countrybanker

Proposed Amendment Could Neuter FASB

Rolfe...not all bankers are pushing for this. Accounting rules should not be changed.

Fannie's Tax Credit Sale to Goldman: No Deal

So who is right, GS or Treasury? You think GS?

Fannie and Treasury are owned by US taxpayer. Unfortunately, Fnma executives are thinking of Fnma instead of their 100% owners, the taxpayer.

When taxpayer moves money from the front right pocket to the front left pocket, there is absolutely no reason to do and nothing gained! Nor should there be anything lost!!

But , appropriately, GS and Buffett have profit motives. They are both smart enough not to do this without great returns..So, why pay the returns? Cancel the damn tax credits. Or, have Treasury buy then for 100 cents on the dollar. Fnma gets more and to the taxpayer its a non event.No losses and no transaction arbitrage fees to GS.

Fannie's Tax Credit Sale to Goldman: No Deal

Shady because not a public bidding contract. Who all had chance to bid? The govt often bids out $100,000 mnfg contracts, but Fnma was going to do this deal without PUBLIC bidding. Get out of your cave.

Buffett and GS have forgotten more than any Fnma officials have ever learned. GS dealing with gov't officials...is like taking candy from a baby. GS and Buffett get the candy and the populist taxpayer just cries like the baby!!!

Interesting thought is whether the baby will ever get the candy back? I think GS has warn out its welcome in America.


On Nov 08 07:45 AM xyzlmnop wrote:

> What part of the deal is "shady"?
> It's entirely within the law, and ultimately, as we saw, subject
> to Government approval. How much more open could it be?

Analyzing the U.S.'s Four Largest Banks

Very good article, but the one thing hat is missing is the fact that each of the banks has huge unrealized losses that they have not adequately reserved for. The regulators, acknowledging that the four are TBTF, have turned a blind eye to the piecemeal recognition of their losses. Look at the last 8 quarters of losses? Also, look at the last 8 quarters of earnings before the provision for losses. Earnings have been huge at WFC and losses have been huge. So go back to 9-30-2007 and tell me the banks were not insolvent?Given this knowledge, why would anyone trust their current books? Mark-to-magic? The Fed and FDIC are just letting them earn off their losses and the Fed is helping by low rates until they are healthy.

It will be good for 2-3 of these banks in a few years, but you are betting on that income stream...against todays ficticous books.

Analyzing the U.S.'s Four Largest Banks

True, but this law will change. Glass Steagall was law of the land for long time. The public will demand that GS and others be prevented from access to Fed or FDIC insurance.


On Nov 08 09:24 AM fwi wrote:

> It is interesting that I read this well written article and drew
> the completely opposite conclusion. I believe that the banks will
> not straighten their course. They have already forgotten the lessons
> of just one year ago. They do not want to be in the lending/deposit
> business anymore because of the dreaded loan loss provisions.
>
> THey much rather make their money trading with the free discount
> window money they can access from the Fed by Pretending to be a bank
> holding company. And I am not just referring to Goldman Sachs.

Buffett's Big Rail Buy: What It Means for Berkshire Shareholders

This is a movement from paper assets and IOU's from us govt and cash into hard assets. Buffett knows Treasury, FEd and our country only has one way to pay its debt...inflate it away. Hard assets will outperform cash and debt securities. Smart play.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

US Govt (Fannie Mae) sells tax credits they received from US Govt to the fourth branch of US Govt (GS) at a discount?

It would be cheaper for the TAXPAYER (US GOVT) to eithe just cancel the credits, or alternatively , have the US Treasury pay Ginnie Mae 100% for the credits.

Only GS can make a fee as the fools in Congress and Treasury and Obama Administration transfer $ Billions from one govt account to another, a transaction between two pockets of the same taxpayers money.

How damn dumb are we?

GMAC Plan Is Bad - Blodget's Alternative

hey bbro, tell us what is inaccurate about his position and the facts he states.What, he is correct? Thats why you trashed the messenger...cause the message was true!!


On Oct 29 02:29 PM bbro wrote:

> Blodgett....
>
> In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities
> and Exchange Commission He settled without admitting or denying the
> allegations and was subsequently barred from the securities industry
> for life. He paid a $2 million fine and $2 million disgorgement.

