monday1929

FASB Changes Perpetuate Fair Value Lying

Your Deluded beliefs have been and will be highly profitable for me, but damaging to society. If you believe that Govts. are larger than the Market, you do not know History.


On Apr 03 10:23 AM Conan the Barbarian wrote:

> citez: Agreed, but let's carry it forward a tad.
>
> All of the World's Governments are now focused on "fixing" the problems
> and will do Whatever it takes to do so. If anyone actually believes
> that any kind of credit contraction will stand in the way of their
> concerted efforts, they have fully deluded themselves.
>
> The US no longer stands alone in this effort.

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

And when does the tooth fairy show up at our doors? This "fire sale"
has been going on over two years now, when will you admit you are wrong? Prices are prices, as the Great Free Market Pirates loved to Tout in their heyday.


On Apr 03 07:15 AM citetez wrote:

> The "dishonesty" was really in forcing banks to book paper losses
> before they occurred (and when they might never occur) on illiquid
> assets based on a temporary market crisis. This killed the banks
> and perpetuated the crisis. Lifting Mark to Market will be hailed
> as the end of this crisi period. Not all will be rosy from here,
> but this allows the markets and the marketplace to heal.

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

No, the internet bubble involved other crimes. All your other points are good, though.


On Apr 03 07:43 AM Michael L wrote:

> Watch when banks start buying assets from each other at "market prices".
> You buy mine and I'll buy yours. The ol' boy network or hucksters
> and frauds has new life. FASB? Who runs that and with what oversight?
> Wasn't mark to market what kept Greenspans internet bubble afloat
> for so long? When it comes to the American puplic the government's
> motto seems to be "if you can't beat 'en, cheat 'em."

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

Keep believing, it is profitable for me. mauldin is good, but vastly underestimated the extent of this coming Depression. He also just published the Criminal PIMCO's take on things, a disappointment for me.


On Apr 03 04:52 AM yay wrote:

> you have to take into account that these writedowns at first occured
> because there was no market, and there was no market because nobody
> wanted the ACCOUNTING risks these instruments brought with them,
> not neccessarily DEFAULT risks, if you discount the cashflow these
> papers will bring if ypu hold them till maturity you should still
> get a fairly high value, read mauldins report on this, frontline
> report or sth from 2 weeks ago...

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

If everything were "balanced", then there would be no chance of profit. It is amazing that , at this late date, one still must read those defending one Quadrillion in derivatives as "harmless". Even Greenspan admitted he got that all wrong. Your ignorance assures a few more months of profitable trading. I will be buying from you at the bottom (S&P 200) when you finally "see the light". See you then.


On Mar 30 02:02 PM NickH wrote:

> This is a useless, hysterical article and I can't figure out how
> it got published. It is a bald faced attempt to "talk your book"
> and scare us all to death thinking we are stupid and don't know that
> these entities balance their books with long and short positions.
> Which editor okayed publishing of this piece? Must have been after
> a 2 Martini lunch.

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

Yes, after riding them down from$40.00 to one dollar, why not bet that a fascist system keeps Citi/JPM/BAC and the other walking dead walking a bit more. Their shares are just lottery tickets now- and always were. The Elites should be proud of what they wrought.


On Mar 31 01:53 AM GtownMetal wrote:

> C has $35.6 Trillion in derivatives and only $1.20 Trillion in equity,
> if 3.4% of their derivatives default it totally wipes out their $1.2
> Trillion in equity. Is that a chance any of you would take in this
> market?

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

Can we all assume you are being sarcastic about the "balanced banks" holdings?


On Mar 30 05:08 AM balabanovj wrote:

> Derivatives come in many forms. For Marc to say that these are huge
> liabilities to the banks carrying them, without knowing the balance
> of derivative that they hold is pure ignorance. If the derivatives
> are well spread, there is no reason for worry, and I doubt the portfolios
> of BAC or even C are anything but balanced.
>
> JBB

Are Citi, Bank of America Pushing Prices Up?

Don't worry, future generations will forget the bankers' sins and be fleeced all over again.


