icandoitdon

ING Shows How Bank Dismemberment Is Done

i'll do what john was too polite to do.

only an imbicile could defend the structure of the financial services industry in the united states. it's clear to all without an atrophied brain that it was the too big to fail culture that would have bankrupted the entire system had the federal reserve and treasury not both guaranteed private debt and turned on the printing presses 24/7 to prevent it. the treasury still guarantees the debt of many of these institutions and taxpayers remain on the hook for billions. and nothing about the structure of the financial system has changed. the fed still keeps rates at zero, using those taxpayers smart enough to acquired assets the hard way...through savings...to recapitalize these failed institutions that nearly bankrupted the system through ignorance and greed. and you think they deserve another bite at the apple just because you own a few shares of shitibank.

you're clueless.


On Oct 27 03:40 PM DonFurio wrote:

> Hey idiot author, the gov't is up big on C because they own the common
> at around 2.60 a share. C will pay the gov't back in full if they
> give them time. TARP was supposed to be for 3 years and then it got
> more punitive, but it's barely been 1 year and all you crazies are
> trying to blow up everything now in the name of "punishment" or in
> author's case because he's short. C is not expected to be profitable
> until the middle of next year, but once they get through this period
> they will be profitable, although smaller, but the asset sales will
> have helped them weather the storm and the stock will have risen
> from 4 now to 12-15 by 2012.
>
> There is a plan for AIG. Some of their strongest insurance companies
> will been spon-off and have an IPO. Others will be sold as the market
> comes back in a few years. In the end, the gov't will make a profit
> on the pref stock they bought in the financials which will be way
> more than they will be able to say about GM and Chr.

Has President Obama's Mortgage Modification Plan Failed?

kind of a replay of bush in his second term, wouldn't you say?


On Aug 20 05:54 PM Loulun wrote:

> It seems Obama is failing at everything Bail out failure,Cash for
> clunkers failure, Loan modification failure, Healthcare reform Failure,
> Afganastan will be a failure and Iraq will become a diaster. Then
> the stupid 51% will vote for him again in November 2011

Time to Bury the Rotting Carcasses of Dead U.S. Banks

there you have it. a rational analysis that gets to the heart of the issue and the steps that must be taken to constructively solve it, notwithstanding the anger expressed by disgruntled "investors" who've made bad bets on zombie banks.

the federal reserve and treasury are bent on perpetuating a failed financial system built on excess leverage, underpriced risk, securitized lending, no effective federal regulation and opaque accounting rules that permit financial institutions to take huge off balance sheet risks. that model has failed and anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand economics, capital formation or investing.

Contemplating the Demise of Bank of America, Citi and JPMorgan

yes, the large banks are already nationalized by virtue of the "lifeline" that is the federal government. ironic, isn't it? the government lifeline being a death sentence for raising private capital. even if private capital were available, it would be so dilutive at current share prices it would be impracticable to seek it.

ken lewis made a deal with the devil when he agreed to follow through with the merill purchase with government help. he couldn't have made that decision based on merrill's deterioration alone. my guess is his own bank is rotting from within just like Citi and, merrill or not, he needed more government money.

another remarkable factoid: after the first capital injection from TARP, ken lewis claimed it wasn't needed, but accepted on government insistence. if the CEOs of these banks don't even understand their own exposure what hope does an individual investor have investing in them?

Banks: The Final Countdown?

the federal insurance option makes sense to me. the amount of "toxic" assets is unknown. some is on the balance sheet, some is off. we can't even define with any precision a "toxic" asset.

federal insurance is the far simpler and least transparent way to handle the issue. we all know that transparency is not in the interests of either the institutions that own these toxic assets. neither is it in the interest of the federal government or federal reserve whose incompetence policys and wilfull ignorance led to their creation.

as to the effectiveness of such a policy, i.e. insuring everything, there is no certainty it will not cause as many problems as it solves. there will also be unintended consequences, e.g. dollar crashing, rampant inflation, surging interest rates, etc. it is not a riskless proposition and i don't see how this leads to an improved market environment in the short term. neither is solvency of the financial system the only issue. housing remains overpriced. consumers are still debt-ridden. credit is still restricted. unemployment is still rising. federal borrowing is through the roof. foreign economies are still declining.

to the extent we get through this crisis the healing process will be of long duration. i'd still be a seller of rallies.


On Jan 18 05:05 AM morph366 wrote:

> A new twist is developing in the way that the UK government is trying
> to orchestrate this final countdown as the original author posed
> it. Instead of "buying" those toxic assets and putting them into
> a bad bank there is now talk that the taxpayer will insure the banks
> against losses on them.
> Why would they not want to buy them and once for all stick them into
> a separate bank?
> Two reasons I suspect
> - nobody knows how to value them (other than suggesting that they
> are worthless)
> -insuring them as opposed to buying them enables governments to come
> up with the right weasel words that avoid them having to declare
> the real magnitude of the problem. If that number was to see the
> clear light of day it might prove even more shocking than Joe taxpayer
> could imagine.