Government Not Allowing Finance to Heal Itself

What cave do you live in? Yes, some banks claimed, like WFC Kovacevich, that we do not need it? What a joke! They need it today after 4 quarters of great earnings!. IF GS needed and asked for Fed help, volunteered to take BHC status, gave Buffet 10% fixed and converitible stock for $8B, how can you defend a decision that TARP was forced down their throat. The other choice was for regulators to close them!!

Your analysis only is logical if you believe banks should be able to run on zero or negative capital and they were too big to fail. Maybe you believe in that, but then you are not a capitalist....because capitalists believe in private capital, winners and losers, failures and bankruptcy. So if you are a capitalist, then the insolvent banks had to have capital or liquidate(200+ year tradition in America).

To say let zombie, insolvent, banks stay open is to ignore capitalism and accept socialism. If you accept the latter, why would you have problems with pay czars and salary caps?


On Oct 26 10:30 AM greedcanbgood wrote:

> I'm getting terribly tired of these discussions. TARP was forced
> down the throats of many financial institutions and the government
> is WAY overstepping its authority in an egregious display of ex post
> facto.
>
> In addition, all you people who say, "Good, let the talent go!" don't
> realize that all of these banks have other business lines that are
> profitable and had NOTHING do do with the demise of thier organizations.
> If you loose them, you loose leadership in profitable parts of the
> bank and end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Government Not Allowing Finance to Heal Itself

Adam is correct. He is simply saying that private firms with 100% private capital owned 100% by private shareholders should have no gov't imposed paycaps.

Firms partially owned by govt, firms that rec'd bailout, firms with Fed Reserve specail bailouts, firms with taxpayers as shareholders, should be paid like other govt employees.

No inconsistency. If you take the money, you get the pay restrictions. I recommend the firm not take the money and not take the pay restrictions. Both are wrong.


On Oct 26 09:37 AM User 465107 wrote:

> I'm disappointed every time I hear you say you're "pro pay caps".
> It weakens your "anti bailout" argument. Arguing for pay caps is
> arguing that "two wrongs make a right". Needless to say, they don't.
> We shouldn't have bailed out the financial sector and--for the same
> reasons--we shouldn't cap salaries. Both come from the same ideology
> that says the government can run things better than we can. In Ben
> We Trust. In short, if you argue for government mandated pay caps,
> you weaken your argument against government ownership, because only
> the owners of a company should have the right to set salaries.

As expected, troubled commercial real estate lender Capmark files for bankruptcy. The move wipes out the private-equity investments of KKR, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Five Mile Capital, which bought Capmark for $1.5B in cash and more than $7B in debt.

want to bet on whether they GS takes a capital loss versus an ordinary loss. I bet ordinary...and would not be surprised if they wroye ntheir own private letter ruling for little Timmy to sign

Wells Fargo Is Doing Worse than It Seems

WFC will hit 60 in less than two years. At 30 bucks buy all you can. Let's make a Paypal bet Reggie. You willing to put your own dough where your mouth is?


Hey Doc, I'll take that bet. Lets get together. How much?

Next Time, Let Goldman Fail

A start would be to require Goldman to repay, out of 2009 earnings, the money they received from the Fed/Treasury via the AIG bailout. All parties now admit the government was concerned about causing systemic risk and wanted to get the counterparties paid. In substance (versus form) that was a bailout of the counterparty. Collect it. And do not say they cannot. The fed broke many laws when it started disbursing money to non banks, break them again and demand repayment.

How Paulson Gave Goldman the Lehman Heads-Up

Should GS have to take this years earnings, partially supported by FDIC's TLGP guaranty and access to the Fed, and at least payback the amount of money they received from AIG and that AIG rec'd from Fed and Treasury bailout???

FDIC Seeks Prepayment from Banks

How does a bank book as an asset a prepaid expense to an insolvent insurance company? The FDIC requires banks to charge off other bad assets, uncollectible loans, securities with lower market values. What will this regulator say about accounting for this so called asset.

Does GAAP allow a bank to record this as an asset?

Is the FDIC like all regulators who complained about "funny accounting" going to authorize this funny accounting?