Wells Fargo (WFC) statement on today's court ruling: "The loans at issue... were not originated,...

This news story has 12 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Donald Ingram Comments (3481)
 
Translation: Its not our fault. Even though all those loan payments came to us acting as trustee and went into our bank bonus pool, any culpability belongs somewhere else. Please keep sending in your loan payments.
7 Jan 2011, 05:15 PM Reply Like

Stone Fox Capital Comments (4558)
 
wow.. people sold the stock over that. jeez!
7 Jan 2011, 05:19 PM Reply Like

7footMoose Comments (2242)
 
If the following is correct, "The loans at issue... were not originated, owned, serviced or foreclosed upon by Wells Fargo. " then why was Wells Fargo a party to the ruling? Did the Mass. court just pick a name out of the air? If is correct, what was the role of Wells Fargo since the above pretty much puts WFC no where within a thousand miles of these loans.
7 Jan 2011, 05:19 PM Reply Like

Wall St. Cheat Sheet Comments (88)
 
That's in-house council speak for: we screwed up, but we're telling our bosses it's someone else's fault.
7 Jan 2011, 05:20 PM Reply Like

Sportivny Comments (73)
 
If WF was none of the above, why did they move to foreclose? Only the owner of the note is supposed to be able to foreclose... Not funny, WF (regrettably, also my loan servicer) Read the article, they had the note assigned, but not the mortgage, which would make the note unsecured loan?
7 Jan 2011, 05:25 PM Reply Like

Tricky Comments (1265)
 
According to the statement posted in the SA Current, WF was not the one who foreclosed
7 Jan 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like

Tack Comments (9246)
 
Let's see, while all the persistent handwringing has been going on over the last three months, accompanied by the usual predictions of doom, here's the performance on the biggest banks over that same three months:

BAC - +9%
JPM - +10%
C - +18%
WFC - +23%

I wonder who's laughing loudest?
7 Jan 2011, 05:39 PM Reply Like

7footMoose Comments (2242)
 
Tack: This could be a game changer.
7 Jan 2011, 05:49 PM Reply Like

1980XLS Comments (2114)
 
Tack,

And you suppose HFT, QE2 and X-mas bonuses had nothing to do with with it?

BAC is closer to it's 52 week low than it's 52 week high.

Something to think about for those that actually think the market is either efficient or a forward looking instrument.


seekingalpha.com/curre...
7 Jan 2011, 06:18 PM Reply Like

Tack Comments (9246)
 
1980:

Making money on this stuff has been like sleepwalking, it's so easy.

My own strategy was simple. When C tanked to the $2-3, I just bought a bunch and sat on it, just like Mr. Paulson. At the same time, in order to ensure dividends, as it was unclear when C would resume common dividends, I bought a similar dollar amount of C preferred shares at $5-8 (now, $26) and 30+% yields (now 8.2%). These preferred shares could not have their dividends cut, and while they could have been suspended, technically, this became rather obviously unlikely as soon as the Government was buying bank preferred shares.

I duplicated this approach with: RF, ZION, STI, FITB and BAC.

Anybody who executed the above strategy has made bunches of money and huge dividend yields, too. It worked almost equally well for any bank in the land, the big money-center banks and the regionals, all of which have seen their common shares rise and their preferred shares skyrocket from lows.

While most bank preferred shares still offer juicy yields (6-9%), most of their major share-price escalation has occurred. However, bank common shares remain fertile ground for future gains, with or without reinstitution of dividends in the immediate future.

Looking for value-based strategies and executing them is far more profitable than embracing the hyperbole of the doomsayers.
7 Jan 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like

1980XLS Comments (2114)
 
Tack,

I do agree, any security can be a trading opportunity at the right price for a moment in time. That does not necessarly mean investment grade.
7 Jan 2011, 07:09 PM Reply Like