did this. It was orchestrated by a handful of very bright guys. A handful of bright guys can easily manipulate a mob of clowns.

My only complaint about these articles is the fact that "the government" is labeled the culprit (of necessity I suppose) when in fact it is individuals that accomplish anything, good or bad.

This de-personalization leads to escape from responsibility by those responsible, whether it be BHO, Paulson, Bernanke, etc.

HardToLove

On Aug 07 10:08 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Mr. Bibbings. Very entertaining.
>
> The government you describe is not nearly so efficient.
>
> Greetings to you and yours.

CFTC: The Key to Market Manipulation

Well done!

Thank you for taking the time to shed light on some very disturbing and well-known issues.

HardToLove

Bank Earnings: Revenues Falling, Losses Rising

On Jul 19 08:30 AM basehitz wrote:

> "Could it be that market sheep are starting to wake up? "
>
> If so, they've got a lot to contend with. Seems to me the bulls are
> making an all out effort to break out to the upside.
><snip>

Only the ones left that have balls and/or no common sense - the rest are steers. Feb 10 SPY volume 536.2M trades, trending down fairly consistently since then to Friday's volume of 138.6M (even considering expirations, "sell in may go away", pretty sorry, huh?). I checked stockcharts.com to confirm it is reliably tracking $SPX volume.

From www.nyxdata.com/nyseda...

we see that June NYSE volume is the lowest monthly total since Jan. '09.

I think if you consider the recent revelations of the high-frequency trading program that GS uses (and the other big houses may have them too?) one could reasonably ask if even these volumes are being propped up by the trades that resulted in profits reported from their program trading this last quarter.

One nice thing about the free flow of information is that sooner or later the clueless (I include myself in that category, but I work hard to change that status) get a clue and we may end up with no trades but the "big houses" high-freq programs battling it out and swapping money back and forth among themselves.

I won't go into what I think that would mean, considering what's really on their books and the economy.

But I went to cash but for a gold miner and a couple small positions in a couple small-caps before the end of June. Waiting, waiting, waiting, ...

HardToLove

Supreme Court Rules Against Banks: A Win for Consumer Protection

Just my humble opinion, but the "increasing cost" argument has been used for decades to reduce regulation to the point that we now have the mess we are in.

- There are things more important than cost, like the welfare of the nation and its citizens, which consists of much more than just the lowest-possible-cost junk imported from abroad with lead paint on infant toys, etc.
- The constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not granted specifically to the federal government, so the federal government has sway only in a few specific areas (and forget the commerce clause as a defense - it only regulates inter-state *trade*),
- No statement of the constitution *ever* advocated reducing cost for business, or anybody, as its goal and never stated an objective of making business life easier at the expense of state or citizen rights.

Balance in regulation, with omnibus consideration, is needed.

Why would anybody with concern for the foundations of this country have a problem with allowing the states to exercise their rights in governance of the activities of businesses that operate within their borders? For the same reason that they would object if they had to pay more for local labor rather than shipping jobs overseas - short-sighted focus on near-term gains?

For one, I'm glad that the court seems to see some merit in states rights, rather than just creating new law via judicial fiat, regardless of my feelings about a specific case.

My Hunble Opinion,
HardToLove


On Jun 30 09:52 AM Angry Banker wrote:

> Conceptually this makes sense, but the downside is that multi-state
> banks will now have to implement 50 different localized compliance
> regimes, which will undoubtedly increase their costs of doing business.
> And you know who bears the burden of those costs, don't you?

Why Congress Is Asking Bernanke Bogus Questions

On Jun 27 01:00 PM Pelide wrote:

> Quote
> "the Fed chairman in theory is answerable to nobody, and not subject
> to Congressional oversight the way other agencies are."
> Unquote
>
> Quote
> The Federal Reserve System is a contradiction in terms, for it isn’t
> federal, has no reserves, nor is a system. It is a central bank not
> a federal agency, that is a privately owned for profit corporation.
> Most banks don’t own stock in the Fed, however JP/Morgan does as
> a shareholder in the global banking system. Therefore, they basically
> bailed themselves out in this instance. Frankly, the Fed is not authorized
> by the constitution and is consequently illegal and corrupt.
> Unquote

Since congress authorized it, it is legal. Its purpose is *not* permitted in the constitution, so it is unconstitutional. Moreover, one of its primary functions is *supposed* to be done by treasury (and has been in the past).

>
> If it is indeed so, why no one seem to care ?

Ignorance caused by many things, deception being one.

publiccentralbank.com/ has some links near the end to good videos.

A series of 10 minute or so videos start here www.youtube.com/watch?...

Gets really good about part 14 and around part 21(?) we see todays situation perfectly predicted.

If you know folks who would benefit from these links, please pass them on.

HR 1207, sponsored by Ron Paul, to audit the Federal Reserve has a lot of support (240 or so co-sponsors) and seems to be gaining support in the senate too.

A first step, hopefully not the last.

Youtube has some Ron Paul stuff and other things of interest to some folks.

HardToLove

Why Congress Is Asking Bernanke Bogus Questions

On Jun 26 12:38 PM Gerry Sullivan wrote:

><snip>

> In my opinion it seems that BAC might well have prevailed in court
> if they used MAC.

Like GM/Chyrsler bond holders got good support over lower-tier capital in (bankruptcy) court?

>
> Several times the Fed Chairman stated that he is not an attorney,
> but in the case of BAC invoking MAC he gives a legal opinion anyway.

I recall that he spoke to Fed lawyers and was informed that MAC applies to long-term consequences, not near-term.

True? I don't know. But I'm unwilling to judge any of this on incomplete information, political posturing, conflicting statements from two with vested interests in the outcome, selected e-mails (possibly selected to support a particular bias), etc.
>

Clowns are clowns even if the paint, costume and noses look different.

HardToLove

Salary Boosts Instead of Bonuses? That's Not What We Meant

Great piece!

"My only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know what, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."

"By removing performance based job targets the government has displaced the competitiveness which is required within the financial industry for success. Ironically, now more than ever, this kind of competitive nature is what will be required at the assisted financial entities if they are to compete with non-assisted companies"

Strange isn't it that the government should want to re-make their wards in their own image?

What has always been the most quoted draw of government employment? Security. And as you demonstrate in the above, the results we get from government indicate a lack of the things that make a capitalist free market work well (innovation, enlightened self-interest, mutual benefit, perceived-value differentials, acquired trust in the counter-parties, ...) and demonstrate a "work just hard enough not to get fired" culture.

Of course, this generalization doesn't apply to all government employees, but I hereby invoke the old 80/20 rule. And that means the results of those that do strive to do a really good job for the dollar they earn are swamped by the results from the others.

HardToLove

Credit Card Legislation: An Exchange

One of my issuers recently shortened my grace period and raised my interest rates. Since I pay in full every month (my cards are "conveniences", not "ATMs"), the interest rate didn't bother me.

BTW, when I last checked my credit *scores*, all three were at the maximum scores.

Anyway, knowing what I do, I immediately called and asked about the inactivity period causing cancellation of the card. After all, in this environment you want to have plenty of short-term borrowing ability, other than one's HEL.

The reply was 6-8 months. So, if you have a card you don't use much, check with the issuer and make sure you have a small transaction or two frequently enough to avoid having your card yanked. Having sufficient credit is a part of your score, so don't let it fall much.

What chaps my ass is that some of the banks get $$ at/near 0% from the taxpayer and can't be satisified (operate profitably?) without userious rates, exhorbitant (and unjustified?) fees and penalties.

HardToLove