sunil94062's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/296993/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/114682/comments?source=feed#comment-355629 355629 Your views and suggestions are mostly wrong.

The Politico Nexus is way too strong in India big-business.

Politicians are either directly invested or use their position to wring all manner of dole from corporates. This is endemic in India.

Irony (in some way) that even US Banks and PE players, that went to India, quickly subscribed to the India system, and these are names such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, UBS, Warburg Pincus, Blackstone, Och-Ziff all seek and receive Baksheesh when they make their less than judicious investments in India. In matter of fact unless the Indian dudes get paid a deal does not happen.

Their investment pain is clear to see. More investments have soured than profited. No exits and massive NAV write-off's.

Reliance - the big daddy of all corrupt machines, is the very nexus of crime interweaved with politicos. That is how they gt into Refining and into telecom - by having the politicians re-jigg the laws so they paid no license fees to start with, had rules bent, and paid out large bribes to get that done. Even today, they are a well oiled machine for Bribery. Amar Singh connection on the one side and Sonia Gandhi connectionon the opposite side.


Governance exists in India? - what governance - shoot, HDFC Bank - willingly participated in this Fraud at Satyam (they were one of the banks that did primary banking for Satyam and surely saw Satyam Financial Statemenmts regularly, and in all probability responded to the PwC confirmations with an affirmative answer, year after year - as that is but standard in Auditing practices, and was surely followed - having worked at PwC I can vouch for that standard - no way that cash-in-bank was not confirmed) and now we find the the GoI has the HDFC Chairman, Deepak Parekh is on the Satyam interim board! What?? Huh?. His fingers are tainted. How is he going to right this ship?

Then there is IL&FS - is the other bad guy - used insider information to trade in the very shares of Satyam - and it is known that they are largely a government run institution - they get most of the large infrastructire awards for that reason - the rest of their business is a friggin eye-wash.

And then there are other darlings of Dalal street, that need to implode as well:

DLF - Owned by the Singh family and we catapulted them into one of the richest men on the Planet (ah! - what a scam this is - majority of the Revenue is sales to affiliates, and the Balance Sheet is mightily goosed by inter-company stepped-up value sales. Values are routinely vetted by the likes of US outfits gone to India - CBRE/E&Y/KF/C&... to sign off on projected values that are way out of the realm of reasonableness). There is an huge political nexus there. There is this senior bureaucrat from ther GoI that just joined DLF (Rajeev Talwar), is one such player at DLF who has become the mouthpiece of DLF. You meet him re business, and the first thing he asks for is Baksheesh, if you wish to do business wit DLF. Says it is the law of the land.

And then there is Unitech (India's oldest Real Estate listed company), now starpped for cash after for example burning/stealing through about $800 Million of cash raised at the AIM in UK (Unitech Commercial Parks, plc), and then caught short as they were trying to third-flip same assets into a new SINGAPORE listed REIT and were suitably thrashed - and now they are flailing, scambling for debt and more debt. These buggers with the complicit behavior of all the major valuers pawned land that perhaps had a nominal value of INR 500/sf and sold it into the AIM lister at INR 5,000/sf! and now the stock is trading at the equivalent of 95% less! Bravo.

In short - not sure your 10 things listed will work.

Propose breaking the nexus of where the Money and Power come from in India - the Politico's. All are complicit - all Ministers and all Party Leaders.

Find me 10 honest politicians in India and Ten Business where their hand does not extend into a large Indian company.

Super hard.

There is a GOD and that is the only reason why India wakes up and foes to work each day.

Way too mch rip-off on all aspects of Indian business and Government.]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:23:11 -0500 Your views and suggestions are mostly wrong.

The Politico Nexus is way too strong in India big-business.

Politicians are either directly invested or use their position to wring all manner of dole from corporates. This is endemic in India.

Irony (in some way) that even US Banks and PE players, that went to India, quickly subscribed to the India system, and these are names such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, UBS, Warburg Pincus, Blackstone, Och-Ziff all seek and receive Baksheesh when they make their less than judicious investments in India. In matter of fact unless the Indian dudes get paid a deal does not happen.

Their investment pain is clear to see. More investments have soured than profited. No exits and massive NAV write-off's.

Reliance - the big daddy of all corrupt machines, is the very nexus of crime interweaved with politicos. That is how they gt into Refining and into telecom - by having the politicians re-jigg the laws so they paid no license fees to start with, had rules bent, and paid out large bribes to get that done. Even today, they are a well oiled machine for Bribery. Amar Singh connection on the one side and Sonia Gandhi connectionon the opposite side.


Governance exists in India? - what governance - shoot, HDFC Bank - willingly participated in this Fraud at Satyam (they were one of the banks that did primary banking for Satyam and surely saw Satyam Financial Statemenmts regularly, and in all probability responded to the PwC confirmations with an affirmative answer, year after year - as that is but standard in Auditing practices, and was surely followed - having worked at PwC I can vouch for that standard - no way that cash-in-bank was not confirmed) and now we find the the GoI has the HDFC Chairman, Deepak Parekh is on the Satyam interim board! What?? Huh?. His fingers are tainted. How is he going to right this ship?

