jbmaria's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/153658/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/133834-e-trade-why-the-strange-earnings-report?source=feed#comment-489414 489414 seems to me you are clearly mischaracterizing Schwab's comments in response to a question???

""If the time of a willing seller came along we would be there as a player, but more on our terms," Charles Schwab, the company's founder and chairman, said when asked the brokerage's strategy if regulators were to force E*Trade to sell part or all of its business.

"We're not hostile, we want a willing seller," Schwab said of his firm's acquisition strategy in general, adding an acquisition was not necessary to increase market share."]]> Mon, 04 May 2009 18:25:30 -0400 seems to me you are clearly mischaracterizing Schwab's comments in response to a question???

""If the time of a willing seller came along we would be there as a player, but more on our terms," Charles Schwab, the company's founder and chairman, said when asked the brokerage's strategy if regulators were to force E*Trade to sell part or all of its business.

"We're not hostile, we want a willing seller," Schwab said of his firm's acquisition strategy in general, adding an acquisition was not necessary to increase market share."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134522-schwab-interested-in-e-trade-is-e-trade-interested-in-schwab?source=feed#comment-488581 488581 seriously,
are you dating Cindy???

seekingalpha.com/autho...


]]> Mon, 04 May 2009 10:17:04 -0400 seriously,
are you dating Cindy???

seekingalpha.com/autho...


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134522-schwab-interested-in-e-trade-is-e-trade-interested-in-schwab?source=feed#comment-488577 488577


rl27 CommentsFollow
with etfc first lien performing worst then expected, it is also expected that it would perform better over time as the storm blows over. even if the credit market continues to crumble, the majority of the stressed borrowers would have already folded. in the near term, we should expect less then "wow" results from etfc but it is very hard for me to see etfc not to at least double by next year. i'm trying pretty hard not to build a high expectation but at the same time, i'm expecting to at least triple my investment in the next 12 month period. am i expecting too much? is my thinking overly optimistic? if i triple my money in a year, is that not an "wow"? Apr 28 01:17 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00

Your credibility is a tad thin.
Just an observation from reviewing your historical comments on ETFC.

]]> Mon, 04 May 2009 10:13:07 -0400


rl27 CommentsFollow
with etfc first lien performing worst then expected, it is also expected that it would perform better over time as the storm blows over. even if the credit market continues to crumble, the majority of the stressed borrowers would have already folded. in the near term, we should expect less then "wow" results from etfc but it is very hard for me to see etfc not to at least double by next year. i'm trying pretty hard not to build a high expectation but at the same time, i'm expecting to at least triple my investment in the next 12 month period. am i expecting too much? is my thinking overly optimistic? if i triple my money in a year, is that not an "wow"? Apr 28 01:17 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00

Your credibility is a tad thin.
Just an observation from reviewing your historical comments on ETFC.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126582-e-trade-more-good-news?source=feed#comment-430591 430591

'We have the option to make interest payments on our springing lien notes in the form of either cash or additional springing lien notes through May 2010. During the second quarter of 2008, we elected to make our first interest payment of approximately $121 million in cash. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we elected to make our second interest payment of $121 million in the form of additional springing lien notes. We expect to make our next three interest payments, which equates to all interest payments on the springing lien notes through May 2010 in the form of additional springing lien notes. The November 2010 payment is the first interest payment we are required to pay in cash."

So,as of now they are on the hook for:
"1) The $1.9 billion in principal does not include the $121.0 million of capitalized interest in November 2008, which resulted in $2.1 billion in principal of springing lien notes outstanding to Citadel as of December 31, 2008."

]]> Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:14:52 -0400

'We have the option to make interest payments on our springing lien notes in the form of either cash or additional springing lien notes through May 2010. During the second quarter of 2008, we elected to make our first interest payment of approximately $121 million in cash. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we elected to make our second interest payment of $121 million in the form of additional springing lien notes. We expect to make our next three interest payments, which equates to all interest payments on the springing lien notes through May 2010 in the form of additional springing lien notes. The November 2010 payment is the first interest payment we are required to pay in cash."

So,as of now they are on the hook for:
"1) The $1.9 billion in principal does not include the $121.0 million of capitalized interest in November 2008, which resulted in $2.1 billion in principal of springing lien notes outstanding to Citadel as of December 31, 2008."

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125494-e-trade-s-brokerage-business-shouldn-t-be-ignored?source=feed#comment-423729 423729
I miss Cindy too.]]> Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:09:03 -0400
I miss Cindy too.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/44749-tax-loss-harvesting-the-wash-sale-rule?source=feed#comment-356642 356642
Bankrate.com
Don't let your tax break get washed away
Tuesday January 13, 6:00 am ET
Kay Bell

Your portfolio took a beating, but you were able to use that to your tax advantage by selling some losers. Now one of your former stocks has turned around and you want it back.
In this tax tip:

ADVERTISEMENT

• No loss now, but later
• What exactly is identical?
• IRA swap eliminated

Don't be in too big of a hurry to call your broker. If you repurchase the stock too soon, you'll violate the wash sale rule. This regulation prohibits a shareholder from selling a holding at a loss, using that loss for a tax break and then turning right around and buying the same or similar stock.

It's designed to "prevent the deduction of noneconomic losses," says Selva Ozelli, international tax editor for RIA, a New York-based provider of tax information and software to tax professionals. That's basically what you're trying to do, Ozelli says, if the whole purpose behind a transaction is to generate a tax loss, but you believe in the investment itself.

Most investors encounter the regulation when they reacquire a stock soon after selling, but it works the other way, too.