On Mar 29 10:23 AM User 289589 wrote:

> after what ken lewis has done to bac stock holders,who can ever trust
> bankers again??

Are Citi, Bank of America Pushing Prices Up?

Citi and BAC can hardly be called "private entities". They are habitual criminals and if they are gaming their own rescue, which is being funded by taxpayer dollars ( yes, I know, for our "collective" benefit) it needs to be investigated.


On Mar 27 12:05 PM It Figures wrote:

> This story has a lot of misperceptions, in my opinion.
>
> First, in a market with thousands of participants involving trillions
> of dollars, a single institution buying a few tens or hundreds of
> millions of securities doesn't move the needle.
>
> Second, with the feds promising to finance, almost for free, private
> speculators to buy this paper "to remove toxic assets from the banking
> industry's balance sheet" in the popular terminology, how can it
> be bad in any way if a private entity puts it's own capital on the
> line in an attempt to acquire assets it deems undervalued.
>
> Third, the author has no concept of what "insider trading" means.
> These banks have been telling the world that the current market prices
> are nuts, and are now acting on their analysis, for their own profit.
> Yes, they probably have better insight into the economic value of
> these securities, because they own similar paper and know first hand
> the cash flow and prepayment behavior, but this information is readily
> available to market participants, and the banks have made no secret
> of their opinions. That's why they carry them on their books at the
> values they do.
>
> This is exactly what the dozens of government programs are hoping
> to accomplish.
>

What Else Are the Banks Hiding?

JPM, holds 80 trillion of these derivatives. They help the FED in manipulating markets. You will never hear about the losses, they are being kept from us for "National Security" reasons. The real reason is, if the American people find out what REALLY happened, there would be a revolution. So maybe national Security IS the real reason. BIS lists numbers


On Mar 27 02:29 PM HBWOW wrote:

> I keep reading articles about the huge amount of derivatives in the
> world's market, ie "Central Banks in a Pickle" by Chris Laird article.
> He says that the world has well over $1000 trillion of derivatives
> out that are unregulated and deeply underwater. Most of the articles
> quote large numbers but I have yet to see a breakdown by country
> nor a breakdown of numbers held by our banks at any given time. Who
> started this insane gambling of unregulated, non descript, non monitored
> (by stock exchanges), non taxed (?), poorly or non recorded documentation
> type "investment"?

What Else Are the Banks Hiding?

It's not "sub-prime" lending. I assume you were one who early on stated that subprime was just 1% of the mortgages and 75% of those were paying on time etc etc etc.
The entire economy went "sub-prime"- covenenant Lite loans, leveraged buyouts saddling good companies with billions in debt, and TRILLIONS in derivatives with NOTHING behind them- not a house, not a shed. You have no idea (which is very profitable for me) what lurks off-balance sheet.
The reason we do not know how much loss lies in JPM's 80 TRILLION in (yes, I know, notional) is because if they told us the S&P would drop 60% overnight.
Let time tell which one of us is right. You keep trusting the Bankers- or is this Citi's PR dept. at work again?


On Mar 27 02:48 AM MattZN wrote:

> It's always a possibility that the losses will accelerate faster
> then the banks can handle, but it seems unlikely considering the
> moves the Fed made to force a bottom in home prices earlier and push
> out inflation a little further. Again, the media has done a very
> poor job on reporting. People still apparently believe that Bernanke
> is going to spend that 750B buying nothing but toxic assets. What
> he is actually doing is providing liquidity in mortgage-backed securities
> to allow banks, fannie, and freddie to ramp up origination and refi
> activity. Banks have to be able to securitize their originations
> or they hit a wall on available capital.
>
> If one were to start pointing fingers there's enough blame to go
> around, but people have already seemed to have forgotten that the
> massive ramp-up in sub-prime lending was not originated by the traditional
> banking industry. Unregulated non-bank entities were responsible
> for most of the volume, Wall street was responsible for most of the
> buying, other non-bank entities (now all out of business) were responsible
> for most of the CDO packaging, and AIG and others were responsible
> for writing CDS's without any risk controls (the banks, despite being
> hip-deep in the mess now, still had significantly better risk controls
> them companies like AIG which had basically none). Oh yah, and the
> government by 2008 was so dysfunctional that they couldn't regulate
> a 5-year old on a Popsicle binge, let alone anything real.
>
> Fortunately sanity is slowly returning to the sector. Cry Wolf too
> many times without any real figures to back up claims and investors
> simply stop believing that the banks are the boogie man.
>
> -Matt