Then there is IL&FS - is the other bad guy - used insider information to trade in the very shares of Satyam - and it is known that they are largely a government run institution - they get most of the large infrastructire awards for that reason - the rest of their business is a friggin eye-wash.

And then there are other darlings of Dalal street, that need to implode as well:

DLF - Owned by the Singh family and we catapulted them into one of the richest men on the Planet (ah! - what a scam this is - majority of the Revenue is sales to affiliates, and the Balance Sheet is mightily goosed by inter-company stepped-up value sales. Values are routinely vetted by the likes of US outfits gone to India - CBRE/E&Y/KF/C&... to sign off on projected values that are way out of the realm of reasonableness). There is an huge political nexus there. There is this senior bureaucrat from ther GoI that just joined DLF (Rajeev Talwar), is one such player at DLF who has become the mouthpiece of DLF. You meet him re business, and the first thing he asks for is Baksheesh, if you wish to do business wit DLF. Says it is the law of the land.

And then there is Unitech (India's oldest Real Estate listed company), now starpped for cash after for example burning/stealing through about $800 Million of cash raised at the AIM in UK (Unitech Commercial Parks, plc), and then caught short as they were trying to third-flip same assets into a new SINGAPORE listed REIT and were suitably thrashed - and now they are flailing, scambling for debt and more debt. These buggers with the complicit behavior of all the major valuers pawned land that perhaps had a nominal value of INR 500/sf and sold it into the AIM lister at INR 5,000/sf! and now the stock is trading at the equivalent of 95% less! Bravo.

In short - not sure your 10 things listed will work.

Propose breaking the nexus of where the Money and Power come from in India - the Politico's. All are complicit - all Ministers and all Party Leaders.

Find me 10 honest politicians in India and Ten Business where their hand does not extend into a large Indian company.

Super hard.

There is a GOD and that is the only reason why India wakes up and foes to work each day.

Way too mch rip-off on all aspects of Indian business and Government.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112936/comments?source=feed#comment-344122 344122
1. In building a home, one uses various commodities, including one non-replacable commodity - Land. Commodities over time go up in value, as it costs more and more to replace them. Thus the value of a new home is traditionally more than an older home, as it costs more to create. And for logical reasons most folks love to buy new, especially if they can afford them on a monthly basis using a mortgage;

2. We have over the years technologically advanced building techniques and these advances have been 'mandated' by our ever changing Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). These advances also have the effect of increasing building costs, which is further translated into "value";

3. The homes we build these days have an estimated useful life of more than 60 years. This out-strips the useful life of relatively modest homes we built in the 1950's some with out-houses for sanitation, wood-burning furnaces, no insulation, poor ventilation and meager plumbing – and which in some parts were expected to last just a shade above 30 years. The virtue in building homes that will last these 60 years is that they can house folks for that long. Thus any computation we do of "value” has to recognize this powerful attribute.

The NPV calculation that the author asks us to make, must be over this 60-year horizon, coupled with the terminal value of the land (which "value" will also grow over time as the commodity portion of the home depreciates as it is "consumed"), and mostly discounted at close to the risk-free rate of money. I posit we use our 30 Year treasury as the proxy for risk-free, and this is around 2.25% today. I use this risk-free rate as the discount factor as opposed to the opportunity rate of interest for all risk-capital, as making and providing homes for our citizens is the exact thing that society at large benefits from and thus we should promote them as the safest kind of asset. Safer than even our faith in the US Government's Treasury (where "notes" can be printed willy-nilly and thus the value easily "compromised", as is now the case).

4. To my view there is materially nothing unsound, if we compute value by studying all of the three methods - (a) replacement cost, (b) discounted cash flows and (c) comparables. I also posit, (and this has been empirically evidenced) that over a decent time horizon all asset values converge to their respective replacement costs. The time to "buy" them is, when, because of market irrationality one can buy below replacement cost and one "sells" when they are materially above replacement cost, and again where this has happened only because of irrationality. In perfect equilibrium things should always have a value equal to their replacement costs. But this rarely happens as we have an economy where sentiments ebb and flow and value is dynamic. The US economy has been as close to theoretical equilibrium as far as I can tell. Not so in many parts of Europe and certainly not in any emerging country - China and India for example. We in the US right our wrongs ever so fast - most of the time. This is to be desired and is GOOD.

I think the DCF is far less accurate a measure for value as we cannot accurately predict cash flows for 60 years forward (and doing a DCF for 5 years or 10 years is equally inaccurate, on a 60 year asset life).

Comparables are the least valuable. It is bizarre that folks at Banks (and Sheila Bair at the FDIC inclusive) put maximum faith in comparables and this is what is reported by the Schiller index. It is exactly the wrong index to be worshipping or evangelizing.

