Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Clusterheadaches.com
 
Search box updated Dec 3, 2011... Search ch.com with Google!
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegisterEvent CalendarBirthday List  
 





Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Here We Go Again [B of A] (Read 1485 times)
KingOfPain
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


Disgusted!


Posts: 1935
North America
Gender: male
Here We Go Again [B of A]
May 6th, 2009 at 2:15pm
 
US: Bank of America Needs $33.9B Cushion
Extra 5/6/2009 12:16 PM ET

Investors brush off B of A report
A day before the government releases its stress test results, reports says Bank of America is the latest financial giant in need of more capital.


By Elizabeth Strott
MSN Money

Bank of America (BAC, news, msgs) is feeling the pressure just one day before the results of the government's stress tests are released.

The bank’s capital needs of a reported $34 billion could already be covered, according to CNBC and other reports. That figure does not necessarily mean Bank of America needs additional billions in cash, which sent the stock lower earlier in the session.

The government has already invested $45 billion into the bank, and although that investment was in preferred stock and doesn’t count as the type of capital regulators say the bank needs, B of A could convert it into common shares and eliminate the dilemma. The only consequence -- and a big one -- is that, if the shares are converted, the federal government will become one of the bank’s biggest shareholders and will dilute the existing common shareholders.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
Back to top
  

Arrived August, 1999.
We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter. - Denis Diderot
Thanks for the ignore function! Wink
 
IP Logged
 
Shawn
Ex Member



Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #1 - May 6th, 2009 at 2:54pm
 
B of A = Barak of America?
Back to top
  
 
IP Logged
 
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Happy to be here


Posts: 18971
Jamestown, NY
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #2 - May 6th, 2009 at 3:50pm
 
No Bush Of America. He's the one with the billionaire friends, Saudi and domestic, that he and his family have pampered for nearly a century.

It was on his watch as well.

Charlie
Back to top
  

There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
135447360 mondocharlie mondocharlie  
IP Logged
 
Callico
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


Author of "Stranded at
Romson's Lodge


Posts: 4916
Aurora IL
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #3 - May 6th, 2009 at 4:35pm
 
B of A didn't even ask for the funds.  They were forced on them by the Obama administration.  Can you say "Nationalization"?
Back to top
  

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of dung by the clean end." Texas A&M Student (unknown)
Jerry Callison  
IP Logged
 
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Happy to be here


Posts: 18971
Jamestown, NY
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #4 - May 6th, 2009 at 4:50pm
 
FDR, same for Obama, wasn't for nationalization either. Not only New Dealers recognized that the Fed preserved and saved capitalization from itself.

Charlie
Back to top
  

There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
135447360 mondocharlie mondocharlie  
IP Logged
 
Shawn
Ex Member



Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #5 - May 6th, 2009 at 4:54pm
 
Sorry Charlie, you can't put this one on Bush.  I know that's a tough pill to swallow.  Bush isn't the one who will be running BofA when they are conveniently forced to convert those share to Common, making Barack the defacto CEO.

"Just Say No" to Bush Derangement Syndrome

Regardless, even IF you want to say it was all Bush's fault, you can't deny that Obama is choosing how to deal with it TODAY.  It is on Obama, not Bush.  Obama's Whitehouse (as Obama calls it) is the one calling the shots now, and he could stop this nonsense if he thought nationalization was a 'bad thing'.  No, this is all Barack.

Back to top
  
 
IP Logged
 
Brew
CH.com Sponsor
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline




Posts: 14163
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #6 - May 6th, 2009 at 5:05pm
 
Does anyone ever say it's William Howard Taft's fault? James K. Polk's fault? How about Grover Cleveland's fault? That guy just looked guilty.
Back to top
  

"I have been asked if I have changed in these past 25 years. No, I am the same. Only more so."  --Ayn Rand
 
IP Logged
 
Redd
CH.com Sponsor
***
Offline




Posts: 8457
Stevens Point USA Wisconsin
Gender: female
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #7 - May 6th, 2009 at 10:18pm
 
Thought provolking statement there Bill, as well as historically accurate. 

