Long US stockS

Stress Test Leaks: Endgame Emerging

Fairy-tell???


On May 05 11:16 AM felixd wrote:

> I bet the guy that leaked was Rahm Emmanuel...He has a history of
> that in the past and is skilled in how to best push an agenda with
> a skillful and timely leak. By leaking all this yesterday , (just
> in front of the testimony of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke) the goal
> might well have been to put a little extra pressure on the fed chairman
> and make him feel a little extra heat from riled up (and largely
> uninformed) elected members on the Hill. My conspiracy theory holds
> that Ben might prove to be a thorn in the side of the Obama economic
> team sometime soon as he moves to limit Fed easing to curb future
> inflation. For Team Obama, a conciliatory Fed is crucial and it would
> be far better to put their own guy in there (read Larry Summers).
> To get that done, they need to question Ben's leadership and start
> eroding his credibiliyt. Hey just a theory!

Stress Test Leaks: Endgame Emerging

You are right. They are " Special Interests"- sort sellers- mostly lost credibilities by now!!


On May 04 07:01 PM mruyog wrote:

> One very important aspect of banks like Citi Bank is not brought
> up by many analysts and critics of the fed's attempt to correct the
> system is hundreds (perhaps a thosand or more) branch operations
> overseas such banks have and importance of those to the U.S. national
> interest. These branches provide a complex cobweb of interconnections
> of various aspects of our national interest. I do not think simple-minded
> analysts or critics or those with limited focus are capable of comprehending
> what Gethner (or Treasury) and Bernanke (or FDIC) have in their mind
> while developing the bank rescue plan. The issue of correcting the
> messed up system thus is extremely complex and those analysts and
> critics do not and can not have all the information Geithner and
> Bernanke has. I suggest that all wise readers of hundreds of half-hearted
> artcles and opinions expressed in the media keep this in mind.

Banks Object to Stress Test Delay

Do you want to loose more from "theoritical test" results associated remors /Analysis? I don't


On May 03 05:20 PM Alan Young wrote:

> "if equity investors lose 50% of their value...."
> Huh? First of all, equity investors have ALREADY lost 50% of their
> value--in some cases, 100%--last year, as the follies of bank managers
> came home to roost. Secondly, if the information revealed by the
> stress test is not useful to the market, it won't have a long-range
> effect on the valuation.
>
> "..., I smell lawsuit."
> You seem to have your ambulance-chasing hat on backwards. It's FAILURE
> to reveal significant adverse information that's actionable; revealing
> it against the wishes of management is, I hope, still legal.

Banks Object to Stress Test Delay

me too


On May 03 03:33 PM mruyog wrote:

> All this hoopla in the media about the stress test is just a smoke
> screen or some so-called pundits trying to make their living. Both
> Geitner and Bernenke (and include Paul Walker) have been telling
> everybody that the idea of the stress testing is just to make sure
> that the banks will be O.K. if the economy stays weaker for an extended
> period of time. If certain banks can't lend because their capital
> reserves are likley to be strained beyond required level, if the
> poor economy persists, the Fed needs to know how much help to be
> provided, if necessary. In any case, the government nether wants
> to take over the bank nor wants to the bank to go under but remain
> functional. In other words, the test is just a method agreed by both
> sides to assess the potential capital need, precisely to keep the
> institutions afloat, not to let those go under!! It's like a physician
> diognosing a patient's disease for determination of the medicine
> dosage he needs to recover his health and not to kill him!! I fail
> to see why so much noise and anxiety instead of faith and hope for
> the better!!

Most of 19 Banks Passed the Stress Test

Dreamon The Blog NEWS & subscribers of WS


On Apr 28 09:18 AM jeandit75 wrote:

> dreamon The Good News Economist!

Most of 19 Banks Passed the Stress Test

Amen!!


On Apr 28 09:12 AM Ishortyou wrote:

> well like it says its all speculation....no methodology on it.

Most of 19 Banks Passed the Stress Test

will be "brutal" for Short covers", and good for the country.