In summary, this author and the readers here should learn to compute replacement cost. Permanent values do not have much to fall to my view for rational reasons. They may swing for irrational reasons.

And for my area - SF Bay Area, I can report that in many parts home prices are now well below replacement costs (unless one believes that timber and copper will be given away for free, and that too forever!). I wouldn't bet on that!
]]> Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:07:51 -0500
1. In building a home, one uses various commodities, including one non-replacable commodity - Land. Commodities over time go up in value, as it costs more and more to replace them. Thus the value of a new home is traditionally more than an older home, as it costs more to create. And for logical reasons most folks love to buy new, especially if they can afford them on a monthly basis using a mortgage;

2. We have over the years technologically advanced building techniques and these advances have been 'mandated' by our ever changing Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). These advances also have the effect of increasing building costs, which is further translated into "value";

3. The homes we build these days have an estimated useful life of more than 60 years. This out-strips the useful life of relatively modest homes we built in the 1950's some with out-houses for sanitation, wood-burning furnaces, no insulation, poor ventilation and meager plumbing – and which in some parts were expected to last just a shade above 30 years. The virtue in building homes that will last these 60 years is that they can house folks for that long. Thus any computation we do of "value” has to recognize this powerful attribute.

The NPV calculation that the author asks us to make, must be over this 60-year horizon, coupled with the terminal value of the land (which "value" will also grow over time as the commodity portion of the home depreciates as it is "consumed"), and mostly discounted at close to the risk-free rate of money. I posit we use our 30 Year treasury as the proxy for risk-free, and this is around 2.25% today. I use this risk-free rate as the discount factor as opposed to the opportunity rate of interest for all risk-capital, as making and providing homes for our citizens is the exact thing that society at large benefits from and thus we should promote them as the safest kind of asset. Safer than even our faith in the US Government's Treasury (where "notes" can be printed willy-nilly and thus the value easily "compromised", as is now the case).

4. To my view there is materially nothing unsound, if we compute value by studying all of the three methods - (a) replacement cost, (b) discounted cash flows and (c) comparables. I also posit, (and this has been empirically evidenced) that over a decent time horizon all asset values converge to their respective replacement costs. The time to "buy" them is, when, because of market irrationality one can buy below replacement cost and one "sells" when they are materially above replacement cost, and again where this has happened only because of irrationality. In perfect equilibrium things should always have a value equal to their replacement costs. But this rarely happens as we have an economy where sentiments ebb and flow and value is dynamic. The US economy has been as close to theoretical equilibrium as far as I can tell. Not so in many parts of Europe and certainly not in any emerging country - China and India for example. We in the US right our wrongs ever so fast - most of the time. This is to be desired and is GOOD.

I think the DCF is far less accurate a measure for value as we cannot accurately predict cash flows for 60 years forward (and doing a DCF for 5 years or 10 years is equally inaccurate, on a 60 year asset life).

Comparables are the least valuable. It is bizarre that folks at Banks (and Sheila Bair at the FDIC inclusive) put maximum faith in comparables and this is what is reported by the Schiller index. It is exactly the wrong index to be worshipping or evangelizing.

In summary, this author and the readers here should learn to compute replacement cost. Permanent values do not have much to fall to my view for rational reasons. They may swing for irrational reasons.

And for my area - SF Bay Area, I can report that in many parts home prices are now well below replacement costs (unless one believes that timber and copper will be given away for free, and that too forever!). I wouldn't bet on that!
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112658/comments?source=feed#comment-342387 342387
Businesses succeed or fail largely because they serve an un-met need or meet them better than others. That is lassiez faire at work. The Best survive.

I see now that all the I-Banks are Bank Holding Companies, they are fish of the same stripe. Whereas, perhaps in the past they were somewhat differentiated and thus meeting an unmet need, and their existence was or could be justified. For example - Bear was too smallish a IB and good at nothing particularly, Lehman was mainly into Bonds and Fuxed income, till they went astray, Goldman was perhaps into Prop Desk trading (or what they really did well was to tell most folks to go long with their recommended positions while using their prop desk simultaneously to go short, knowing fully well that what their IB's touted was basically worthless anyhow and was foisted on the greedy and not the needy) and they did Private Wealth Management (favouring their buddies - aka Paulson hiring his protege to start TARP), Merrill claimed to be into retail brokerage with advise (as opposed to an e-Trade or a Schwab, which is just discounted "nothing" - you get what you pay for! (you pay peanuts you get monkies), but now, there is almost no differentiation between them. All Bank Holding Companies with one sponsor for money - Mr. Bernake or Mr. Paulson.

So we need maybe one mega institution and rest will have to re-invent themselves into something else or they shall ordinarily fail.

As an example, look at our Auto companies. All produce similar results at the same time. Basically all are broke. One survives?

Fundamentally, in an otherwise free economy, there can only be one least cost provider. And mostly only one gets there (to be least cost provider) faster than others and thus emerges as the eventual winner.