Thanks.... Wink
Back to top
  

"The goal of life living in agreement with Nature."  ~Zeno
peggflick ma_2_2  
IP Logged
 
stevegeebe
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


Posts: 1687
Mandeville, LA
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #8 - May 6th, 2009 at 10:27pm
 
Since 70% of our economy is dependent on consumer spending and the economic downturn has the consumer tightening their belts, the Government will act as the consumer.

So, after insisting that the notion of home ownership to be a nice thing, and forcing banks to take on risky deals, that subsequently flop, the Government is forced to cover their faulty decisions with this type of bailout crap.

The really neat thing is that the Government is giving the Banks gobs of money (our money) to reignite the excessive consumerism that got us here in the first place. And it is the Banks that will happily be contractually dispersing the money to the masses for a minor fee called interest. The Government will gladly siphon off its part of the profits all the while encouraging us with tax breaks on the interest we pay on our mortgages.

One thing I find noticeably delicious is the striking similarities between the Bush and Obama administrations in their approach to this Banking collapse. They are the same. What a notion!?  Who is really steering the policy?

One way or another, you, your children and grandchildren will be paying for it. Free range chickens I'm telling ya'...we ain't nothing to the oligarchs but free range chickens. Pretty soon us chickens will all possess the same amount of eggs, no more...no less and we'll all be happy and free.

Steve bawk bawk G
Back to top
  
 
IP Logged
 
Guiseppi
CH.com Moderator
CH.com Alumnus
*****
Offline


San Diego to Florida 05-16-2011


Posts: 12063
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA USA
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #9 - May 7th, 2009 at 1:58am
 
I'm from the goverment....I'm here to help you! Wink
Back to top
  

"Somebody had to say it" is usually a piss poor excuse to be mean.
 
IP Logged
 
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Happy to be here


Posts: 18971
Jamestown, NY
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #10 - May 7th, 2009 at 7:19pm
 
Quote:
How about Grover Cleveland's fault? That guy just looked guilty.
What? A Democrat? Heaven forbid! Roll Eyes

It must be tough to defend George Bush who is almost excusively responsible for wrecking the Republican Party. No one worked harder to elect Democrats than he and his bizarre administration. So far the current GOP crowd has been "purifying" itself by flushing out its moderates. Reagan must be turning in his grave.

Charlie
Back to top
  

There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
135447360 mondocharlie mondocharlie  
IP Logged
 
Brew
CH.com Sponsor
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline




Posts: 14163
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #11 - May 7th, 2009 at 7:40pm
 
I can't defend Bush for much, Charlie. But the man did know where our anger and retribution was supposed to be directed - at radical Islamists.

Everything else - the guy was too liberal for me. Seems like the Constitution doesn't mean much inside the beltway anymore.
Back to top
  

"I have been asked if I have changed in these past 25 years. No, I am the same. Only more so."  --Ayn Rand
 
IP Logged
 
KingOfPain
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


Disgusted!


Posts: 1935
North America
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A & Others]
Reply #12 - May 7th, 2009 at 7:46pm
 
Stress tests find 10 big banks need $75B more
By Daniel Wagner And Jeannine Aversa, Ap Business Writers - 30 mins ago

WASHINGTON - The government's long-awaited "stress-test" results have found that 10 of the nation's 19 largest banks need a total of about $75 billion in new capital to withstand losses if the recession worsened. The Federal Reserve's findings, released Thursday, show the financial system, like the overall economy, is healing but not yet healed.

Some of the largest banks are stable, the tests found. But others need billions more in capital - a signal by regulators that the industry is vulnerable but viable. Government officials have said a stronger banking system is needed for an economic rebound.

Officials hope the tests will restore investors' confidence that not all banks are weak, and that even those that are can be strengthened. They have said none of the banks will be allowed to fail.

The banks that need more capital will have until June 8 to develop a plan and have it approved by their regulators.