Specifically, the law says you may not take a tax loss on a security sale if you have obtained the same or a substantially identical security 30 days before or 30 days after a sale. So don't try to get around the rule by buying more of a stock just before you dump the poorly performing shares you already own.

No loss now, but later
When a stock transaction violates wash sale guidelines, the Internal Revenue Service will not let you take the tax break immediately. However, all is not lost.

"The deduction of your loss is postponed to a later date," says Ozelli. That is, the disallowed loss is added to the cost of the new shares you bought. This gives you the tax basis for the holdings, which you'll use when you sell the reacquired securities.

For example, Jim bought 100 shares of Stock A for $1,000 and sold them for $750, producing a $250 loss. Fifteen days later he bought 100 new shares of Stock A for $800. Because Jim bought identical stock, he can't immediately take the loss. But he can add the disallowed $250 to the $800 price of his new shares, producing a basis of $1,050 for the new shares. When Jim sells his reacquired Stock A shares, the adjusted basis will, depending on the sales price, produce a bigger loss to claim or reduce any taxable gains.

What exactly is identical?
The wash sale timing considerations are pretty straightforward. That's not necessarily the case for the rule's other key component: the nature of the sold and repurchased stock.

Investors who deal in individual stocks usually don't have problems. It's easy to tell what stocks the IRS might deem substantially similar. But what about mutual funds?

Let's look at Jim's portfolio again. This time he's closing out his Fidelity XYZ Telecom Fund account at a loss. He believes, however, that the sector is poised for growth so he uses his XYZ proceeds to immediately buy shares of Vanguard ZZZ Telecom Fund. Since both funds are invested in telecom holdings, has Jim violated the wash sale rule?

While technically it looks that way, some tax professionals say Jim is in the clear thanks to IRS vagueness when it comes to wash sales and mutual-fund trading.

"Generally speaking, there are no hard-line guidelines in regard to what is substantially identical in the mutual fund context," says Ozelli. "Rather, the taxpayer has to consider all the facts and circumstances in each case, and there are lots of different interpretations through the courts and private IRS rulings."

Shares issued by different fund groups are not likely to be considered substantially identical, says Ozelli. It gets a little dicier if you shift funds in the same sector within one fund family, for example, going from Fidelity XYZ Telecom to Fidelity Emerging Markets Telecom. Here again, says Ozelli, the facts and circumstances would make the difference, but the IRS would likely take the position that different classes issued by the same fund family are substantially identical.

And, the tax specialist cautions, the IRS always has the power to disregard a sham transaction.

"Even if you made it look like a substantially different security," says Ozelli, "if the IRS identifies that there is no economic substance to the transaction, it will be disallowed."

IRA swap eliminated
Some investors had tried to work around the wash sale rule by buying the sold or similar stock for an individual retirement account, or IRA. In these cases, they argued, because the retirement plan (Roth or traditional) is separate from the taxpayer's individual personal holdings, the wash sale rules shouldn't apply.

The IRS, however, has officially nixed such transactions as a way to circumvent the wash sale rules.

In Revenue Rule 2008-05, published Jan. 22, 2008, the IRS says "if an individual sells stock or securities for a loss and causes his or her IRA or Roth IRA to purchase substantially identical stock or securities within a specified period, the loss on the sale of the stock or securities is disallowed under section 1091, and the individual's basis in the IRA or Roth IRA is not increased by virtue of section 1091(d)."

Essentially, that means the IRS recognizes that the individual investor and the IRA investor are one person, so the wash sale rules apply.


]]> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:53:02 -0500
Bankrate.com
Don't let your tax break get washed away
Tuesday January 13, 6:00 am ET
Kay Bell

Your portfolio took a beating, but you were able to use that to your tax advantage by selling some losers. Now one of your former stocks has turned around and you want it back.
In this tax tip:

ADVERTISEMENT

• No loss now, but later
• What exactly is identical?
• IRA swap eliminated

Don't be in too big of a hurry to call your broker. If you repurchase the stock too soon, you'll violate the wash sale rule. This regulation prohibits a shareholder from selling a holding at a loss, using that loss for a tax break and then turning right around and buying the same or similar stock.

It's designed to "prevent the deduction of noneconomic losses," says Selva Ozelli, international tax editor for RIA, a New York-based provider of tax information and software to tax professionals. That's basically what you're trying to do, Ozelli says, if the whole purpose behind a transaction is to generate a tax loss, but you believe in the investment itself.

Most investors encounter the regulation when they reacquire a stock soon after selling, but it works the other way, too.

Specifically, the law says you may not take a tax loss on a security sale if you have obtained the same or a substantially identical security 30 days before or 30 days after a sale. So don't try to get around the rule by buying more of a stock just before you dump the poorly performing shares you already own.

No loss now, but later
When a stock transaction violates wash sale guidelines, the Internal Revenue Service will not let you take the tax break immediately. However, all is not lost.

"The deduction of your loss is postponed to a later date," says Ozelli. That is, the disallowed loss is added to the cost of the new shares you bought. This gives you the tax basis for the holdings, which you'll use when you sell the reacquired securities.

For example, Jim bought 100 shares of Stock A for $1,000 and sold them for $750, producing a $250 loss. Fifteen days later he bought 100 new shares of Stock A for $800. Because Jim bought identical stock, he can't immediately take the loss. But he can add the disallowed $250 to the $800 price of his new shares, producing a basis of $1,050 for the new shares. When Jim sells his reacquired Stock A shares, the adjusted basis will, depending on the sales price, produce a bigger loss to claim or reduce any taxable gains.