As I see it, we now have 5 or 6 mega US Banks (all with one large source of money - the FED's and all get charged the same for their borrowings at the Fed), and all we need is one Bank with a national or International footprint, or make it two. Not 10, as we have now! So pick your winner and toss the rest.

Who do you think is best of class right now with the chance to be the least cost provider? I doubt if it is GS or MS? They still buy fesh flowers for their offices and claim to make money still fleecing folks like AIG (the Fed's Ahem!), and get paid many milions each month nowadays to help advise the unwinding of AIG! Phew, what a scam! They put them there in the first place and now getting paid to unwind?? This is a franchise you wish to own?

]]> Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:36:23 -0500
Businesses succeed or fail largely because they serve an un-met need or meet them better than others. That is lassiez faire at work. The Best survive.

I see now that all the I-Banks are Bank Holding Companies, they are fish of the same stripe. Whereas, perhaps in the past they were somewhat differentiated and thus meeting an unmet need, and their existence was or could be justified. For example - Bear was too smallish a IB and good at nothing particularly, Lehman was mainly into Bonds and Fuxed income, till they went astray, Goldman was perhaps into Prop Desk trading (or what they really did well was to tell most folks to go long with their recommended positions while using their prop desk simultaneously to go short, knowing fully well that what their IB's touted was basically worthless anyhow and was foisted on the greedy and not the needy) and they did Private Wealth Management (favouring their buddies - aka Paulson hiring his protege to start TARP), Merrill claimed to be into retail brokerage with advise (as opposed to an e-Trade or a Schwab, which is just discounted "nothing" - you get what you pay for! (you pay peanuts you get monkies), but now, there is almost no differentiation between them. All Bank Holding Companies with one sponsor for money - Mr. Bernake or Mr. Paulson.

So we need maybe one mega institution and rest will have to re-invent themselves into something else or they shall ordinarily fail.

As an example, look at our Auto companies. All produce similar results at the same time. Basically all are broke. One survives?

Fundamentally, in an otherwise free economy, there can only be one least cost provider. And mostly only one gets there (to be least cost provider) faster than others and thus emerges as the eventual winner.

As I see it, we now have 5 or 6 mega US Banks (all with one large source of money - the FED's and all get charged the same for their borrowings at the Fed), and all we need is one Bank with a national or International footprint, or make it two. Not 10, as we have now! So pick your winner and toss the rest.

Who do you think is best of class right now with the chance to be the least cost provider? I doubt if it is GS or MS? They still buy fesh flowers for their offices and claim to make money still fleecing folks like AIG (the Fed's Ahem!), and get paid many milions each month nowadays to help advise the unwinding of AIG! Phew, what a scam! They put them there in the first place and now getting paid to unwind?? This is a franchise you wish to own?

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112443/comments?source=feed#comment-340471 340471
One would have to assume that this $30B claim is all Pincipal and not Principal plus this bogus accrued interest.

Logically,

It is possible that many were content with Madoff re-investing the 'accrued' interest, but many apparently used this accrued interest as cash flow to live, so actually withdrew their monies, periodically if not monthly. In matter of fact if a person invested $100, 20 years ago, then, if he or she withdrew the accrued 10% money annually, they would be sitting without a principal loss at this stage! They actually made money. Who are these lucky few?

We are also told (by filings made to the SEC annually) that Madoff did not actually invest any more than $1B in the market, and since his trading strategy counted on an upward biased market (Buying S&P 100's and selling a call and buying a put simultaneoulsy), he would have made money most of the time, except this year, when the market tanked sharply. The suddeness of the nose-dive, would pretty much wipe-out the $1B, as his collars were at most +/- 5%! and any losses beyond that rate should hit him broadside. So maybe he lost $1B. That means he had $31B to start with and now has $30B.

I think, the 'real' money, if one is to believe that $30B of corpus was lost or is missing, has to be sitting somewhere! Madoff charged no Fees for his skilled management, obviously had no operating expenses, since he worked out of a threadbare office with one secretary and did all of the work himself and a 3 man CPA certified the accounts annually, and said that the only income he generated from the corpus were commissions from trades - so what are we talking - a few million $'s over the years at best in this day of discount commissions especially on trading of indexes.

Interestingly he also stated that most of the trades were through other broker dealers - and not his shop! So he kept next to nothing of those commissions unless he got kick-backs.

So it appears highly implausible that a man with his alleged shy demeanor lost this money. Lost on what? He did not eat the $30B type money. Impossible. He claims to only own three homes and a yacht. That isn't $30B! If the claimaint's are are to be believed, then the money is around folks.

It appears only too 'nice' that his sons turned him in. There is no way, plausible, that this man ran a giant ponzi scheme for years, right under the noses and eyes of his kids and wife. Surely the talk at the Dinner table has to circle around 'how are we all doing' and related financial matters? You can't tell me that the wife (with whom Bernie slept each night) did not know how money appeared in their bank accounts, month after month and year after year. She filed tax returns? right? Surely they got 1099's? W-2's? No?? How come?

Huh??

