A Cool $200 Billion for Bank of America? [View article]
Jasonjim,
I am not sure what your grievance is with the article. I do not see what you are talking about, I never made it sound like BofA was asking for a handout. I specifically pointed out the fact that BofA reps deny needing to raise capital. If you have a specific example that irks you, by all means let me know.
Let me assure, neither I nor my firm have a dog in this fight. I simply thought that the Oppenheimer analyst modeling into his analysis a secondary offering, prior to any announcement to that effect, was notable.
We have BAC as Fairly Valued anyway. That does not equate to a short!
On Apr 08 05:44 PM jasonjim wrote:
> Trying to short BAC are you Ockham? Can't see any other purpose for > this article. The first paragraph even reads like BAC itself is asking > for $36.6M more bailout money when it is really the opinion of the > Oppenheimer flunky Kotoski who says they need that money, later denied > by BAC reps. Organizations like you who use and abuse media privileges > for your own greedy agendas should be fined by the SEC, or otherwise > controlled in some effective fashion. All your article does is perpetuate > the lie started by Oppenheimer. Shame!
Big Week for Financials: First Up, Goldman Sachs [View article]
www.businessinsider.co...
A Cool $200 Billion for Bank of America? [View article]
I am not sure what your grievance is with the article. I do not see what you are talking about, I never made it sound like BofA was asking for a handout. I specifically pointed out the fact that BofA reps deny needing to raise capital. If you have a specific example that irks you, by all means let me know.
Let me assure, neither I nor my firm have a dog in this fight. I simply thought that the Oppenheimer analyst modeling into his analysis a secondary offering, prior to any announcement to that effect, was notable.
We have BAC as Fairly Valued anyway. That does not equate to a short!
On Apr 08 05:44 PM jasonjim wrote:
> Trying to short BAC are you Ockham? Can't see any other purpose for
> this article. The first paragraph even reads like BAC itself is asking
> for $36.6M more bailout money when it is really the opinion of the
> Oppenheimer flunky Kotoski who says they need that money, later denied
> by BAC reps. Organizations like you who use and abuse media privileges
> for your own greedy agendas should be fined by the SEC, or otherwise
> controlled in some effective fashion. All your article does is perpetuate
> the lie started by Oppenheimer. Shame!