What exactly is identical?
The wash sale timing considerations are pretty straightforward. That's not necessarily the case for the rule's other key component: the nature of the sold and repurchased stock.

Investors who deal in individual stocks usually don't have problems. It's easy to tell what stocks the IRS might deem substantially similar. But what about mutual funds?

Let's look at Jim's portfolio again. This time he's closing out his Fidelity XYZ Telecom Fund account at a loss. He believes, however, that the sector is poised for growth so he uses his XYZ proceeds to immediately buy shares of Vanguard ZZZ Telecom Fund. Since both funds are invested in telecom holdings, has Jim violated the wash sale rule?

While technically it looks that way, some tax professionals say Jim is in the clear thanks to IRS vagueness when it comes to wash sales and mutual-fund trading.

"Generally speaking, there are no hard-line guidelines in regard to what is substantially identical in the mutual fund context," says Ozelli. "Rather, the taxpayer has to consider all the facts and circumstances in each case, and there are lots of different interpretations through the courts and private IRS rulings."

Shares issued by different fund groups are not likely to be considered substantially identical, says Ozelli. It gets a little dicier if you shift funds in the same sector within one fund family, for example, going from Fidelity XYZ Telecom to Fidelity Emerging Markets Telecom. Here again, says Ozelli, the facts and circumstances would make the difference, but the IRS would likely take the position that different classes issued by the same fund family are substantially identical.

And, the tax specialist cautions, the IRS always has the power to disregard a sham transaction.

"Even if you made it look like a substantially different security," says Ozelli, "if the IRS identifies that there is no economic substance to the transaction, it will be disallowed."

IRA swap eliminated
Some investors had tried to work around the wash sale rule by buying the sold or similar stock for an individual retirement account, or IRA. In these cases, they argued, because the retirement plan (Roth or traditional) is separate from the taxpayer's individual personal holdings, the wash sale rules shouldn't apply.

The IRS, however, has officially nixed such transactions as a way to circumvent the wash sale rules.

In Revenue Rule 2008-05, published Jan. 22, 2008, the IRS says "if an individual sells stock or securities for a loss and causes his or her IRA or Roth IRA to purchase substantially identical stock or securities within a specified period, the loss on the sale of the stock or securities is disallowed under section 1091, and the individual's basis in the IRA or Roth IRA is not increased by virtue of section 1091(d)."

Essentially, that means the IRS recognizes that the individual investor and the IRA investor are one person, so the wash sale rules apply.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/44749-tax-loss-harvesting-the-wash-sale-rule?source=feed#comment-339074 339074 You quoted Congress' intent :

"Overall, he pointed out that the intent of Congress in legislation was to prevent investors from recreating the same economic position and risk exposure within the waiting period."

Not to be argumentative but with 2X risk exposure,the argument could be made for the allowance.

But OK,let's say he can't claim the loss. Now what?
How can he recapture a legitimate long term loss on IWM for his return. Is it gone forever or is there a procedure for undoing the damage?]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:15:09 -0500 You quoted Congress' intent :

"Overall, he pointed out that the intent of Congress in legislation was to prevent investors from recreating the same economic position and risk exposure within the waiting period."

Not to be argumentative but with 2X risk exposure,the argument could be made for the allowance.

But OK,let's say he can't claim the loss. Now what?
How can he recapture a legitimate long term loss on IWM for his return. Is it gone forever or is there a procedure for undoing the damage?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/44749-tax-loss-harvesting-the-wash-sale-rule?source=feed#comment-338997 338997
Your response was bit confusing:

'I will offer my uncertified personal view that
substituting a 2X fund tracking the same index as a 1X fund you sold
for a loss does not qualify under the Wash Sale Rule."

My thinking was that to get the 2x leverage,derivatives ,not the underlying securities were used?

TIA
]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:29:13 -0500
Your response was bit confusing:

'I will offer my uncertified personal view that
substituting a 2X fund tracking the same index as a 1X fund you sold
for a loss does not qualify under the Wash Sale Rule."

My thinking was that to get the 2x leverage,derivatives ,not the underlying securities were used?

TIA
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/44749-tax-loss-harvesting-the-wash-sale-rule?source=feed#comment-330265 330265 I think I may have screwed up inadvertently if I'm reading this right.
A client I advise had a loss in the IWM ETF. To capture the loss,I simultaneously sold the IWM and invested the money in the UWM ETF,which is a 2X leveraged play on the same underlying index,the Russell 2000.

Simple question,is it a violation of the wash rule?
Does the 2X leverage eliminate or negate the “substantially identical” caveat to the wash rule?]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:54:35 -0500 I think I may have screwed up inadvertently if I'm reading this right.
A client I advise had a loss in the IWM ETF. To capture the loss,I simultaneously sold the IWM and invested the money in the UWM ETF,which is a 2X leveraged play on the same underlying index,the Russell 2000.

Simple question,is it a violation of the wash rule?
Does the 2X leverage eliminate or negate the “substantially identical” caveat to the wash rule?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99236-examining-the-unprecedented-demand-for-gold-eagle-coins?source=feed#comment-278329 278329
Where does the Mint get the gold-Fort Knox? On the open market?

Who's watching the gold in Fort Knox? Do citizens get to know how much is there,does the amount stored rise and fall and if so how?
Heard crazy rumors the Gv't. is not letting us know that we have little gold left in Ft. Knox-any chance?

No,I don't wear tin foil hats-just curious.]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:39:38 -0400
Where does the Mint get the gold-Fort Knox? On the open market?