And I am sure the kids and the Parents partook Dinner together many times during the last 20 years! I would be dumbfounded if this otherwise voluble man (as seen on TV interviews and House testimony) would remain mum and silent and not let on what he did with or at his day job for 20 years! Not possible. This is one giant charade. Bummer no one is really getting to the bottom of this fast - as there is no way that Bernie worked without any Banks - and with this kind of money. It can't be that he Banked with a small Community Bank - it has to be with the Majors. JP Morgan. Bank of America. CitiBank etc.They can and should quickly, in this digital age - print out all of his bank statements for all of the past years and follow the debits and credits. Man, I could do this research in a nano second! Plus, every Bank is required to report transactions of $10,000 or more to the IRS. How can it be that we need Bernie to tell us what became of the money?

Huh??

Pleeesee!

Could it be that some 'honchos' or 'politicos' don't want these facts/secrets out?

It is well near impossible to decently spend-away or lose-away $30B in 20 years, and without notice. Unless he stood on top of the liptisck building each day and rained $100 bills to the walkers below, and that is how it is gone!

His family - all of them, are complicit, as are his brokers and bankers.

Stop the charade.



]]> Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:46:20 -0500
One would have to assume that this $30B claim is all Pincipal and not Principal plus this bogus accrued interest.

Logically,

It is possible that many were content with Madoff re-investing the 'accrued' interest, but many apparently used this accrued interest as cash flow to live, so actually withdrew their monies, periodically if not monthly. In matter of fact if a person invested $100, 20 years ago, then, if he or she withdrew the accrued 10% money annually, they would be sitting without a principal loss at this stage! They actually made money. Who are these lucky few?

We are also told (by filings made to the SEC annually) that Madoff did not actually invest any more than $1B in the market, and since his trading strategy counted on an upward biased market (Buying S&P 100's and selling a call and buying a put simultaneoulsy), he would have made money most of the time, except this year, when the market tanked sharply. The suddeness of the nose-dive, would pretty much wipe-out the $1B, as his collars were at most +/- 5%! and any losses beyond that rate should hit him broadside. So maybe he lost $1B. That means he had $31B to start with and now has $30B.

I think, the 'real' money, if one is to believe that $30B of corpus was lost or is missing, has to be sitting somewhere! Madoff charged no Fees for his skilled management, obviously had no operating expenses, since he worked out of a threadbare office with one secretary and did all of the work himself and a 3 man CPA certified the accounts annually, and said that the only income he generated from the corpus were commissions from trades - so what are we talking - a few million $'s over the years at best in this day of discount commissions especially on trading of indexes.

Interestingly he also stated that most of the trades were through other broker dealers - and not his shop! So he kept next to nothing of those commissions unless he got kick-backs.

So it appears highly implausible that a man with his alleged shy demeanor lost this money. Lost on what? He did not eat the $30B type money. Impossible. He claims to only own three homes and a yacht. That isn't $30B! If the claimaint's are are to be believed, then the money is around folks.

It appears only too 'nice' that his sons turned him in. There is no way, plausible, that this man ran a giant ponzi scheme for years, right under the noses and eyes of his kids and wife. Surely the talk at the Dinner table has to circle around 'how are we all doing' and related financial matters? You can't tell me that the wife (with whom Bernie slept each night) did not know how money appeared in their bank accounts, month after month and year after year. She filed tax returns? right? Surely they got 1099's? W-2's? No?? How come?

Huh??

And I am sure the kids and the Parents partook Dinner together many times during the last 20 years! I would be dumbfounded if this otherwise voluble man (as seen on TV interviews and House testimony) would remain mum and silent and not let on what he did with or at his day job for 20 years! Not possible. This is one giant charade. Bummer no one is really getting to the bottom of this fast - as there is no way that Bernie worked without any Banks - and with this kind of money. It can't be that he Banked with a small Community Bank - it has to be with the Majors. JP Morgan. Bank of America. CitiBank etc.They can and should quickly, in this digital age - print out all of his bank statements for all of the past years and follow the debits and credits. Man, I could do this research in a nano second! Plus, every Bank is required to report transactions of $10,000 or more to the IRS. How can it be that we need Bernie to tell us what became of the money?

Huh??

Pleeesee!

Could it be that some 'honchos' or 'politicos' don't want these facts/secrets out?

It is well near impossible to decently spend-away or lose-away $30B in 20 years, and without notice. Unless he stood on top of the liptisck building each day and rained $100 bills to the walkers below, and that is how it is gone!

His family - all of them, are complicit, as are his brokers and bankers.

Stop the charade.



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112457/comments?source=feed#comment-340330 340330
As further proof, I have heard of professionals (Doctors and Lawyers), who have had the APR on their credit card outstanding balances ($1,600 balances) jacked up into stratosphere (from 10% to 21%) and credit limits cut drastically (-90%). NO - credit is surely 'crunched'.

When asked, the decision makers at these Banks respond - All of the TARP money is being "held" as a cushion to offset portfolio losses not yet booked - and there are many more to be realized in times to come!