On Apr 28 10:35 AM jeandit75 wrote:

> home prices keep on declining and they are tied to the banks bad
> loans. The market does not seem to care. Pigs can fly too apparently.
> What a crazy market! The drop will be brutal.

Most of 19 Banks Passed the Stress Test

means BAC& C investors lost/ are losing monies on "Specuative" writtings and Talking heads


On Apr 28 09:00 AM User 196900 wrote:

> So today's news on Citi and BAC means nothing, right ????

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

I agree, do not blame blogs include those "Talking heads" @ CNBC etc.


On Apr 21 08:35 AM herbert hoover wrote:

> Where the hell have you been? This market has been driven by rumor,
> lies and innuendo for the last two years!

Banking Industry Watch: Quick Move from Bust to Boom

Is not "Market " knows better than analysts???. No oneone (other than bnks) sure what Banks' real value -(assests) ....


On Apr 19 01:04 AM schlumpf wrote:

> Good article. But the market see it different, in the moment.

Why BAC Will Beat: Understanding a New Bull Market Is Not Underway

No, your Not speaking for yourself. I had same problem with writting & B.words.


On Apr 19 10:52 PM lawboyd wrote:

> Mr. Kim, I say this with no animosity to you whatsoever as I have
> never met you. But, in fairness I went to your various sites just
> to get a 'sense' of you and what you are ultimately selling.
>
> Absolutely no problem with a guy trying to make a living, and if
> you can get people to give you thousands of bucks a year for your
> investment 'insight', 'perspective', 'picks', 'bs' - anyone will
> do and point to the same thing - more power to you.
>
> The actual writing on the sites is horrendous. You really shouldn't
> have an "In conclusion" beginning to 2 consecutive paragraphs and
> the cliches and standard 'buzzwords' are infinite and somewhat puke
> inducing after just one reading.
>
> Again, nothing personal and maybe that 'bad infomercial' style of
> writing works in this arena. But, and I'm only speaking for myself
> (who else could I speak for), good writing at least gets my attention;
> horrendous writing loses me forever.

Why BAC Will Beat: Understanding a New Bull Market Is Not Underway

yes


On Apr 19 09:20 AM nmau wrote:

> Seems like a lot of chatter from desperate shorts or those that have
> missed the rally and are kicking themselves.

Warren's (Ridiculous) Prescription for Banks: Wipe Out Shareholders, Fire CEOs

Stock folder wiped out (almost- lately gained again) because of Short sellers. Take care analyst driven short sellers first. Like me,
many others do not like their 401k to be wiped out.


On Apr 07 09:09 AM epeon wrote:

> There are elements of truth to what she says. For example, have not
> the stockholders of Citigroup and BAC been already wiped out? It
> wasn't long ago that Citigroup was 50, for example. And, much of
> the management should be replaced. Maybe not all, but certainly some
> of it. And, why are the boards not held responsible?

Easing of Mark-to-Market Rules: Good for Banks, Bad for Investors

Agree


On Apr 02 02:39 PM Bank guy wrote:

> I think this thinking is exactly opposite of what will happen. Banks
> have been reluctant to sell impaired assets (toxic or otherwise)
> at prices below what they beleive to be their true economic value.
> If the FAS 115/157 revision causes pricing to converge closer to
> economic reality, then banks are more likely, not less, to sell them
> into the TALF

Easing of Mark-to-Market Rules: Good for Banks, Bad for Investors

We are talking about US economy not Japanes!!!


On Apr 02 02:59 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> See? All it takes was a little accounting rule change, and Great
> Depression II will go away. At least that’s what the stock market
> thought today, surging 300 points and blasting through 8,000 in the
> Dow, up 26% from its March 9 low. The only problem with this is that
> it was an absence of market to market rules that allowed Japan to
> lose a decade of economic growth. Investors and auditors will always
> assume the worst about asset valuations, unless proven otherwise.
> That’s what happened in Japan. Once the kneejerk short covering finishes,
> look out below, at least for the banks.