Who's watching the gold in Fort Knox? Do citizens get to know how much is there,does the amount stored rise and fall and if so how?
Heard crazy rumors the Gv't. is not letting us know that we have little gold left in Ft. Knox-any chance?

No,I don't wear tin foil hats-just curious.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81062-s-p-upgrades-e-trade-despite-struggling-financial-sector-peers?source=feed#comment-212925 212925
S&P REDUCES RECOMMENDATION ON SHARES OF E TRADE FINANCIAL TO SELL FROM HOLDFont size: A | A | A
5:58 PM ET 7/22/08 | S&P Marketscope
RELATED QUOTES


4:00 PM ET 7/23/08
Symbol Last % Chg
ETFC
3.41 -15.80%
Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes

Q2 loss from continuing operations of $0.24 vs. EPS of $0.37 is wider than our $0.15 loss estimate. Loss provision for home equity portfolio was wider than we expected and credit quality declined, while losses on security sales offset better net interest margin and cost controls. Losses from investments in the GSEs will hurt Q3 results, but capital raised from other asset sales may offset. Net account growth also slowed. We widen our '08 loss estimate widens to $0.65 from $0.49, but keep target price at $3, a discount to a declining projected book value as writedowns continue.

]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:58:18 -0400
S&P REDUCES RECOMMENDATION ON SHARES OF E TRADE FINANCIAL TO SELL FROM HOLDFont size: A | A | A
5:58 PM ET 7/22/08 | S&P Marketscope
RELATED QUOTES


4:00 PM ET 7/23/08
Symbol Last % Chg
ETFC
3.41 -15.80%
Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes

Q2 loss from continuing operations of $0.24 vs. EPS of $0.37 is wider than our $0.15 loss estimate. Loss provision for home equity portfolio was wider than we expected and credit quality declined, while losses on security sales offset better net interest margin and cost controls. Losses from investments in the GSEs will hurt Q3 results, but capital raised from other asset sales may offset. Net account growth also slowed. We widen our '08 loss estimate widens to $0.65 from $0.49, but keep target price at $3, a discount to a declining projected book value as writedowns continue.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86144-countering-the-ap-s-e-trade-financial-earnings-preview?source=feed#comment-212838 212838
"Bank Earnings Exceed Mortgage Losses: In their June 30, 2008 press release, E*Trade announced that it has been able to “generate earnings in the Bank to absorb credit losses in excess of management’s current three-year forecast.” E*Trade investor relations has confirmed multiple times that the word “EXCESS” in this statement is related to the earnings and not to the losses. In other words, in is wrong to interpret this as saying losses are in excess of management’s forecast; the validated disclosure from this message from E*Trade Management is that earnings are exceeding losses."

Do we need a retraction in light of earnings or am I just misreading it?]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:21:24 -0400
"Bank Earnings Exceed Mortgage Losses: In their June 30, 2008 press release, E*Trade announced that it has been able to “generate earnings in the Bank to absorb credit losses in excess of management’s current three-year forecast.” E*Trade investor relations has confirmed multiple times that the word “EXCESS” in this statement is related to the earnings and not to the losses. In other words, in is wrong to interpret this as saying losses are in excess of management’s forecast; the validated disclosure from this message from E*Trade Management is that earnings are exceeding losses."

Do we need a retraction in light of earnings or am I just misreading it?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86144-countering-the-ap-s-e-trade-financial-earnings-preview?source=feed#comment-212828 212828
S&P REDUCES RECOMMENDATION ON SHARES OF E TRADE FINANCIAL TO SELL FROM HOLDFont size: A | A | A
5:58 PM ET 7/22/08 | S&P Marketscope
RELATED QUOTES


4:00 PM ET 7/23/08
Symbol Last % Chg
ETFC
3.41 -15.80%
Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes

Q2 loss from continuing operations of $0.24 vs. EPS of $0.37 is wider than our $0.15 loss estimate. Loss provision for home equity portfolio was wider than we expected and credit quality declined, while losses on security sales offset better net interest margin and cost controls. Losses from investments in the GSEs will hurt Q3 results, but capital raised from other asset sales may offset. Net account growth also slowed. We widen our '08 loss estimate widens to $0.65 from $0.49, but keep target price at $3, a discount to a declining projected book value as writedowns continue.]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:10:49 -0400
S&P REDUCES RECOMMENDATION ON SHARES OF E TRADE FINANCIAL TO SELL FROM HOLDFont size: A | A | A
5:58 PM ET 7/22/08 | S&P Marketscope
RELATED QUOTES


4:00 PM ET 7/23/08
Symbol Last % Chg
ETFC
3.41 -15.80%
Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes

Q2 loss from continuing operations of $0.24 vs. EPS of $0.37 is wider than our $0.15 loss estimate. Loss provision for home equity portfolio was wider than we expected and credit quality declined, while losses on security sales offset better net interest margin and cost controls. Losses from investments in the GSEs will hurt Q3 results, but capital raised from other asset sales may offset. Net account growth also slowed. We widen our '08 loss estimate widens to $0.65 from $0.49, but keep target price at $3, a discount to a declining projected book value as writedowns continue.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-196240 196240
messages.finance.yahoo...
]]> Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:01:27 -0400
messages.finance.yahoo...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-195592 195592 seekingalpha.com/artic...