Maybe what we have here is that there three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics - and statistics are the worst kind!

I think Treasury goofed!

That is how I see it.]]> Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:03:57 -0500
As further proof, I have heard of professionals (Doctors and Lawyers), who have had the APR on their credit card outstanding balances ($1,600 balances) jacked up into stratosphere (from 10% to 21%) and credit limits cut drastically (-90%). NO - credit is surely 'crunched'.

When asked, the decision makers at these Banks respond - All of the TARP money is being "held" as a cushion to offset portfolio losses not yet booked - and there are many more to be realized in times to come!

Maybe what we have here is that there three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics - and statistics are the worst kind!

I think Treasury goofed!

That is how I see it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107372/comments?source=feed#comment-312350 312350 No later than next spring, I feel many of the risks will become non-risks and thus the market will become more stable.
As it is the global rout in equity values is on par with the projected losses - I think we have shed about $12T in global tangible (equity & real estate) value - and not everything is going to zero, or falling off the face of the earth!]]> Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:09:03 -0500 No later than next spring, I feel many of the risks will become non-risks and thus the market will become more stable.
As it is the global rout in equity values is on par with the projected losses - I think we have shed about $12T in global tangible (equity & real estate) value - and not everything is going to zero, or falling off the face of the earth!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107112/comments?source=feed#comment-311068 311068
He comes across as a typical car salesman stereotype - no substance and a "yes" man.

Actually it is no wonder our 3 Auto companies are in distress - because they have such poor leaders. Not one of them struck a chord of 'wisdom' with me. No one had the depth of knowledge of their companies (or they did not want to tell us the truth), so they hedged, humm'd or haww'd.

For Mulally and Nardelli to say - we just came to the job, as a justification for not knowing the facts about their companies is pathetic. To my mind, a smart CEO, would have been fully prepared with all manner of statistics, backwards and forwards, north to south and have these numbers and facts on the tip of their tounges - because they literally, ate, slept and drank their companies - just like I do for my enterprise. That is all I do all my waking hours, especially the working waking hours. I am therefore honed to perfection in this context! That is how they should be. And I am just a SME!

None of the three CEO's deserve to be a corporate leader and thus should be sacked, and dismissed for cause. They came totally ill prepared and had zero conviction. If none of them would sacrifice their cash comp and go on a earn-out scheme - then their interest is not aligned with us - the tax payer, whose money they seek to get. They should have volunteered that themselves. Pay me last, they should have said, if for nothing else to demonstrate their conviction!

I think it is 100% worth saving the three companies (or an aggregated ONE) and keeping most if not all of their 'good' workers. And I am certain they do have some good workers. No reason why a federal subsidy, to ensure a level playing field for this globalized business, is not warranted. It should be subsidized, if the general consensus is that Japan, Korea, Germany, France, India, etc. subsidize their auto industries, and rely on the US consumer (for example) for their well being, but use their local citizens for making their cars, then YES I am also for lending support to our industry. All manner of support I offer. People will need cars for a long time to come and I don't want to give up that knowledge and skill. The US needs to be KING of this hill.

Being a 'least cost producer' is germane to surviving a free market scheme. Thus, if a subsidy is standard operating global policy, then we support the Detroit 3 with the bail out. At that juncture we do whatever it takes, so our industry is last man standing.

BUT none of these guys deserve to be CEO for sure.
]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:59:51 -0500
He comes across as a typical car salesman stereotype - no substance and a "yes" man.

Actually it is no wonder our 3 Auto companies are in distress - because they have such poor leaders. Not one of them struck a chord of 'wisdom' with me. No one had the depth of knowledge of their companies (or they did not want to tell us the truth), so they hedged, humm'd or haww'd.

For Mulally and Nardelli to say - we just came to the job, as a justification for not knowing the facts about their companies is pathetic. To my mind, a smart CEO, would have been fully prepared with all manner of statistics, backwards and forwards, north to south and have these numbers and facts on the tip of their tounges - because they literally, ate, slept and drank their companies - just like I do for my enterprise. That is all I do all my waking hours, especially the working waking hours. I am therefore honed to perfection in this context! That is how they should be. And I am just a SME!

None of the three CEO's deserve to be a corporate leader and thus should be sacked, and dismissed for cause. They came totally ill prepared and had zero conviction. If none of them would sacrifice their cash comp and go on a earn-out scheme - then their interest is not aligned with us - the tax payer, whose money they seek to get. They should have volunteered that themselves. Pay me last, they should have said, if for nothing else to demonstrate their conviction!

I think it is 100% worth saving the three companies (or an aggregated ONE) and keeping most if not all of their 'good' workers. And I am certain they do have some good workers. No reason why a federal subsidy, to ensure a level playing field for this globalized business, is not warranted. It should be subsidized, if the general consensus is that Japan, Korea, Germany, France, India, etc. subsidize their auto industries, and rely on the US consumer (for example) for their well being, but use their local citizens for making their cars, then YES I am also for lending support to our industry. All manner of support I offer. People will need cars for a long time to come and I don't want to give up that knowledge and skill. The US needs to be KING of this hill.

