Big Jack58

BofA Testing the Legal Limits

I've noticed on these blogs that the average, informed reader is no longer falling for the old bashing-the-banks routine. I see two things going on with this decision to charge an account fee on these cards: 1) BAC is finding ways they can profit when they offer additional services (even if they originally gave it away). So for cash back, frequent flyer miles, etc type cards they might get clients to pay an account fee ... wow, they are going to charge customers for a service they offer? That's almost capitalistic! 2) BAC might be trying to exit certain client demographics ... wow, a company determines a certain client segment is not profitable and they make changes that will result either in profits from that segment or that unprofitable segment drys up? That's almost capitalistic!

John Thain Comes Clean

I think this is the last Felix article i'm going to waste my time with. His writings do not provide valuable, in-depth understanding of the topics that will ultimately help the readers draw a conclusion and possibly change the future. What he does is reinforce the fact that any hairbrained moron with a computer can put their unrefined ideas (slanted with biased opinions) in writing for the mass public to vomit over. He does not sufficiently research his topics, his analytical skills are suited for a checkers player (when we're playing chess) and therefore, his conclusions are not fit for my toilet.

Bank of America's Gain, Taxpayers' Loss, Part 2

The ironic thing is all the trouble that has been stewing on this deal is primarily because the gov't injected itself into a process that is best left to the private sector. Let's see, the gov't has failed with Medicare, Social Security; can't run a DMV or a post office; recently hosed the Cash for Clunkers program and want to do the same for our Health Care. And don't try to say that the shareholders were victims of the BAC board. BAC did not want to enact the MAC to get out of the deal. They were looking to enact the MAC to get more favorable terms given the losses they were seeing. Had BAC been allowed (and not threatened by the gov't lackies like some kinda mob world muscle goons) to leverage the MAC for a lower ML price, would the stock have tanked like it did? Nope. In the end, we are seeing our gov't do what it does best ... no, not fix problems, what they do best is lay the blame for their shortcomings on someone else and hang them for it. I'd like to know if the SEC and a certain judge are looking to charge Paulson for interferring with the BAC/ML deal and causing large shareholder losses. Hey, the guy admits under oath to threatening the BAC board and management if they utilized an acceptable private sector M.A. tool.

Bank of America's Gain Is Taxpayers' Loss

No, I'm not infuriated.This was another mechanism the governement was using to try to milk money out of one of our largest financial institutions. And we can count on the inept government lackies to fail to get the documents signed (which has been well reported for several months, but it took this author until now to figure this out). Additionally, in it's quarterly meeting for Q1 in April, BAC announced they would never leverage this backstop because the terms would cause the price to be paid by BAC to be greater than any backstopping they would receive (but the author failed to call into that analyst meeting and hear any of this). Being a shareholder, I'm furious at our sleezy government because BAC received nothing in return for their $425 million payment for backstopping ... again, nothing was backstopped. So let's see: Sept 2008 the gov't highly encourages BAC to buy a failing ML in an attempt to save the economy the gov't couldn't save themselves; Dec 2008 the gov't threatens BAC to not back out of the deal nor leverage the MAC for a cheaper price on the merger; Jan 2009 the gov't, as consolation to BAC for a forced merger, decides to throw $20 billion in loans at 5.5% interest along with a scheme to backstop several billion that would never materialize (given they had $45 billion in TARP); Summer 2009 the gov't blames the recession on BAC, changes it's board and management teams and forces lending practices that provide handouts to irresponsible consumers (at the expense of the bank's profits and the shareholders' gains). It's obvious our gov't is no longer the leach we thought it was ... its a full sized vampire.

Bank of America / SEC: Rakoff Throws Down the Gauntlet

Will this judge look at who in the government hosed BAC investors when they took a large U.S. bank that was managing the financial crisis in relatively good order, then encouraged them to buy CW and later ML (as well as forcing them through that ML deal when it was obvious the company management wanted to use the MAC to get a cheaper deal after seeing material losses)? I'm really looking for government lackey names here, not departments. It would have been nice for this judge to have stepped in and actually done something about Bernanke and Paulson waffling on who really threatened these free-market people. Ultimately, Paulson fell on the sword now that he can't actually lose the job he already left. But shouldn't he be charged with a crime? Those investors lost a bunch of money because of his (and most likely Bernanke's) heavy handed tactics. Let's call it like it is: the financial crisis avoided becoming a financial disaster thanks to the blood spilled by the BAC board, management, staff and investors ... there were no heros in our government because the only sweat they spilled was done via threats with the sacrifice coming in the private sector.

Is Wells Fargo Regretting Its Wachovia Acquisition?

So Felix goes by User 477319 when he responds?

Is Wells Fargo Regretting Its Wachovia Acquisition?

Yes, it's obvious that Felix has gotten hosed shorting these banks. His bias runs so deep within his articles that it basically becomes an obsessive rant. And yes, as he describes BAC as "the all-but-ir-redeemable basket case(s)" very bright investors such as Steven Cohen and John Paulson have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into this company ... yet the ever-so-brilliant Felix feels that not only are these guys wrong, they will lose their money. When this monkey was telling people that BAC was going to be nationalized and was insolvent, I bet strong at $2.55 ... I've made a killing ... a killing! When he's finally lost everything but his shirt with his short selling and I've made my first billion ... i'm going to swing by Grand Central Station just to get him to shine my shoes.

