Tweet
Originally posted by Bassics
View Post
-
I don't think I ever said that B of A used TARP money to buy Countrywide. Although I may have implied that since I was posting at 6 am. lolOriginally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguy -
That is not what he said though. He said that BoA was forced to take TARP and then was forced to buy CW.Originally posted by mstng86 View Post
Regarding the forcing of either, I would not be surprised if it went even deeper, but at the time of the CW buy there were both supporters and detractors. Keep in mind the timeline, the CW strategy probably started mid-2006 or so. Things looked different then than they do in hindsight.Comment
-
-
BofA knew it was going to get TARP no matter what, so they claimed they didn't want it and look like a "good guy," all while knowing it was going to get shoved down their throat.Comment
-
If that is the case then why did they pay it back before they had to?Originally posted by Denny View PostOriginally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
-
The big 3 are not rosey clean. The bankruptcy reform act was pretty much a lie and about as constitutional as the GM bankruptcy. And they were the drivers (and had been for decades).
Remember the mantra "if we can stop all these deadbeats then honest hardworking people will enjoy lower interest rates on revolving credit"?
That was the sales pitch. The delivery was 180 degrees.Comment
-
To avoid being "that guy." Again, just trying to come out looking as good as they can from a shitty situation.Originally posted by Broncojohnny View PostComment
-
-
No, trust me. They handled it the best way they could, in my opinion. Just laying it out there, though.Originally posted by mstng86 View PostComment
-
nz xcOriginally posted by Broncojohnny View PostInstead of B of A being free to charge a fee and deal with the consequences in a capitalist market, THIS below is what we have. People wonder why no one is hiring? People wonder why there is uncertainty. Take a look at what this piece of shit has to say about how this country should work. B of A jacking up fees should not concern people, they should change banks if they don't like it. What this asshole is saying should alarm every American, even the ones who hate every bank, this will be the downfall of this country:
Obama Blasts Bank of America's Debit Fee
Published: Tuesday, 4 Oct 2011 | 9:39 AM ET
Text Size
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com
Barack Obama
CNBC.com
Barack Obama blasted Bank of America's [BAC 5.24 -0.29 (-5.24%) ] plan to charge $5 a month for debit card purchases.
“This is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up that is ready to go," Obama said. "This is exactly why we need somebody who's sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening. ... You can stop it because if you say to the banks, ‘You don't have some inherent right just to – you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers – are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently.”
The President said this in an interview with ABC. Ben White of Politico's Morning Money drew attention to his remarks.
The quote startled bankers because it seemed to imply that the CFPB would be micro-managing banks.
In some ways, the Bank of America fee is the most transparent imaginable. Bank customers will pay for it directly, and the fee has garnered so much publicity that it is hard to imagine that many customers will be taken off-guard.
On the other hand, the only way that this fee will generate substantial revenue is if customers are caught unaware or unable to pay by alternative means. So it may well be a good test-case for CFPB paternalism.
Nonetheless, the bankers are outraged. With Bank of America shares trading at lows not seen since the depths of financial crisis, many believe that Obama should not be hammering banks.Comment
-
Or they never needed it at all. Which is exactly my point.Originally posted by Denny View Post
Here is a fantastic example of how people are being lied to about the banks. Not by coincidence there is another headline on the CNBC page "Is Goldman shorting Morgan Stanley?". Of course they are, meanwhile their analysts are probably writing articles for zero hedge. Net result is that the little guy is going to freak out, sell his bank shares and Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds will make out like bandits at the cost of the little guy who believes the shit on zerohedge. They already fucked these same people to death on gold and silver:
Morgan Tries to Quell Rumors About Its Holdings
Morgan Stanley executives are battling a daily barrage of speculation and nay-saying to try to stem a sharp slide in the company’s stock.
It is a war that is being fought in large part in the shadows: against anonymous blogs and market whispers, but also against undefined fears about exposure to troubled European banks. While those worries are common to all the big Wall Street banks, Morgan Stanley [MS 13.65 -0.36 (-2.57%) ], as the smallest, is perhaps the most vulnerable among them.
In response, Morgan Stanley executives have been rallying employees and talking to the company’s biggest shareholders. The campaign culminated late on Monday, with the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group [MBFJF 0.00 --- UNCH (0) ], which owns approximately 22 percent of Morgan Stanley, publicly reaffirming its support for the company.
The push may have helped on Tuesday. Shares of Morgan Stanley rose 12.4 percent, after falling nearly 29 percent since the beginning of September. Morgan and other banks were primarily buoyed on Tuesday by a suggestion that European officials would look at bank recapitalizations.