Being a 'least cost producer' is germane to surviving a free market scheme. Thus, if a subsidy is standard operating global policy, then we support the Detroit 3 with the bail out. At that juncture we do whatever it takes, so our industry is last man standing.

BUT none of these guys deserve to be CEO for sure.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106778/comments?source=feed#comment-309686 309686
Shows that he is after all not a genius and surely not as precient as we "pedastal" mount him to be. He looks about as 'small' as any hedge fund dudes or private equity dudes - all mostly mediocre investment pro's.

Goldman, Morgan Stanley, DB and other high-fluted Investment Banks all were giant "Casino's" trolling large unregulated waters, with OPM and probably front-runners of most in-the-money trades and that is how they used their proprietary knowledge to make money. This charade had to end one day and it has.

Now that we know the "color" of this scheme, it is but obvious that the emperor wears no clothes!

Now: How to make money in a regulated world? That is what Blankfein now sees, as does Mack and as does Al Waleed. This gig is over.

True value of this GS franchise, is far less than this $62/share.

I am surprised to read that you do not know what it is worth? It is plain to value it - using a simple DCF model, stretched to 7 or 10 years and using a reasonable discount rate of say 15%, and to my view, GS should hard pressed to be worth about half of what it is trading at. I assume its ability, at best as a Commercial Bank is to make about 200 bps on the total capital it has. Its total capital base is published.

No?
]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:39:17 -0500
Shows that he is after all not a genius and surely not as precient as we "pedastal" mount him to be. He looks about as 'small' as any hedge fund dudes or private equity dudes - all mostly mediocre investment pro's.

Goldman, Morgan Stanley, DB and other high-fluted Investment Banks all were giant "Casino's" trolling large unregulated waters, with OPM and probably front-runners of most in-the-money trades and that is how they used their proprietary knowledge to make money. This charade had to end one day and it has.

Now that we know the "color" of this scheme, it is but obvious that the emperor wears no clothes!

Now: How to make money in a regulated world? That is what Blankfein now sees, as does Mack and as does Al Waleed. This gig is over.

True value of this GS franchise, is far less than this $62/share.

I am surprised to read that you do not know what it is worth? It is plain to value it - using a simple DCF model, stretched to 7 or 10 years and using a reasonable discount rate of say 15%, and to my view, GS should hard pressed to be worth about half of what it is trading at. I assume its ability, at best as a Commercial Bank is to make about 200 bps on the total capital it has. Its total capital base is published.

No?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106412/comments?source=feed#comment-309325 309325 Folks change and their preferences change over time. Each of GM, Ford and Chrysler, got bad leadership, and designed and built products that at sale produced a negative cash flow!
True the Oil run up in price also got them, but the handwriting has been written on the wall for along time. The leaders at these companies surely saw them too. Just plain chose to ignore all the red flags. That folks is 'bad' leadership.
Now why, pray tell me, we the tax payers, should reward bad leadership?
As sad it is for all those hard working folks that labor at producing cars, that their economic lives will end working at or for a US Automobile company, and I say, this is LIFE.
The world is best served, if we reward merit and not entitle folks to social support. That is and has been the American Way. Nothing is wrong with this.
We are mightily generous people, and when we have any left over we send all over the globe to those less advantaged, but just gioving charity at home, may not help those that seek help.
To my co-citizens in Detroit: Please get re-trained for another vocation, start a business of some ilk, innovate, and trust in your smarts.
There are many un-met needs of our citizenry - and there are jobs in need of good people - so why not look to do them?
Examples: Materials Science, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Energy solutions, High-Speed people mover systems, Water and desalination systems, Skin patch medicine, and believe it or not - even starying a Bank!]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:37:57 -0500 Folks change and their preferences change over time. Each of GM, Ford and Chrysler, got bad leadership, and designed and built products that at sale produced a negative cash flow!
True the Oil run up in price also got them, but the handwriting has been written on the wall for along time. The leaders at these companies surely saw them too. Just plain chose to ignore all the red flags. That folks is 'bad' leadership.
Now why, pray tell me, we the tax payers, should reward bad leadership?
As sad it is for all those hard working folks that labor at producing cars, that their economic lives will end working at or for a US Automobile company, and I say, this is LIFE.
The world is best served, if we reward merit and not entitle folks to social support. That is and has been the American Way. Nothing is wrong with this.
We are mightily generous people, and when we have any left over we send all over the globe to those less advantaged, but just gioving charity at home, may not help those that seek help.
To my co-citizens in Detroit: Please get re-trained for another vocation, start a business of some ilk, innovate, and trust in your smarts.
There are many un-met needs of our citizenry - and there are jobs in need of good people - so why not look to do them?
Examples: Materials Science, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Energy solutions, High-Speed people mover systems, Water and desalination systems, Skin patch medicine, and believe it or not - even starying a Bank!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105660/comments?source=feed#comment-304525 304525
Planting money into failed private enterprise on the premise that they are too big to fail or define our country is the same as saying that we must preserve our 1800's characteristis just because they are 'nice' to have, or are presumed 'better' as are "wise old men"- nice to have.