Among the 10 banks that need to raise more capital, the tests said Bank of America Corp. needs by far the most: $33.9 billion. Wells Fargo & Co. requires $13.7 billion, GMAC LLC $11.5 billion, Citigroup Inc. $5.5 billion and Morgan Stanley $1.8 billion.

The other five requiring capital are all regional banks: Regions Financial Corp. of Birmingham, Ala., needs to raise $2.5 billion; SunTrust Banks Inc. of Atlanta $2.2 billion; KeyCorp of Cleveland $1.8 billion; Fifth Third Bancorp of Cincinnati $1.1 billion; and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. of Pittsburgh $600 million.

Some of the firms that need more capital already are announcing their strategies. Morgan Stanley, which the government says needs $1.8 billion in new capital, said it plans to raise $5 billion. That will include $2 billion in common stock.

The tests found that if the recession were to worsen, losses at the 19 stress-tested firms during 2009 and 2010 could total $600 billion.

"Looking at the big picture, you can say that things aren't so bad for the financial industry as a whole," said Kevin Logan, chief U.S. economist at Dresdner Kleinwort.

But Logan said attracting fresh capital will be a challenge for banks that need it.

"The banking industry is not going to make a lot of money going forward, and that's a dilemma for keeping banks solvent and getting them lending," he said.

Financial stocks surged in after-hours trading, after the report was released at 5 p.m. Citigroup shares jumped 8.4 percent to $4.13, while State Street rose 7.3 percent to $40.60. Earlier, the markets had been down.

The government's unprecedented decision to publicly release bank exams has led some critics to question whether the findings are credible. Some said regulators seemed so intent on sustaining public confidence in the banks that the results would have to find the banks basically healthy, even if some need to raise more capital.

Jaidev Iyer, a former risk management chief at Citigroup, said regulators are playing to public expectations, which could put the government in the role of creating "winners and losers."

Because the government has said it won't let any firm fold, that could put taxpayers on the hook more than a confidential test would have, he said.

"If there is in fact no appetite to let losers fail, then the real losers are the market at large, the government and the taxpayers," Iyer said.

In the tests, the Fed put banks through two scenarios for what might happen to the economy.

One reflected forecasters' current expectations about the recession. It assumed unemployment will reach 8.8 percent in 2010 and house prices would decline by 14 percent this year.

The second scenario imagined a worse-than-expected downturn: Unemployment would hit 10.3 percent and house prices would drop 22 percent.

The steeper downturn would make it harder for consumers and businesses to repay loans, which would cause banks' assets to lose value. The government is forcing the banks to keep their capital reserves up so they can keep lending even if the economic picture darkens.

But some analysts questioned whether the tests were rigorous enough. Economic assumptions have changed since the test was designed in February. The U.S. jobless rate has risen to 8.5 percent and is projected to go higher this year.

"The assumptions the government has used are likely not to be completely accurate," said Jason O'Donnell, a bank analyst with Boenning & Scattergood Inc.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
Back to top
  

Arrived August, 1999.
We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter. - Denis Diderot
Thanks for the ignore function! Wink
 
IP Logged
 
stevegeebe
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


Posts: 1687
Mandeville, LA
Gender: male
Re: Here We Go Again [B of A]
Reply #13 - May 7th, 2009 at 9:30pm
 
Economically speaking...we are giving Banks money. Is this strange?

I read an analogy, somewhere I can't remember, that this situation is like a lumber mill.

Pretend you own a lumber mill and logs, raw product, is delivered to the train dock and offloads much lumber product. Then you run the product through you mill and sell it for a prophet at the other end of the mill.

Now think about how much money you could make if you were getting the raw product and others were paying for it. Who is it that's providing the raw product and practically giving it away? And look who they are giving it to...and not giving it to.

We are living in interesting times. Stress Test indeed.

Steve G

Back to top
  
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print

DISCLAIMER: All information contained on this web site is for informational purposes only.  It is in no way intended to be used as a replacement for professional medical treatment.   clusterheadaches.com makes no claims as to the scientific/clinical validity of the information on this site OR to that of the information linked to from this site.  All information taken from the internet should be discussed with a medical professional!