Annals of Pay Transparency, BofA Edition

PS: You really tip your hand on the bias you possess when you downplay the $20 Billion TARP repayment BAC is currently negotiating (and legitmate news outlets and superior blogs are reporting). "A few hundred million dollars ..."?????

Annals of Pay Transparency, BofA Edition

Seems this author is a little upset the current government lackeys just aren't pushing socialism hard enough. Documenting and distributing the pay of private citizens is contrary to several freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If you want to say these guys are receiving a paycheck based on taxpayer funded money, then you really are ignorant. TARP wasn't a handout without the possibility of return of principal as seen in the auto industry. This was a forced loan with very restrictive guidelines along with an interest rate and was not used for operating purposes. Given your posts, I really believe you must have lost money shorting the financial industry (or you're a closet Marxist).

The Dog that Ate Ken Lewis's Homework

I think we have to consider more than just this little interaction with Judge Rakoff when it comes to the BAC/Merrill deal and the SEC. Remember Paulson (SEC) admitted that he made heavy handed threats to force this deal to close. That immediately put BAC in between a rock and a hard place because if they did anything that would encourage their shareholders to vote against the deal, you bet the management team would have paid with their jobs. Additionally, if they didn't allow bonuses to be paid, then shareholders would have been steamed when the best sales and management staff left post-merger. Even though some high level Merrill folks left that company, we are now hearing that many of them were asked to leave ... maybe because they were part of the problems that caused that company's decline? When it comes right down to this Judge (and hats off to him for wanting to hear what happened), the only thing that he can hear (but won't) that will help here is that the SEC forced this deal which put BAC behind the 8 ball and ultimately strapped with $45B worth of government loans (that must be repaid and come with severe restictions) as well as replaced board members and management team. So include all the trouble BAC has gotten into because of the thuggery of the government and that $33 Million is no longer just a slap on the wrist.

The Real Source of BofA's Troubles: Ken Lewis

Oh, brother! First, this company was insolvent. Then it was going to be nationalized. Then it was going to be quasi-nationalized with a preferred share conversion from the government ala Citi. Then it was going to linger like a zombi because all of the great folks who helped run Merrill into the dirt left ... o.k. some good guys left because they weren't going to get nice bonus checks, which in some parts of the financial industry represents a majority of their pay ... thank you nanny government. I feel bad for those investors who sold when the stock price was less than $5. Some of us jumped hard at $3 and have been laughing at these articles ever since. So keep believing what the morons in our government say about this guy, his team, the board and the company. Afterall, only government officials such as Bernanke and Paulson can point to Lewis and say he and his company did a terrible thing like purchase Merrill, then turn around and tell everyone how they, themselves were heros for ensuring the BAC ML deal went through ... saving the US economy. As this article proves, people actually believe that crap. UUUGGGHH!

Chart of the Day: Common Capital vs. TCE

CITI has to raise $5.5B on top of a gov't conversion of their TARP to common. Basically, CITI came out of this stress test requiring $50.5B (the gov't conversion had been announce prior so they were told to get another $5.5B). BAC was told to raise $34 in private capital. I'd say BAC is in much better shape because CITI will be gov't owned. Additionally, BAC on Friday raised between $3-$5B in 5 year private debt that can be used to pay down their TARP. Not a bad chunk in one day's work.


On May 09 08:51 PM wholesalecd wrote:

> If you don't get in on Citigroup at this price you will LOSE OUT
> on BIG BIG profits ahead.
>
> The stress tests show Citi is actually in better shape than BAC.
>
>
> Love it when Short Sellers have to cover.
>
> JAY BOY BILLY

Six Stress Test Revelations

Just a little correction here. CITI is in the worst shape. They have to convert their TARP money and raise an additional $5.5B. BAC's requirement to raise $34B does not include a conversion. So you're talking about $50.5B for Citi with gov't ownership and $34B for BAC with private ownership. Now, who is in the worst shape? Just to be fair to the author, the amount of capital needed by these banks was not based on the quantifiable health of each institution. This was a gov't sham. BAC's need to raise $34B (much greater than it's competitors) is based more on Ken Lewis's testimony to Cuomo regarding the gov't strong-arming him into finalizing the Merrill deal than on any financial shortcomings with his company.

Bank of America: Overstating Assets by 85%?

Wow, I'll never get the 30 seconds it took to read this junk back. The first mistake in this article is to try to recreate how the gov't came up with the $34B figure for BAC. Unfortunately, no one will ever know and I can assure you it's not based on a TCE ratio. Let's clear the table on this TCE thing: Did you know that the more available cash a bank has on hand, the lower their TCE level? The gov't isn't looking for these banks to get more cash, they want them to be owned. How many readers here have attempted to calculate TCE prior to last fall? I bet the writer of this article didn't even know what TCE was prior to 2009. It's a ratio that does not accurately reflect financial health in a downturn economy and was not given any credence until the gov't determine it would assist in their nationalization efforts (unlike Tier 1 Cap). So here is the lesson: the writer got his rear end whipped shorting BAC and is close to getting a margin call; he then writes this crap in an attempt to create fear and drive the stock back down so he doesn't have to tell his wife he lost her trust fund in a stock market gamble.

Stress Tests Were Never a Serious Exercise

This was never a serious exercise and it was obvious when reading the WSJ article on how government officials made numerous calls to BAC and Citi asking for very unorthodox data. That article goes on to say that these banking insiders couldn't determine what the government was attempting to review based on their requests. Let me explain for you: the ask for a ton of details already knowing these companies would "fail". There was no test. Our banking system has been hijacked by a socialist government.