jamesa40's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/220011/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/172529/comments?source=feed#comment-754099 754099 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:39:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/169119/comments?source=feed#comment-735462 735462 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:49:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158339/comments?source=feed#comment-646847 646847 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:16:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/151723/comments?source=feed#comment-604842 604842

On Jul 28 07:32 AM Angry Banker wrote:

> Just because banks are lending less than before does not mean that
> they are not lending. In fact they are now lending more prudently,
> which if they had done so previously, they would not have ended up
> in the mess they are currently in. And they also would not have lent
> as much previously. So comparing the amount of lending banks are
> doing now vs. the amount they lent a year or two ago is really meaningless.
> We don't want the banks to lend the way they lent before, remember?!!]]> Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:26:00 -0400

On Jul 28 07:32 AM Angry Banker wrote:

> Just because banks are lending less than before does not mean that
> they are not lending. In fact they are now lending more prudently,
> which if they had done so previously, they would not have ended up
> in the mess they are currently in. And they also would not have lent
> as much previously. So comparing the amount of lending banks are
> doing now vs. the amount they lent a year or two ago is really meaningless.
> We don't want the banks to lend the way they lent before, remember?!!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146829/comments?source=feed#comment-572933 572933 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:05:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142388/comments?source=feed#comment-540138 540138 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:39:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142105/comments?source=feed#comment-538803 538803

On Jun 09 09:56 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> We may not like the government stepping in to control our health
> care system. But we kid ourselves if we think WE THE PEOPLE are
> in control of the health care system. We are not.
>
> INSURANCE COMPANIES currently have a stranglehold on our system,
> determining who receives coverage, who gets dropped for coverage,
> how long you stay in the hospital, what treatments you receive, what
> prescriptions will be paid, and how (OR IF) your treatments will
> be paid for.
>
> INSURANCE COMPANIES dictate to doctors your treatment plan, based
> on if THEY decide to pay for it. Of course, this scenario is only
> beneficial if you have millions in the bank to pay for all the treatments
> your insurance company may refuse to pay, in which case, the health
> care system COMPLETELY works for you.
>
> With all this - God help you if you don't have insurance. One illness
> or accident and you face certain bankruptcy.
>
> As much as us free-market capitalists despise the government getting
> involved health care, I challenge SOMEONE to support a view that
> the heatlh care system in American, as it stands now, TRULY works
> for ALL Americans.
>
> I'm sorry, it just doesn't.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:34:34 -0400

On Jun 09 09:56 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> We may not like the government stepping in to control our health
> care system. But we kid ourselves if we think WE THE PEOPLE are
> in control of the health care system. We are not.
>
> INSURANCE COMPANIES currently have a stranglehold on our system,
> determining who receives coverage, who gets dropped for coverage,
> how long you stay in the hospital, what treatments you receive, what
> prescriptions will be paid, and how (OR IF) your treatments will
> be paid for.
>
> INSURANCE COMPANIES dictate to doctors your treatment plan, based
> on if THEY decide to pay for it. Of course, this scenario is only
> beneficial if you have millions in the bank to pay for all the treatments
> your insurance company may refuse to pay, in which case, the health
> care system COMPLETELY works for you.
>
> With all this - God help you if you don't have insurance. One illness
> or accident and you face certain bankruptcy.
>
> As much as us free-market capitalists despise the government getting
> involved health care, I challenge SOMEONE to support a view that
> the heatlh care system in American, as it stands now, TRULY works
> for ALL Americans.
>
> I'm sorry, it just doesn't.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138628/comments?source=feed#comment-510933 510933 Wed, 20 May 2009 08:03:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136440/comments?source=feed#comment-495227 495227 Fri, 08 May 2009 08:20:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131999/comments?source=feed#comment-471206 471206 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:36:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130704/comments?source=feed#comment-462490 462490 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:25:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130592/comments?source=feed#comment-461328 461328

On Apr 12 09:28 PM user 385544 wrote:

> Forgive my sarcasm, but why would banks care about the consumer right
> now.
>
> Lending rate for them is virtually 0%...and they lend back to us
> at what mortgage rates? 5% plus 2 points on a mortage, closing costs
> at all time highs. Historical spread is (approx 2.75%), dont quote
> me on that, i cant find my data to support, but that is what i remember
> from my research.
>
> Point is, its a HUGE spread they are taking. Why would they take
> ANY RISK when the government is funding them with free money and
> they can take the spread. Furthermore, seeing the spreads they are
> taking on mortgages and to some degree credit cards, and dialing
> back on lines of credit speaks to another point.
>
> They see INFLATION coming sooner than later. If it were not for that,
> the spreads would close, and they wouldn't be demanding 2+ points...but
> the spreads haven't closed, as desperately as the new administration
> has tried.
>
> Take a clue from the bankers as to our 5 year outlook on inflation...psst.....they
> are planning for it already.]]> Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:53:20 -0400

On Apr 12 09:28 PM user 385544 wrote:

> Forgive my sarcasm, but why would banks care about the consumer right
> now.
>
> Lending rate for them is virtually 0%...and they lend back to us
> at what mortgage rates? 5% plus 2 points on a mortage, closing costs
> at all time highs. Historical spread is (approx 2.75%), dont quote
> me on that, i cant find my data to support, but that is what i remember
> from my research.
>
> Point is, its a HUGE spread they are taking. Why would they take
> ANY RISK when the government is funding them with free money and
> they can take the spread. Furthermore, seeing the spreads they are
> taking on mortgages and to some degree credit cards, and dialing
> back on lines of credit speaks to another point.
>
> They see INFLATION coming sooner than later. If it were not for that,
> the spreads would close, and they wouldn't be demanding 2+ points...but
> the spreads haven't closed, as desperately as the new administration
> has tried.
>
> Take a clue from the bankers as to our 5 year outlook on inflation...psst.....they
> are planning for it already.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129517/comments?source=feed#comment-453069 453069

On Apr 06 07:31 AM klh wrote:

> I see so many people bashing this article and deriding the author,
> yet none of them have given any numeric facts to prove the statements
> are false - they have ony provided intuitive arguments by which less
> sophisticated readers might infer they are right, e.g. an underwater
> option is worthless. my conclusion is that these bashers must have
> some kind of vested interest in making the bailout of these firms
> and executives seem kosher - and therefore they must either be: in
> a similar situation, a friend of the banks or a friend of Geithner
> and Pauson.]]> Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:07:38 -0400

On Apr 06 07:31 AM klh wrote:

> I see so many people bashing this article and deriding the author,
> yet none of them have given any numeric facts to prove the statements
> are false - they have ony provided intuitive arguments by which less
> sophisticated readers might infer they are right, e.g. an underwater
> option is worthless. my conclusion is that these bashers must have
> some kind of vested interest in making the bailout of these firms
> and executives seem kosher - and therefore they must either be: in
> a similar situation, a friend of the banks or a friend of Geithner
> and Pauson.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129024/comments?source=feed#comment-448928 448928 Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:42:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128615/comments?source=feed#comment-446137 446137 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:37:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128645/comments?source=feed#comment-446130 446130 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:34:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127689/comments?source=feed#comment-439276 439276 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:57:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127716/comments?source=feed#comment-439274 439274 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:54:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127551/comments?source=feed#comment-437854 437854 Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:45:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126347/comments?source=feed#comment-428929 428929 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:01:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125949/comments?source=feed#comment-428906 428906 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:45:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126052/comments?source=feed#comment-427311 427311 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:24:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125243/comments?source=feed#comment-421508 421508 Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:06:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/122040/comments?source=feed#comment-399678 399678 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:25:25 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/119555/comments?source=feed#comment-382034 382034 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:09:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/118734/comments?source=feed#comment-376937 376937 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:56:21 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/116103/comments?source=feed#comment-363888 363888 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:22:21 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/114122/comments?source=feed#comment-354699 354699

On Jan 13 12:57 PM Sa44ron wrote:

> Very patient investors should wait until the banks report increasing
> positive year over year earnings. Then, pick one of the survivors.
> And there are plenty of other things to look at in the mean time.]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:01:01 -0500

On Jan 13 12:57 PM Sa44ron wrote:

> Very patient investors should wait until the banks report increasing
> positive year over year earnings. Then, pick one of the survivors.
> And there are plenty of other things to look at in the mean time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114595/comments?source=feed#comment-354681 354681 www.bankstocks.com/Art...

Anyways, the problem is that banks are not lending the way that congress wants them to (aka. giving the money away) and thus they are trying to rewrite the rules. If they put these requirements into effect, you will see the largest prepayments back to Uncle Sam of TARP money one could imagine. Will congress then claim victory, or will they still be in the same place or worse, have more banks out there without an adequate capital cushion?


On Jan 13 01:27 PM Pent up demand wrote:

> The idea of immediately lending out these TARP funds presupposes
> the existence of borrowers ready to put the money to work in some
> way that is a net economic positive. We are in the process of tearing
> down a massive edifice built on misallocated capital, but the government
> and the financial press are ready to get right back on that horse
> and misallocate some more dollars. Yee haw. Ride'em cowboy!]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:44:56 -0500 www.bankstocks.com/Art...

Anyways, the problem is that banks are not lending the way that congress wants them to (aka. giving the money away) and thus they are trying to rewrite the rules. If they put these requirements into effect, you will see the largest prepayments back to Uncle Sam of TARP money one could imagine. Will congress then claim victory, or will they still be in the same place or worse, have more banks out there without an adequate capital cushion?


On Jan 13 01:27 PM Pent up demand wrote:

> The idea of immediately lending out these TARP funds presupposes
> the existence of borrowers ready to put the money to work in some
> way that is a net economic positive. We are in the process of tearing
> down a massive edifice built on misallocated capital, but the government
> and the financial press are ready to get right back on that horse
> and misallocate some more dollars. Yee haw. Ride'em cowboy!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110678/comments?source=feed#comment-329693 329693 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:09:51 -0500