vreporter

Is Dubai's Default a Black Swan Event?

The Black Swan has more to do with the dependent - and yet unknown - impacts, than the original event. Hence, this IS just such an event, known or not! Shrugging this off is equivalent to shrugging off the banks and letting them go under. The downstream events are HUGE.

Citigroup Makes a Good Move: Preparing to Buy Out Uncle Sam

I think you're confused about what's right and what's good. What's good would be determined by the share price in the near term. need I say more?

Reading the Stress-Test Leaks

This is the beginning of an ALL CLEAR signal for the banks from Treasury and the Fed. The leaks are engineered given that they had to take on a derivatives market which siphoned investors out of their skin last time. There will be no rest for the shorts this time - even though C and BAC have already tripled from their lows. The economy and confidence are tools to get this engine running. These leaks and the consequent setups are part and parcel of this operation. If none of you studied any history on the "plunge protection" mechanisms of past years then you will not understand that some of the most influential "hedge fund" activities are not from hedge funds at all...

Are Citi, Bank of America Pushing Prices Up?

One would assume that an entity like Zacks would have a knowledgeable opinion about the securities it covers. This topic is apparently one out of their league. There isn't enough room here to correct the assumptions undertaken in the above article.

Is Bank Nationalization Still an Option?

It was NEVER an option.
It is an unlikely possibility even as a last resort.
Meanwhile, those very bank stocks have outperformed everything else by MULTIPLES during this ongoing proposal for nationalization.
Well done Felix... you are a true contrarian indicator.

Accounting Rule Changes Creating False Rally in Financials

"Without doubt, since fully-informed investors form only a small proportion of the capital markets, the spin and hype surrounding the “inherent evils” of the mark-to-market rule and Level 3 measurements could well take bank shares significantly higher this week."

You must be very smart to be that far ahead of the market! Are you a comedian?

What the Citi Conversion Might Really Mean

Interesting view... but do you really think they're that smart? !!!

Trading the Mark-to-Market Modification (Updated)

Unfortunately for most concerned, these considerations and discussions aren't getting any urgency to amend market turmoil since Treasury Secretary Geithner is not a proponent of change on this issue.

Too Big to Bail: Lehman Brothers Is the Model for Fixing the Zombie Banks

Sorry, you don't get it! You obviously do not understand "markets." Treasury is somewhere between your leftist suicide agenda and the conservative right that won't lay a finger on the banks.

When your solution is worse than the problem, it's time to keep looking. Get a clue!

America's Insolvent Banks

What's the difference between a US investor and a US taxpayer?
Please enlighten us because I get tired of the separation!

Why Bank Nationalization Will Never Happen

Have you noticed the recent PR push by regional banks separating themselves from the large ones? That they are running things in their respective audience markets just fine? That the banking system would be just fine without their larger brethren?

If our economies are global linked, just how do these regional institutions serve any purpose whatsoever in that regard? Do they acquire the international operations of the so-called insolvent masters?

I find this laughable.

I also find it laughable that many readers here see a comparison of RTC to the current crisis. Obviously, CNBC is a popular source of financial information but any ignorance bred from such dependence is the public's own downfall.

Lehman was a very small piece of the financial puzzle. That alone should make conservatives think. Also, differentiating the investor from the taxpayer is lost upon me.

This author finally looks at the dilemma with these issues in mind. Whether or not nationalization is on the table hardly makes it a viable solution.

Wake up America! Or we will all be experiencing the bread lines we never thought possible.

Nationalizing the U.S. Banking Sector: There's No Choice

Aside from doing the nationalization deed which is clearly a worse solution than the problem on a "net effect" basis, it's time we realized that the TAXPAYER and INVESTOR are actually one and the same.

Until we get that right, no nationalistic approach is going to understand WHY its a worse solution than the problem!

I think financial bloggers have found their "optimal traffic impact" topic by pushing this button over and over again. It's getting boring!

What happened to Morgan Stanley's insolvency back in September? They now seem to be the darling with the best prospects!

Bank of America and Citigroup will redirect their business models as well - with a lot of help from INVESTING TAXPAYERS. The result will be another horse rising from the dead.

Nationalizing Bank Losses

More misinterpretation to correct!

Yes, the common consensus is losses totaling 2 trillion.
BUT 1 trillion of it has already been recognized by the banks.
BUT if we are talking about the US banks, only about half (500 billion) of that is attributable. A far cry from the fear-mongering necessity for nationalization.

I might add that there is equal misunderstanding about the "bonus" issue vis-a-vis reality. The President has started an inaccurate sacrificing of the lambs.

Do any of you know what you're talking about?
If you do, where's the debate on mark-to-market accounting, given where we've come from and where we stand now!

Time to wake up to a week of clarification!

How Wall Street Keeps Dooming Itself

While I'd be the first to join this bashing on greed, many of us seem to be falling for some bad perspectives on the situation - yours included.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but:
1) We seem to be making much out of the term "bonus" whereas in majority on Wall Street it is a "salary" that's apportioned for various accounting, tax, savings plan issues - as a bonus. I know many back-office and support staff who work for 40k a year at some of the names you have mentioned. The large "percentage" bonus they receive still barely puts food on the table when one accounts for their metro NYC cost of living. So total compensation is actually quite modest and the bulk (not all) of these announced bonuses do apply here.

2) In making comparisons to prior years, I ahven't seen any of these arguments back up with the change in number of workers. I find it hard to believe that Wall Street employed the same number of workers in 2008 as they did in 1985. That would make your math on comparisons, not only poor, but possibly inflated in the wrong direction.

So, living in the metro NYC area is expensive, in general.
The change in the number of workers doesn't correlate with the likely change in bonus totals being scolded.
And the definition of total compensation seems to be lost in the definition of bonus.

Clarifying these points will probably bring you to a better conclusion on this topic. I'm sure there are still many who did receive outrageous and undeserving payments. But those numbers probably wouldn't make the headlines currently underway.

(a consultant to Wall Street on other unrelated matters)

Is Nationalization Contagious?

If you don't know the answer to that question, it shows exactly why you misunderstand the original problem with the choices of solutions - and why nationalization was NEVER a feasible option. A little problem like Lehman and those impacts should wake you up to the reality of nationalizing BofA or Citi. That's assuming that only one or a few can be "executed" that way - WHICH THEY CAN'T without causing more harm than good.

Let me put it this way... you might as well wipe out the financial system and every market in existence. The impact would be the same.