The AntiCramer

Bank of America Needs $70 Billion - FBR

You speak as though printing money to negate toxic assets carries with it no downside.


On Apr 28 04:40 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Do keep in mind that the reason why this isn't impacting the stock
> market is because the fed can print an arbitrary amount of money
> to negate toxic assets.
>
> ----------------------...
> How much capital does BAC need? The Wall Street Journal is reporting
> that BAC needs additional capital following the results of the government's
> stress test. Using our 12% unemployment rate scenario from last week's
> report ("Stress Testing Nine Banks—It's All About Unemployment,"
> April 22, 2009), we estimate that BAC needs at least $60 billion
> to $70 billion in capital to maintain a TCE ratio above 3% at the
> end of 2010.

Eight Reasons Bank of America Is Going to $20

Or the people who were just flat wrong to be long. Couldn't be their fault they lost money. They didn't overpay for expected future cash flows. Somebody else did something that made them lose money. No personal responsibility needed.


On Feb 20 10:02 AM monday1929 wrote:

> It is apparently more fashionable to blame the shorts than the negligent
> (to be generous today) management and Boards.
>
>
> On Feb 20 07:27 AM FirstManagingDirector wrote:

Citigroup's Derivatives Reduce Bailout to a Non-Event

For the same reason longs are allowed to serve as cheerleaders for their books. Have you ever turned on CNBC?


On Jan 04 11:50 AM joshchn wrote:

> why is someone who is SHORT on citibank allowed to publish an aritcle
> bashing citibank ???
>
> regardless of weather they disclose the fact-- its unfair and unethical.
>
>
> he needs to stick to writing articles on other sectors- this man
> gains by trying to get citibank lower-