Big Al45

Bank Earnings: Why I Don't Trust Analyst Reports

And if your dog chews up the picture or urinates on it, - then short the bank???


On Jun 30 10:54 AM Andrew Butter wrote:

> Well I just don't trust bank's audits.
> A while back I wrote that if you want to decide if you invest in
> a bank, take a photo of the CEO, show it to your dog, if the dog
> wags his tail, then go for it.
>
> I still think that's by far the most reliable method.

Credit Card Charge Off Rate Highest in 20 Years - Moody's

Wahoo - more green shoots. Credit card chargeoffs were "less bad" than expected.

Regulatory Tightening: Remember Chuck Prince!

Is Chuck Prince still rich? Of course he is. And he's still on the Board of Directors at Johnson and Johnson. Wonder what contribution he's made there - maybe he can get them to scrap their vaunted "credo" in favor of maximizing short term profits.

Canadian Banks: Canada's Moment to Shine

EWC has some exposure to the CanRoyals (PWE, ERF, etc) which are controversial investments in some people's minds.

I've made money trading them, but I'm not sure they belong in a buy and hold portfolio.

BofA's State of Denial

You are exactly right. And dilution means no dividend for at least 5 years. And without a dividend, bank stocks are nothing more than a short term trade.

Since bank stock investors are often retirees looking for supplemental income, conditions for a secondary equiity issuance are not favorable.


On May 06 01:01 PM asaf123 wrote:

> If the TARP Preferred assets are converted to common shares, doesn't
> that mean a huge dilution for existing share holders? Why would the
> existing common shares rally in that event?

Paulson Changes His Tune on BofA and Merrill

Let's not forget the RICOH act as motivation for Paulson changing his story. If Paulson acted as an intermediary by relaying Beranke's comments, then Paulson and Beranke may have engaged in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud (i.e. to withold material information from BAC shareholders.)

However, if Paulson told Lewis to remain silent without the participation of Beranke, the possibility of a RICOH violation goes away.

The beauty of RICOH (from the prosecutor's point of vue) is that you don't have to prove the underlying crime (in this case, securities fraud) was ever committed, just that a group of individuals conspired to commit the crime.

In addition, Bernanke's participation in the conspiracy is essential because only the FED had the power to make Paulsens threat to remove Lewis and the board credible

Banks No Longer in Crisis Mode

The only thing Paulsen, et al , "got right" was enriching and greatly expanding the power of Goldman Sachs. And that was probably their primary goal all along for the "rescue" plan.

Exclusive: Big Banks' Recent Profitability Due to AIG Scam?

Considering what we've elected, probably none of it could be understood by Congress.


On Mar 30 06:41 AM morph366 wrote:

> Excellent reporting - I wonder how much of trader Lou's observations
> could be documented in a manner that anyone in Congress would understand.

The AIG Bailout: Why Was the Onus Placed on Taxpayers?

To respond to your final question - "Why do taxpayers have to bail them out?"

The answer is simple - to save Goldman Sach's worthless a$$. Hammerin Hank had his buddies' back. Its also the reason why Lehman had to fail.

TARP Equals Toxic Money

The idea that "TARP assisted Banks" will be viewed more adversely than "Nationalized Banks" is absurd. The two "Nationalized Banks" that the author cited are currently trading under $2 a share and its only a matter of time until C breaks the buck.

And yes, the public should regard "Independent Banks" as better investments that "TARP assisted banks." Most of the "Independent Banks" were smart enough and solvent enough to reject TARP money.

Paulson's forced TARP money on banks in an attempt to manipulate the market and protect the insolvent banks. He must think that investors are really stupid.

Eight Reasons Bank of America Is Going to $20

Their TARP loan doesn't allow buybacks


On Feb 20 08:29 AM BAC Bull wrote:

> Why can't BAC do a stock buyback ?

The Market Is Improving, Cancel the Coffin

"It reminds me of Brewsters Millions with Richard Prior, it's like they are trying to get the Dow to 5000 and just can't do it."

Don't be too sure. 2009 still has 10.5 months remaining.

BofA's Merrill Purchase: Good for America, Bad for Them

Think you got your facts wrong here. JPMorgan got no TARP money or guarantees when they bailed out Bear. In fact, Dimon probably overpaid by increasing the offer to $10 from $2. JP did get govt assistance in buying WaMoo.

Which undercuts the author's patriotic homage to Ken Lewis. Bear and WaMu probably sucked every bit as much as Merrill and Countrywide did. Yet Dimon was somehow able to take them on without destroying the company (at least they haven't yet).

Perhaps Lewis simply overestimated BAC's strength? Or perhaps he was just envious of Jamie Dimon?

For the record, I am/was neither long nor short on any these stocks.

On Feb 04 11:43 AM In Agreement wrote:

> This is the first time anyone has had the guts to speak up. Yes Lewis
> has saved the America Banking system. Recall that JPM could only
> buy Bear Stearns when the Government holding their hands. ML was
> the same deal but with no such guarantee. Keep up the good work Mr.
> Lewis, you will be rewarded in the long run.. President Obama owes
> you a debt of gratitude

Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work

Oh Please

The "brain dead" replacement CEOS couldn't do much worse than some of the current talent. How much brain power did it take to decide to buy Golden West, Countrywide, or Merrill Lynch. The janitor probably could have make those kinds of decisions.

Perhaps you should disclosure what kind of "regular personal contact" you have with bank CEOs. You sound like board of directors material - perhaps chair of the compensation committee. In any case, hope your "contact" didn't require kneepads.


On Feb 04 11:23 AM Think! wrote:

.
> No, they won't be "giving you a call" because you don't even begin
> to have the skill set to get the job done. I have regular personal
> contact with the Treasurers, CFOs and CEOs of most of the top 20
> banks in the U.S. You have no idea how hard these people work and
> the pressure that they are under.
>
> If you drain the talent, then these organizations will truly be brain-dead.
> That is the problem. Removing all employee incentives will produce
> corresponding behavior. Equity (how Sr. Mgt and even the rank and
> file has been receiving the majority of its compensation for the
> past few years) has been gutted.
>
> How will you recruit, manage and motivate talent? "Be glad that you
> have a job" is a very-short term motivator. If there is no upside
> offered, there will be a brain drain from the industry.
>
> That will not be good for the institutions or the country.
>
> Try to moderate the emotion and maximize the strategic thinking.

Memo to Bank of America's Directors: Shame on You!

Sadly, as the other comments have noted, the board may not even be the most incompetent bank board of directors. The Citi, WaMu, Wachovia, and Lehman boards are/were at least as bad as BACs.

The fact is all corporate boards are stacked with cronies and asskissers who will do whatever management wants them to do. Why jeopardize a job that pays over 250K a year for eight to ten days of socializing and playing golf.

The laws need to be changed so that the shareholders can nominate and directly elect at least one outside director. Many European countries require this already. Also, an advisory vote on exectives' pay should be required.