......"A Final Word of Caution
Those of you looking to make easy money in the financials like E-Trade (ETFC) need to think again. The risk is too high right now. I find it amazing how so many who have taken a long position in ETFC cite the company's impressive book value as some sign of value or financial strength.Understand that book value is used in the event of liquidation of assets in bankruptcy and therefore usually has no impact for common stock holders. In addition, book values of financials are meaningless since the banks have overvalued their debt. Finally, book values typically have no way of fully accounting for the type of massive leverage the banks have built.If you were not aware of these basic facts, you really need to sit this one out, save your cash and wait for the next bull market, when nearly everyone does well.

Even Citibank (C) has considerable downside from here, as does Bank of America (BAC). Over the past year, I have made many recommendations to short the financials. Earlier in the year, my attention was focused on Lehman Brothers (LEH) and American International Group (AIG). The story on these guys is far from over but I would wait for a rally before going short again.

The next short to consider will be Merrill Lynch (MER). When MBIA (MBI) and Ambac (ABK) get another downgrade, Merrill will be in deep trouble due to their large exposure to insured mortgage debt. That said, you might be wondering why Merrill is already near a year low. It's quite simple. All that I have told you about Merrill's risks is widely known. But that does not mean it can't go lower. However, unless you are very experienced with shorting, you need to stay away from this strategy.

Will there ever be a time to pick up the financials? I doubt I will bother to pick up any of these (other than for short-term trading) even when I sense the bottom has been reached because the climb back up is going to be very slow and small. The dilution that has and will continue to occur will crush earnings for many years."

]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:01:06 -0400 seekingalpha.com/artic...



......"A Final Word of Caution
Those of you looking to make easy money in the financials like E-Trade (ETFC) need to think again. The risk is too high right now. I find it amazing how so many who have taken a long position in ETFC cite the company's impressive book value as some sign of value or financial strength.Understand that book value is used in the event of liquidation of assets in bankruptcy and therefore usually has no impact for common stock holders. In addition, book values of financials are meaningless since the banks have overvalued their debt. Finally, book values typically have no way of fully accounting for the type of massive leverage the banks have built.If you were not aware of these basic facts, you really need to sit this one out, save your cash and wait for the next bull market, when nearly everyone does well.

Even Citibank (C) has considerable downside from here, as does Bank of America (BAC). Over the past year, I have made many recommendations to short the financials. Earlier in the year, my attention was focused on Lehman Brothers (LEH) and American International Group (AIG). The story on these guys is far from over but I would wait for a rally before going short again.

The next short to consider will be Merrill Lynch (MER). When MBIA (MBI) and Ambac (ABK) get another downgrade, Merrill will be in deep trouble due to their large exposure to insured mortgage debt. That said, you might be wondering why Merrill is already near a year low. It's quite simple. All that I have told you about Merrill's risks is widely known. But that does not mean it can't go lower. However, unless you are very experienced with shorting, you need to stay away from this strategy.

Will there ever be a time to pick up the financials? I doubt I will bother to pick up any of these (other than for short-term trading) even when I sense the bottom has been reached because the climb back up is going to be very slow and small. The dilution that has and will continue to occur will crush earnings for many years."

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-195583 195583
seekingalpha.com/artic...]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:46:11 -0400
seekingalpha.com/artic...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-192006 192006
"➤ ETFC is in the midst of restructuring its opera-
tions and balance sheet to focus on its retail
clients and reduce its exposure to consumer
lending and securities investments. While we
view the decision to refocus on its core compe-
tencies as prudent, we believe significant dam-
age to its balance sheet and future earnings
power has already taken place. While customer
and asset defections have likely stabilized, we
expect higher loan loss provisions, further im-
pairments, and dilution from its capital infusion
to constrain results for the foreseeable future.
➤ Despite the problems with its mortgage hold-
ings and security investments, ETFC continues
to post relatively strong retail results, with
strong net new customer growth and daily av-
erage revenue trades (DARTs) up 12%, year to
year, in the first quarter. However, we see a
number of negative headwinds in 2008, includ-
ing continued loss provisions on its first lien
and home equity portfolio, higher debt expense
and increased customer acquisition costs.
➤ We project a loss per share of $0.49 in 2008 be-
fore a return to profitability in 2009 with EPS of
$0.16.
➤ We believe ETFC's past decision to stray from
its core direct retail customer focus will be a
drag on results for a number of quarters. While
we view the move to realign operations to fo-
cus on core retail customers as prudent, we
see the overhang from its remaining mortgage
assets and the dilutive capital infusion out-
weighing the near-term positives that we have
seen in its retail metrics. We anticipate further
write-downs in the home equity loan portfolio in
2008 and increased loan loss provisions for first
lien holdings. While we see Citadel's invest-
ment providing ETFC with much needed capital
and balance sheet stability, we view the terms
as unfavorable to existing shareholders.
➤ Risks to our opinion and target price include in-
creased price competition in the retail busi-
ness, higher interest rates, and smaller write-
downs in the remaining mortgage portfolio.
➤ We arrive at our 12-month target price of $4.00
by applying a 0.8X multiple to ETFC's 12-month
projected book value per share, a discount to
peers. We think a discount is warranted by un-
certainties surrounding ETFC's mortgage and
securities exposure and a challenging market. "]]> Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:18:31 -0400
"➤ ETFC is in the midst of restructuring its opera-
tions and balance sheet to focus on its retail
clients and reduce its exposure to consumer
lending and securities investments. While we
view the decision to refocus on its core compe-
tencies as prudent, we believe significant dam-
age to its balance sheet and future earnings
power has already taken place. While customer
and asset defections have likely stabilized, we
expect higher loan loss provisions, further im-
pairments, and dilution from its capital infusion
to constrain results for the foreseeable future.
➤ Despite the problems with its mortgage hold-
ings and security investments, ETFC continues
to post relatively strong retail results, with
strong net new customer growth and daily av-
erage revenue trades (DARTs) up 12%, year to
year, in the first quarter. However, we see a
number of negative headwinds in 2008, includ-
ing continued loss provisions on its first lien
and home equity portfolio, higher debt expense
and increased customer acquisition costs.
➤ We project a loss per share of $0.49 in 2008 be-
fore a return to profitability in 2009 with EPS of
$0.16.
➤ We believe ETFC's past decision to stray from
its core direct retail customer focus will be a
drag on results for a number of quarters. While
we view the move to realign operations to fo-
cus on core retail customers as prudent, we
see the overhang from its remaining mortgage
assets and the dilutive capital infusion out-
weighing the near-term positives that we have
seen in its retail metrics. We anticipate further
write-downs in the home equity loan portfolio in
2008 and increased loan loss provisions for first
lien holdings. While we see Citadel's invest-
ment providing ETFC with much needed capital
and balance sheet stability, we view the terms
as unfavorable to existing shareholders.
➤ Risks to our opinion and target price include in-
creased price competition in the retail busi-
ness, higher interest rates, and smaller write-
downs in the remaining mortgage portfolio.
➤ We arrive at our 12-month target price of $4.00
by applying a 0.8X multiple to ETFC's 12-month
projected book value per share, a discount to
peers. We think a discount is warranted by un-
certainties surrounding ETFC's mortgage and
securities exposure and a challenging market. "]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-191376 191376
On 3-2-08,the day he's named CEO,
1.8 million shares land in his account and no one mentions it as compensation???
Doesn't look like they're options but maybe they're restricted?
Wondering if I missed a filing detailing this?