Geithner's Financial Reform Is Doomed to Fail

Is that the Paul MCCulley who works with Billy Gross who got illegal inside information from Hanky Paulson that it was safe to plunge hundreds of Billions into Fannie and Freddie. That's hundreds of billions of pensioners money either risked in a criminally negligent manner or not risked at all do to inside information.
Is that wise Mr. Geithner the same Timmy who was criminally negligent in maintaining the soundness of the NY money Center Banks and got a nice promotion for failing so well? The one who can't figure out Turbo Tax?
If you call the rescue of the Banks "Capitalism", you must be Mr. Geithner himself. Hello, Timmy.


On Mar 27 01:40 PM Kinabalu wrote:

> <<One problem with banking is that it does not meet the test of capitalism.
> Either your money is at risk or it is not at risk. Banks are stuck
> halfway in between. We are trying to pretend banks are capitalist
> institutions.>>
>
>
> This article is so ridiculous its hard to know where to start my
> criticism. The concept that a bank is not a capitalist institution
> is absurd. The author ignores the shadow banking phenomenon of the
> last 2 decades. The concept that Geithner doesn't know how to solve
> "Too Big to Fail" is simplistic in the extreme. The fact that the
> authors sycophants are lined up to praise this dreck is a definitive
> exhibition of why it is possible for someone like Madoff to "manage"
> billions of dollars. Are there no longer any critical readers on
> this site?
>
> The author, and many of the above commenters, need a basic understanding
> of the natural evolution of an economic cycle. I would suggest they
> start with Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis recapped
> by Paul McCulley here:
>
> rolfe.winkler.googlepa...
>
>

Geithner's Financial Reform Is Doomed to Fail

Beware: many banks state they did not make "sub-prime" loans. That does NOT mean they did not make Alt A "liar loans", various other bad loans and bad Commercial loans which are soon to implode. Ask specific questions, and get the answers in writing from an Officer of the bank. If they refuse to do so, you should wonder why. Check your banks safety rating- not foolproof, but better than nothing.


On Mar 27 08:59 AM Jan Baker wrote:

> Why aren't all banks cooperative, like my own? (Riverset Credit Union
> in Pittsburgh, formerly the Pittsburgh Teachers Credit Union--it
> is small compared to the one in Hillsborough County, Florida.) Does
> anyone know how a cooperative bank is structured, compared to the
> plan here? I know they didn't invest in any of the bad mortgage investments--so
> they told me when I moved my retirement money out of the market and
> into their cd's.
>
> Steven's scheme here is such a powerful analysis of the problem.
> He keeps trying to get down to the structure of the problem.

Pandit's Letter to Citi Shareholders: Lame

Citi DIED. Don't you get it yet???


On Mar 25 07:19 AM mikeg3 wrote:

> Citi improved their Tangible Common Equity ratio because that is
> part of the stress test. Once Citi officially passes the stress test,
> the bettors on Citi's demise will have to find another target.<br/>
>
> The interesting question is why TCE replaced Tier 1 capital as the
> Fed's metric of bank health. I think that was just following the
> crowd, but it wasn't Citi's decision.

Anatomy of a Giveaway, Or Why Stocks Soared Yesterday

"Shoddy and Quite Obvious"- A good description of our Age ?


On Mar 24 05:34 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> You left out the part where all the other banks then get to claim
> their $500k investment is now worth $850k due to the twisted logic
> of a manipulated mark to market. Now aren't we all feeling rich?
>
>
> This process is a method for fraudulently altering banks balance
> sheets through asset pricing manipulations. It's shoddy and quite
> obvious.