Seeking Alpha

levin70 » Comments » MS

  • Securitization Accounting Rules Changing, But Interagency Action Necessary [View article]
    "I don’t know what this all means because I never understood the old rules and don’t know what the new rules will do to financial reporting."

    Mark - its nice you own up to knowing nothing about the subject. However, given that fact, I find your desire to write the President about your ideas on how to fix a problem about a subject you know nothing about, pure hubris. Btw, the SEC, one of the "intergovenmental" agencies you want in the decision making process, is actually required to sign off on the new standard, as the SEC oversees all FASB pronouncements as they relates to US reporting companies.

    Please try harder
    May 28 12:30 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
  • More Stress Over Stress Tests [View article]
    "However, a bond will sell below par for one of two reasons -- either because ambient interest rates have gone up, or because there is substantial doubt about the ability to repay. With the entire yield curve near record lows, it is clearly not the former. Also, most bonds come with covenants that say the bond can not be called (i.e. paid back) before a specific date, and then only at a specified price -- which is usually above par. If such "theoretical profits” are the only thing that put you in the black, you are not in very good shape. Gee, just think about how much money they would make if they declared bankruptcy!"

    Nothing stops a company from going out into the marketplace and buying the bonds. That is why they can be marked at the lower value, not because of put or call features. By buying back the bond at a lower price, they get to book a gain. If the market is liquid for the Company's bonds then they can record them at fair value just as if they are not liquid, they can't.

    Regards
    Apr 20 17:24 pm |Rating: 0 -1 |Link to Comment
  • Banker CEOs Lied to Congress  [View article]
    If the question that was asked was "what was your stock based compensation granted in 2007"

    Why is the OP posting grants from 2006 and 2008? That doesn't make sense to me. As long as they listed the grants from 2007 that's all that they need to respond with, not in addition to that i was granted a bunch in 2006. IF the congressman wanted to know about 2006 and 2008 he should have also asked about 2006 and 2008.

    What am I missing?
    Apr 06 11:43 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
More on MS by levin70
Comments by Ticker
levin70's
Comments Stats
117 comments
Rating: 84 (195 - 111 )