biz.yahoo.com/t/28/382...



]]> Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:16:08 -0400
On 3-2-08,the day he's named CEO,
1.8 million shares land in his account and no one mentions it as compensation???
Doesn't look like they're options but maybe they're restricted?
Wondering if I missed a filing detailing this?

biz.yahoo.com/t/28/382...



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-190263 190263
Sorry for your delicate condition,try a bromo, but my questions are valid and relevant.Cindy is writing pump pieces,cherry picking only the best looking data to sell her position.
Simple example,Cindy cites the S&P upgrade and quotes the analyst who sees signs of stability but conveniently leaves out that S&P simply went from sell to hold and set a target of $4,about where the stock was when the upgrade came out. Then she focuses on the BMO guy raising the target to $6. I ask why the BMO analyst who got it so wrong last year should be trusted now? That's in addition to conveniently leaving out Layton's little brush with scandal while asking readers to buy into his pronouncements and not acknowedging he was not the first choice for CEO and hasn't helped the stock price.

Cindy is on record on the yahoo board of planning this series of pump pieces in collusion with other well known pumpers. Readers should know that. I'll keep pointing out to the unsuspecting what she's doing,the record of pump pieces here is clear:

Metrics, Mortgages and Analysts
on Jun 20, 2008 about AMTD, ETFC, SCHW
S&P Upgrades E*Trade Despite Struggling Financial Sector Peers
on Jun 12, 2008 about ETFC
E*Trade's 'First In, First Out' Position: Yes, 111M Shorts Can Be Wrong
on Jun 11, 2008 about ETFC
Citadel Infuses E*Trade with Strong, Experienced Management
on May 29, 2008 about ETFC
Who Will Trigger E*Trade's Magic Moment - and a 111.4M Short Squeeze?
on May 29, 2008 about ETFC
Seeking E*Trade's 'Magic Moment'
on May 23, 2008 about ETFC
E*Trade: What the Analysts and News Haven't Told You
on May 22, 2008 about ETFC
Schwab, E*Trade: Monthly Activity Comparison and the Industry Average
on May 15, 2008 about ETFC, SCHW
E*Trade's Annual Shareholder Meeting Should Pressure the Shorts
on May 09, 2008 about ETFC
Comparative Price Shopping: Selected Banking, Mortgage and Brokerage Stocks
on Apr 21, 2008 about BSC, CFC, ETFC
E*Trade: Primed To Turn Around?
on Apr 18, 2008 about AMTD, ETFC, SCHW
]]> Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:11:31 -0400
Sorry for your delicate condition,try a bromo, but my questions are valid and relevant.Cindy is writing pump pieces,cherry picking only the best looking data to sell her position.
Simple example,Cindy cites the S&P upgrade and quotes the analyst who sees signs of stability but conveniently leaves out that S&P simply went from sell to hold and set a target of $4,about where the stock was when the upgrade came out. Then she focuses on the BMO guy raising the target to $6. I ask why the BMO analyst who got it so wrong last year should be trusted now? That's in addition to conveniently leaving out Layton's little brush with scandal while asking readers to buy into his pronouncements and not acknowedging he was not the first choice for CEO and hasn't helped the stock price.

