Big-cap bank bulls worried about a little too much love being shown for the hot sector may take...

This news story has 12 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

alfalfach Comments (25)
 
All that proves is Bill Ackman was dumber than i was on selling c--i purchased more
4 Jan, 11:20 AM Reply Like

benitus Comments (785)
 
Yup, mistakes do happen all the time. The smart thing is not to cry over it and do something, like buying back in (which is just like setting a Limit Stop to limit losses) immediately when you realize it was a mistake to dump your shares, so that your losses are limited to the price-difference. I learned this lesson the hard way with several stocks, which burned a huge hole in my balance, each time something like this happens. So now, I simply buy back in and patiently trade it out when I recover my losses. C has moving too much this week, so I foresee profit-taking before it continues its movement upwards. There was quite some profit-taking taking today and the bounceback has been strong.
4 Jan, 07:36 PM Reply Like

namaro Comments (3)
 
What else do they want from C? He paid his share of TARP to the government; he has straightened out its loans; he has changed its CEO for better; he must profit from the global world outside the most industrialized countries, which now has a better outook than has they ever had in the past......What else?
4 Jan, 01:35 PM Reply Like

masonkelsey Comments (10)
 
Financials, including banks will do very well over at least the first half of 2013, especially BAC and C. I expect BAC to have an upward surprise on its earnings, January 17th, for the 4th quarter of last year, and will probably increase its dividend in the first half of this year. On top of that the housing market is in recovery and this will significantly benefit Bank of America since it has about 25% of the home mortgage market. Many people expect BAC shares to end the year somewhere between $16 and $20. This is the place to be invested.
4 Jan, 01:36 PM Reply Like

smokey1948 Comments (2)
 
I'm still holding 150 shares of C.... Oh yea, that's right, the Citi board turned it into 15 shares a year or two ago. Now I have shares that I have 450/share tied up in. Hard for me to trust these guys.
4 Jan, 01:39 PM Reply Like

benitus Comments (785)
 
I've been collecting shares of C on dips this entire week, so I've picked up 600 shares, which I will sit on them until they hatch me a nice golden egg, while I will continue collecting on bigger dips. It'll be a mistake not to jump onto the bandwagon. Giddy-yup, boys.
4 Jan, 07:40 PM Reply Like

George_M Comments (5)
 
Whether BAC is overvalued or not really depends on the price you use as a starting point. Some analysts are saying its sharp rise since the summer from under $6 a share to its current price over $11 makes it overvalued. However, if you use its pre-crisis price of over $40 a share; and even its post-crisis norm of over $15 as a basis, the current levels look quite low. This is especially true if we consider that the overall condition of BAC's finances (and the sector in general) have improved considerably since it was sitting around the $15 level in 2010.
5 Jan, 06:59 AM Reply Like

happyshorter Comments (621)
 
You write:
"the overall condition of BAC's finances (and the sector in general) have improved considerably since it was sitting around the $15 level in 2010."

How do you know this?

This comment proves that you really did NOT read the article that you should be commenting:
"What's Inside America's Banks?"
http://bit.ly/UO7OTk

If you can read and understand the bank financial statements, then I guess you could comment on the valuation.
If you pretend that you have read and understood them, then you are a liar.

Buying banks are as blind a bet as in their reporting: a level 3 kind of investment: investments that even the bank cannot put fair value on, so the fair value is reported at the buying price.

And in that article, the author says he chose to try to understand Wells Fargo because it is the simplest and most trustworthy...
5 Jan, 08:57 PM Reply Like

Phr3d Comments (69)
 
quoth:
And in that article, the author says he chose to try to understand Wells Fargo because it is the simplest and most trustworthy...
disquoth

Sorry, I did not find any mention of Wells at all - a good thing in this case, as all 'honorable mentions' were of questionable, if not criminal activities.

akman bet against buffet and lost, is the way I see it. Citi was and remains lost (my opinion).

and your commentary is at best, uselessly inflammatory.

Please go away.
5 Jan, 10:24 PM Reply Like

happyshorter Comments (621)
 
If you want me to go away, you should report my comment as Abuse.

" I did not find any mention of Wells at all"

Where did you look for it?
I was referring to this article, that is the subject we are commenting on.
What’s Inside America’s Banks?

(Middle of Page 2)
http://bit.ly/UXn0hG

"We chose a bank that is thought to be a conservative financial institution, and an exemplar of what a large modern bank should be.
Wells Fargo was founded on trust."
From there on the article talks only about Wells Fargo.
If the article is too long to read, just watch the video.


And when I wrote:
"And in that article, the author...", I was also referring to the same article, and I should have written the authors, Frank Partnoy and Jesse Eisinger, the later being interviewed in the video.
You also write:
"akman bet against buffet and lost"
So you recognize that this is a matter of bet.

If anything could be qualified as inflammatory, it would be that article.
6 Jan, 11:08 AM Reply Like

Phr3d Comments (69)
 
My scrolling needs work, I -did- think that it was one 'page' and that was what I incorrectly searched.

I did not find your comments to be 'reportable', just unduly harsh and relying upon your foregone conclusions, based upon what little info you provided.

regarding 'bet', always, but tempered with due diligence. 'Betting' so long on a stock simply because it was so cheap was a poor position - crying about it and using Citi and Dimon to prove the point, lambasting the industry as a whole, rather than each corporation, is nearly as stereotypical in viewpoint as the endless talking heads of 2008.

apologies for missing the easily discerned additional pages in the link that you originally provided.
7 Jan, 05:50 PM Reply Like

Phr3d Comments (69)
 
I did not realize that there was a 'time-out' on editing in this forum, and cannot imagine why that would be the case.

The remainder of my paragraph about 'bet' would be that while I agree with the generic position that opaque is unfortunate, using Enron and the Great Depression as illustrators does not serve the point, any more than using Hitler as a comparative would.

So, in Wells case, what -was- the tragic amount of 'exposure' through the most severe economic collapse in history. Does that serve as a baseline as to what expected losses -could be- if the economy collapses?
My 'bet' is yes, it does.
I should have stated before, long WFC
7 Jan, 06:32 PM Reply Like