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.

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.

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.

Why Goldman Sachs Should Return Its TARP Money

Rick

Strongly agree with your comment that that finance " isn't like an elementary-school soccer game, where nobody keeps score and everybody wins just by participating."

Unfortunately, Timmy and Uncle Ben don't agree and will do everything they can - including debasing the dollar and bankrupting the country - to protect incompetent and insolvent financial institutions that are "too big to fail."

Think this could become a major showdown between Congress (which favors letting banks repay TARP money) and the FED/Treasury (which is trying desperately to maintain the fiction that "we're all in this together.")

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.

Tuesday's Financial Trifecta

Notice that Bandit said Citi was making an operating profit before writedowns. If they weren't capable of doing that with all the lost cost money that Uncle Ben and Timmy have given them, then Citi's management really sucks.

All this means is that their 1st Quarter 2009 loss will be less than the 4th Quarter 2008 loss. I put the over/under line for their 1st Quarter loss at $5 Billion.

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.

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.

Citi, TARP and Trust: Banks May Trust Each Other More, But Consumers Lag Behind

I think he's trying to say that it doesn't matter what the banks do with their TARP money, as long as the consumers (i.e. us) don't borrow money from the banks and spend it.

Which is probably true, but it doesn't really agree with the headline for the post.

Nationalizing Bank Losses

True. But neither Wall Street or Treasury care about small investors.

Treasury is all about protecting the bondholders and CDS counterparties. I wonder who these parties are (other than Goldman Sachs, of course) and what leverage they have over Obama, Treasury, and the Congress. Pictures of Geithner and a barnyard animal???

On Jan 31 01:53 PM Ranchr wrote:

> Is anyone thinking about Mom & Pop shareholders in Citi and B
> of A, who bought them for the dividends and now have little of no
> dividends and the rush ti Nationalize will strip them of the equity
> too. This isn't all about the big investors, there are retirees that
> will be wiped out, if the banks are Nationalized.

Where's the Nationalization Debate?

Countrybanker

Congratulations. That's the best analysis of the situation I've seen.

Its obvious that Geithner and Co are doing everything they can to protect the Citi and BAC bondholders. So the real question is - who owns those bonds and what leverage do the bond owners have over our government?

Its too bad the mainstream media will not read your post and investigate. (but they probably wouldn't be able to understand the post even if they did read it).

Financial Firms Need to Control Their PR

Citi already had 5 corporate jets, so the new jet was just a more luxurious upgrade. Bandit won't be taking commercial flights anytime soon. At least not until after the FDIC is finally forced to put Citi into receivership.

PS Given the recent unpleasantness, I'm surprised "Dear John Thain" hasn't chosen a new alias. If Cuomo has his way, maybe the new alias could be "Dear Prisoner Number ????" Or perhaps "The blogger formerly known as Dear John Thain"

Contemplating the Demise of Bank of America, Citi and JPMorgan

I don't understand all this whining about nationalizing C and BAC. They are insolvent. And we already have laws that deal with this situation. When a bank is insolvent it should be put into FDIC receivership.

If you want to call receivership nationalization, be my guest. But that train left the station 70 years ago.

New Limits on Credit Card Companies: Is Hell Freezing Over?

The rules will not take effect until 2010. Assuming the FED goes through with them. They may decide to postpone them because of "systemic risk"

This gives the industry plenty of time to pay off the right politicians and go back to business as usual.