Cindy is on record on the yahoo board of planning this series of pump pieces in collusion with other well known pumpers. Readers should know that. I'll keep pointing out to the unsuspecting what she's doing,the record of pump pieces here is clear:

Metrics, Mortgages and Analysts
on Jun 20, 2008 about AMTD, ETFC, SCHW
S&P Upgrades E*Trade Despite Struggling Financial Sector Peers
on Jun 12, 2008 about ETFC
E*Trade's 'First In, First Out' Position: Yes, 111M Shorts Can Be Wrong
on Jun 11, 2008 about ETFC
Citadel Infuses E*Trade with Strong, Experienced Management
on May 29, 2008 about ETFC
Who Will Trigger E*Trade's Magic Moment - and a 111.4M Short Squeeze?
on May 29, 2008 about ETFC
Seeking E*Trade's 'Magic Moment'
on May 23, 2008 about ETFC
E*Trade: What the Analysts and News Haven't Told You
on May 22, 2008 about ETFC
Schwab, E*Trade: Monthly Activity Comparison and the Industry Average
on May 15, 2008 about ETFC, SCHW
E*Trade's Annual Shareholder Meeting Should Pressure the Shorts
on May 09, 2008 about ETFC
Comparative Price Shopping: Selected Banking, Mortgage and Brokerage Stocks
on Apr 21, 2008 about BSC, CFC, ETFC
E*Trade: Primed To Turn Around?
on Apr 18, 2008 about AMTD, ETFC, SCHW
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189954 189954 I've been dismissed by Queen Cindy.
If there's anyone still reading this dreck I suppose I'll just let you figure it out.]]> Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:51:45 -0400 I've been dismissed by Queen Cindy.
If there's anyone still reading this dreck I suppose I'll just let you figure it out.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189950 189950 You claim the man is a brilliant paragon of virtue but you left out the reason many believe he retired from a job paying $15mill./a year-it's relevant.
It your ineptitude that's being questioned,not his.]]> Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:13:12 -0400 You claim the man is a brilliant paragon of virtue but you left out the reason many believe he retired from a job paying $15mill./a year-it's relevant.
It your ineptitude that's being questioned,not his.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189942 189942
messages.finance.yahoo...]]> Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:49:47 -0400
messages.finance.yahoo...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189934 189934 Perhaps because there's only two logical conclusions,you left it out intentionally since it didn't fit your thesis (you lied by omission) or your research skills are severely absent or biased?????

Anyway,pumpers are always citing Layton's pay package being tied to performance.That's true enough but there are some other ways to look at it.
Layton's got his $1million stock buy back and plenty more with any luck at all.That buy of stock was IMHO, a down payment on the job he wanted and not a big amount to him,he earned $15 million total compensation his last year at JPM. If he hadn't been appointed CEO of ETFC he might have walked and sold his tiny stake-not much of a risk on his part.He's pretty well covered as I see it.
But below is the language from the SEC filing describing his ETFC CEO compensation:

"Mr. Layton will receive an annual base salary of $1,000,000, and the Company granted to Mr. Layton stock options and restricted stock, which will vest on a quarterly basis through 2009 and have an initial aggregate value of approximately $15.4 million (with the value for the stock options based on an option valuation methodology and for restricted stock based on the intrinsic value on the grant date). Mr. Layton and the Company will enter into an employment agreement with a term through 2009, which will provide for no further equity grants and no opportunity for any cash bonuses during the term. Under the employment agreement, if Mr. Layton is terminated without cause, or if after a change in control, he resigns for "good reason" (as defined in the Company's previously filed form of executive employment agreement), he will receive a severance payment of $5 million and accelerated vesting of his equity awards. He will not receive separate compensation as Chairman or as a director."

Is it possible that even if Layton presided over the sale of ETFC for only $1/share,he'd still get a $5m bonus and restricted shares could still be granted to him then????? That seems to be the way it reads?]]> Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:07:31 -0400 Perhaps because there's only two logical conclusions,you left it out intentionally since it didn't fit your thesis (you lied by omission) or your research skills are severely absent or biased?????

Anyway,pumpers are always citing Layton's pay package being tied to performance.That's true enough but there are some other ways to look at it.
Layton's got his $1million stock buy back and plenty more with any luck at all.That buy of stock was IMHO, a down payment on the job he wanted and not a big amount to him,he earned $15 million total compensation his last year at JPM. If he hadn't been appointed CEO of ETFC he might have walked and sold his tiny stake-not much of a risk on his part.He's pretty well covered as I see it.
But below is the language from the SEC filing describing his ETFC CEO compensation:

"Mr. Layton will receive an annual base salary of $1,000,000, and the Company granted to Mr. Layton stock options and restricted stock, which will vest on a quarterly basis through 2009 and have an initial aggregate value of approximately $15.4 million (with the value for the stock options based on an option valuation methodology and for restricted stock based on the intrinsic value on the grant date). Mr. Layton and the Company will enter into an employment agreement with a term through 2009, which will provide for no further equity grants and no opportunity for any cash bonuses during the term. Under the employment agreement, if Mr. Layton is terminated without cause, or if after a change in control, he resigns for "good reason" (as defined in the Company's previously filed form of executive employment agreement), he will receive a severance payment of $5 million and accelerated vesting of his equity awards. He will not receive separate compensation as Chairman or as a director."

Is it possible that even if Layton presided over the sale of ETFC for only $1/share,he'd still get a $5m bonus and restricted shares could still be granted to him then????? That seems to be the way it reads?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189513 189513
Legally,he's guilty only of wondering out loud if something funny was going on.We're not holding him to the highest standards here,a real "boy scout" might have made some real noise.But I'm adult enough to know how biz works and also smart enough to think this is a small negative for a CEO running a co. I invest in.
If nothing else,it shows at least a little willingness to play ball with others to cover up shady stuff.
There was talk he retired early over this smear but how do you nail that down-you can't.