BofA Following Citigroup to $5 or Lower

yes, BAC did it for the good of the country. i'm sure it's the shareholders ken lewis works for are pleased.


On Jan 16 09:53 AM User 338088 wrote:

> Just think about this.....If Bank of America did not purchase Country
> wide amd Merril, how many more people would be out of jobs, families
> with no health care insurance etc etc....2 major companies in distress
> that would cause even more economy black holes if teh Bak of America
> had not stepped in to save the. BOA is now asking for some assistance
> as a result of the pitifull shape those companies really were in!
> Go Bank of America!

BofA Following Citigroup to $5 or Lower

ken lewis typifies the mindset of the large commercial banking industry in this country. instead of focusing on running their business and doing it well they're preoccupied with becoming monoliths, with tenacles in every facet of financial services. they're on an ego trip and ken lewis exemplifies it.

like C before it, ken lewis salivated at the thought BAC could dominate the banking industry, minimizing the risks and maximizing perceived benefits. like sandy weil at C before him, the financial media hailed him as a visionary. merill lynch and countrywide were mortally wounded at the time ken lewis jumped in with both feet, with little due diligence, overpaying because he was afraid of someone beating him to the punch. it was one of the most ill timed and ill advised acquisition binges ever. now his once great bank is a basket case too.

imagine it. in december, before the close of the merrill lynch deal, ken lewis tells the treasury that they can't close it without government help. if he's a visionary i'm a prophet.

my comments are not johnny come lately. i made a similar post earlier this year when BAC stock was still worth more than a fast food lunch.

Citigroup: Bowing to the Inevitable

another irrelevancy is the A+ credit rating assigned by S&P. who gives a damn? anyone with an engaged brain understands that C is a bankrupt entity, supported by the u.s. treasury alone. i wouldn't touch the credit or the equity of any institution that survives at the whim of the u.s. government.

What Do We Need In 2009? More Failure

the u.s. financial system is a house of cards...a ponzi scheme based on cheap and plentiful credit. instead of acknowledging that as a tragic flaw, both the federal reserve and the treasury are embracing it because they perceive the alternative...which is massive failures and global depression...to be much worse. it would, of course, be worse in the short run, hence they do the one thing they are good at...shoveling more money and cheap credit into the system to prop it up. in doing so, they are inhibiting a healthier, more stable financial system to emerge from the wreckage.

federal efforts to prop up our dysfunctional financial system have merely delayed the inevitable. it is encouraging that banks and consumers have so far refused to play along with their ponzi scheme. capital-constrained banks have gotten religion and won't lend to consumers and/or commercial borrowers who are risky credits in the midst of a declining economy; and those financially healthy enough to borrow neither need or want the credit when returns on incremental borrowing are uncertain, i.e. why buy a house when prices are declining and jobs are disappearing, and why build a new plant in the face of weakening demand for virtually all products and services?. both are acting rationally, in contrast to the fed and the treasury, whose actions are directly contrary to the long term interests of the country.

let it burn.

Why Citigroup Imploded

"let up" on citi? it's fundamentally insolvent. you sound like a bottom fisher who made a bad bet.

t

Citigroup Proves 'Blue Chips' Aren't Infallible

a waste of time and space.

What Does Bank of America's Decline Mean for the Global Banking System?

you're exactly right.

BAC had to be utterly out of their minds to take on merrill lynch and countrywide when they did and under the terms they did. they were utterly amatuerish in their approach...like a novice investor buying too soon. these deals could well push them over the edge.

these stocks are great shorts to hedge a long portfolio. if they go south from these levels, expect the market to go south in a big way.

Bigger is Not Better in Banking

great piece.

as for breaking up the large mega banks, its clearly a superior alternative but it ain't gonna happen of course. the good ole boys are all members of the same club whether they're treasury secretaries, CEOs, federal reserve chairmen or members of congress.

when the dust settles on this fiasco a couple of years from now look for more affordable/subsidized housing programs....

Options Trader: Friday Outlook

34CD77:

i don't want to put words in your mouth but i infer from your stated views that you think LEH BSC, AIG, and perhaps CFC and WM, were fundamentally sound businesses, driven to bankruptcy (or near bankruptcy) by hedge fund shorting. if you believe this you must also believe that the u.s. government has been suckered by a bunch of hedge funds, since they're needlessly spending $1trillion or so to bail out these sound business. call me stupid but thats pretty hard to swallow.

shorting is not the root of the problem here. the problem is overleveraged investment banks and bad credit. shorts forced the issue to the surface sooner than investors or the government wanted to recognize it.

Options Trader: Friday Outlook

the ban applies to financial stocks only...not nonfinancials. this ban on short sales could last a long time. at the earliest it will be lifted only after goldman and morgan stanley fina merger partners. but if the market continues to decline after the dust on this bailout plan settles, look for a ban on short sales of all stocks.

take nothing for granted. they have proven that they will do anything...anything...... bail out wall street from it's own greed and stupidity.