It is, and shoulod be, foreign to most inquiring minds, to presume that house cleaning is bad. As an analog - is it "good" to keep a gangerene infected arm, because we must have two arms? How silly is that? It is not nice to get gangarene in the first place, but if one is sadly afflicted with that wound, then one does what is medically expedient - let go of the arm to save the body.

The making of a car is not that novel anymore. Many folks know how to make a car. And many do. Right here in the US. Cars that people want and do buy.

I ask: should we be really Democartic, fair and perhaps "nice" and also send bail out money to those others that make cars here in the US and are not asking for a bail-out - pari-pasu? after all they make cars too, but woe, just don't happen to be in Detroit. How rational would that be most would ask? One reason we won't be doing that is because it is morally hazardous.

I therefore ask - If we must NOT reward merit (by sending them a prorata share of this $50B) then pray why do we reward mediocrity? Seems absurd to me, any other way. I would always endorse the meritorious - the winner.


My heart goes for Detroit and its citizens. But in this economy or society, only merit shoud be rewarded. A somewhat leaderless people of Detroit gave their work lives to their respective automotive companies but just for that election, they are NOT now the wards of society at large.

Bummer, is all that comes to mind. Andy Rooney style.

These Detriot auto workers, truly should have left the employ of GM, Ford or Chrsyler, years ago, seeing the picture on the wall.

America has to be about fairness, reasonableness and equity for all. Even rules for all. Opportunity for all. And, Yes by golly, Homes for all Health care for all, Pensions for all and why not, some Vacations for all. But these are all NOT entitlements. We all have to strive, struggle, risk, engineer, innovate, win, and then and only then deserve the joys of these services and products. That is the American 'character' worth saving and always emulating.

The brass at GM, Ford and Chrysler have amply shown that they are poor stewards of their shareholders monies. They, by their own doing have come to to the logical but unfortunate end of their good fortune.

To my mind we the "Tax Payer" should not now take them as "prisioners" and support, or worse encourage their bad stewardship. I truly am sorry for Detroit but applauding of Tenessee and of even here in Califonia where they design and make many fine cars, like the Prius as an example. Our roads show many of them!

Bye Bye GM, Ford and Chrysler.
]]> Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:19:19 -0500
Planting money into failed private enterprise on the premise that they are too big to fail or define our country is the same as saying that we must preserve our 1800's characteristis just because they are 'nice' to have, or are presumed 'better' as are "wise old men"- nice to have.

It is, and shoulod be, foreign to most inquiring minds, to presume that house cleaning is bad. As an analog - is it "good" to keep a gangerene infected arm, because we must have two arms? How silly is that? It is not nice to get gangarene in the first place, but if one is sadly afflicted with that wound, then one does what is medically expedient - let go of the arm to save the body.

The making of a car is not that novel anymore. Many folks know how to make a car. And many do. Right here in the US. Cars that people want and do buy.

I ask: should we be really Democartic, fair and perhaps "nice" and also send bail out money to those others that make cars here in the US and are not asking for a bail-out - pari-pasu? after all they make cars too, but woe, just don't happen to be in Detroit. How rational would that be most would ask? One reason we won't be doing that is because it is morally hazardous.

I therefore ask - If we must NOT reward merit (by sending them a prorata share of this $50B) then pray why do we reward mediocrity? Seems absurd to me, any other way. I would always endorse the meritorious - the winner.


My heart goes for Detroit and its citizens. But in this economy or society, only merit shoud be rewarded. A somewhat leaderless people of Detroit gave their work lives to their respective automotive companies but just for that election, they are NOT now the wards of society at large.

Bummer, is all that comes to mind. Andy Rooney style.

These Detriot auto workers, truly should have left the employ of GM, Ford or Chrsyler, years ago, seeing the picture on the wall.

America has to be about fairness, reasonableness and equity for all. Even rules for all. Opportunity for all. And, Yes by golly, Homes for all Health care for all, Pensions for all and why not, some Vacations for all. But these are all NOT entitlements. We all have to strive, struggle, risk, engineer, innovate, win, and then and only then deserve the joys of these services and products. That is the American 'character' worth saving and always emulating.

The brass at GM, Ford and Chrysler have amply shown that they are poor stewards of their shareholders monies. They, by their own doing have come to to the logical but unfortunate end of their good fortune.

To my mind we the "Tax Payer" should not now take them as "prisioners" and support, or worse encourage their bad stewardship. I truly am sorry for Detroit but applauding of Tenessee and of even here in Califonia where they design and make many fine cars, like the Prius as an example. Our roads show many of them!

Bye Bye GM, Ford and Chrysler.
]]>