]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:18:43 -0400
Legally,he's guilty only of wondering out loud if something funny was going on.We're not holding him to the highest standards here,a real "boy scout" might have made some real noise.But I'm adult enough to know how biz works and also smart enough to think this is a small negative for a CEO running a co. I invest in.
If nothing else,it shows at least a little willingness to play ball with others to cover up shady stuff.
There was talk he retired early over this smear but how do you nail that down-you can't.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189484 189484
Even more germane,why do all the ETFC pumpers hate Bhatia,one of the few analysts who warned of the problems in August
BEFORE everyone started talking about them.
Shouldn't that make him a bit of a hero?
It does to me.]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:29:31 -0400
Even more germane,why do all the ETFC pumpers hate Bhatia,one of the few analysts who warned of the problems in August
BEFORE everyone started talking about them.
Shouldn't that make him a bit of a hero?
It does to me.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189478 189478
Cindy,you know I don't lie or you should.
That's why my ID is over 10 years old and I stand behind every post even though a few of the calls over the years weren't exactly "brilliant".
Note that your pumper partners "numbersssss" changes his often and the other boy wonder pres just started posting in January-wonder why? Prescient11 even admits ETFC is his first major stock holding,did you know that?

That said ,your inability to do even the most basic research on Layton is troubling. Everyone who follows the OLB space knew about Layton and Enron,as minor as it might be,only a rookie pumper like you would be in the dark about it.
A simple google would have found it.

Sad to see what passes for "expert research" on SA these days.
]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:22:13 -0400
Cindy,you know I don't lie or you should.
That's why my ID is over 10 years old and I stand behind every post even though a few of the calls over the years weren't exactly "brilliant".
Note that your pumper partners "numbersssss" changes his often and the other boy wonder pres just started posting in January-wonder why? Prescient11 even admits ETFC is his first major stock holding,did you know that?

That said ,your inability to do even the most basic research on Layton is troubling. Everyone who follows the OLB space knew about Layton and Enron,as minor as it might be,only a rookie pumper like you would be in the dark about it.
A simple google would have found it.

Sad to see what passes for "expert research" on SA these days.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189474 189474 That's why my ID is over 10 years old and I stand behind every post even though a few of the calls over the years weren't exactly "brilliant".Note that your pumper partners "numbersssss" changes his often and the other boy wonder pres just started posting in January-wonder why? Prescient11 even admits ETFC is his first major stock holding,did you know that?

That said ,your inability to do even the most basic research on Layton is troubling. Everyone who follows the OLB space knew about Layton and Enron,as minor as it might be,only a rookie pumper like you would be in the dark about it.
A simple google would have found it.

Sad to see what passes for "expert research" on SA these days.]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:11:33 -0400 That's why my ID is over 10 years old and I stand behind every post even though a few of the calls over the years weren't exactly "brilliant".Note that your pumper partners "numbersssss" changes his often and the other boy wonder pres just started posting in January-wonder why? Prescient11 even admits ETFC is his first major stock holding,did you know that?

That said ,your inability to do even the most basic research on Layton is troubling. Everyone who follows the OLB space knew about Layton and Enron,as minor as it might be,only a rookie pumper like you would be in the dark about it.
A simple google would have found it.

Sad to see what passes for "expert research" on SA these days.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189397 189397
Not sure why you're so enamored of Layton?

Press reports confirmed he wasn't the top choice of the BOD.
He's not a turnaround expert.
He hasn't done much for the stock price.
His policy of announcing dilutive swaps after the close on Friday's is considered slimy by many Wallstreeters.
And ,rightly or wrongly,Layton was tarnished by some involvement in the Enron debacle.


Please explain what he's done to earn your adulation.]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:29:26 -0400
Not sure why you're so enamored of Layton?

Press reports confirmed he wasn't the top choice of the BOD.
He's not a turnaround expert.
He hasn't done much for the stock price.
His policy of announcing dilutive swaps after the close on Friday's is considered slimy by many Wallstreeters.
And ,rightly or wrongly,Layton was tarnished by some involvement in the Enron debacle.


Please explain what he's done to earn your adulation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189157 189157

Nah,who'd pay her for this stuff????


]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:34:14 -0400

Nah,who'd pay her for this stuff????


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82085-metrics-mortgages-and-analysts?source=feed#comment-189142 189142
Her latest piece of puffery would have you rely on management pronouncements and analyst opinions.I can almost hear the chorus of sighs and "Uh-ohs" arising from the readers now.

Take a few minutes and look back at the pronouncements of virtually every CEO in the mortgage space for the last year or so.

After reading that endless stream of lies and half truths,why would anyone in their right mind believe a word any of them uttered?????


Then look at the BMO analyst and note how long he remained at "Outperform" on ETFC in '07. All thru the year from the mid $20's all the way down to the $4-5 level when he finally downgraded 11-30-07.
It's fair to assume this guy was OBLIVIOUS to the mortgage issues at ETFC and yet now we are asked to trust his "insight".Color me skeptical.]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:16:48 -0400
Her latest piece of puffery would have you rely on management pronouncements and analyst opinions.I can almost hear the chorus of sighs and "Uh-ohs" arising from the readers now.

Take a few minutes and look back at the pronouncements of virtually every CEO in the mortgage space for the last year or so.

After reading that endless stream of lies and half truths,why would anyone in their right mind believe a word any of them uttered?????


Then look at the BMO analyst and note how long he remained at "Outperform" on ETFC in '07. All thru the year from the mid $20's all the way down to the $4-5 level when he finally downgraded 11-30-07.
It's fair to assume this guy was OBLIVIOUS to the mortgage issues at ETFC and yet now we are asked to trust his "insight".Color me skeptical.]]>