Nonetheless, there has been a bloodbath in bank stocks. Morgan Stanley is down 48.5 percent for the year; Goldman Sachs [GS 91.2001 -3.3799 (-3.57%) ] has fallen 44 percent; and Bank of America [BAC 5.55 -0.21 (-3.65%) ] is off about 57 percent. And the cost of insuring Morgan Stanley’s debt for five years through credit-default swaps, though it eased on Tuesday, remains at levels that were seen during the financial crisis.
Morgan Stanley’s war-roomlike approach to market volatility highlights the difficulties of stamping out speculation in a world of instant, and often anonymous, information.
Its latest round of troubles began on Friday morning before the markets opened at 9:30 a.m. Zero Hedge, a well-read and controversial financial blog, linked to a Bloomberg News article that noted Morgan’s credit-default swap [cnbc explains] spreads had been widening. The Zero Hedge post also directed readers to a previous Zero Hedge article that pegged Morgan Stanley’s net exposure to French banks at $39 billion, about $12 billion more than the bank’s current market capitalization, reigniting fears about its exposure.
It was a potent cocktail of information. The company’s stock opened down more than 3 percent, prompting a flood of calls to Morgan’s investor relations and press offices.
Calling Zero Hedge for damage control was not an option. The post was written by an anonymous blogger who goes by the name of “Tyler Durden,” a character in the movie “The Fight Club,” and the Web site does not give readers a way to readily reach its writers.
Adding to Morgan Stanley’s woes, Friday was the last day of Morgan Stanley’s third quarter. The company is set to release its earnings in a few weeks, and securities laws limit what it can say about its financial condition. Unable to reach Zero Hedge, Morgan Stanley’s investor relations department went into overdrive, quickly pulling together talking points for callers that were circulated to both media and investor relations staff members.
According to the talking points, reviewed by The New York Times, the numbers cited by Zero Hedge “represent gross asset positions and thus do not reflect the benefit of collateral or other hedges and protection, and the more relevant exposure to consider is the net exposure.”
So what is its net exposure? The company was limited in what it could say because of the pending earnings announcement. To address this point, staff members were told to direct callers to pre-existing stock research. “Analysts estimate that the actual net exposure is meaningfully lower,” the talking points read.
In particular, they cited a recent report by Brad Hintz, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, who estimated that Morgan’s “total risk to France and its banks is less than $2 billion net of collateral and hedges.”
Zero Hedge could not be reached for comment.
Despite Morgan Stanley’s efforts, the stock ended on Friday down about 10 percent, at $13.51, its lowest close since the fall of 2008 and the depth of the financial crisis. The stock price was particularly frustrating to James P. Gorman, the company’s chief executive since early 2010. He has been leading the effort to rebuild the company; he even bought 100,000 shares of Morgan Stanley in early August at approximately $20 a share.
On Friday, Mr. Gorman shared his concerns with senior executives at Mitsubishi, conversations that culminated with discussions over the weekend between Mr. Gorman and Nobuyuki Hirano, his counterpart at the Japanese bank. The two men discussed the market rumors, concurring that they ran contrary to what they felt was going on in the market, said two people briefed on the conversation.
The company is expected to report third-quarter results in two weeks. Those results, these people said, are solid in light of the recent stock market rout. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters estimated that the bank would report a profit of 36 cents a share.
Mr. Gorman and Mr. Hirano agreed that it would be helpful if Mitsubishi issued a news release expressing its support. That did not come, however, until Monday after the close.
Early on Monday Mr. Gorman decided to speak out himself. “In fragile markets, where fear triumphs over common sense, these things are bound to happen. It is easy to respond to the rumor of the day, but that is not usually productive,” he wrote in a note to employees. “Instead we should let balanced third parties do their own analysis and let the facts speak.”
On Monday, despite Mr. Gorman’s efforts, the company’s stock tumbled 7.7 percent.
Six minutes after the close, Mitsubishi issued its statement. “In response to recent market volatility M.U.F.G. wishes to reiterate that we are firmly committed to our long-term strategic alliance with Morgan Stanley. The special relationship we have formed remains core to our global business strategy.”
Initially, the statement seemed to have little effect on the stock. The cost to insure Morgan Stanley’s bank debt with credit-default swaps on its debt continued to rise Tuesday morning, but then fell back, according to Markit, a financial information company. Its shares closed at $14.01, up $1.54, or more than 12 percent.
“Mitsubishi’s announcement was the equivalent of a Japanese firm saying you are part of the family,” Mr. Hintz said.
This story originally appeared in The New York TimesOriginally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
-
I think I'll stay with BofA, I don't pay a monthly fee for any of my accounts with BofA as it is, and I only have a check card that I use for one of the accounts (I have more, I just transfer money online to a single account and use one card). So $60/year isn't going to break me.
BofA has treated me right more times than not since I came from Nations Bank. They've covered several disputes, with minimal questions, refunded fees when appropriate, and their customer service both in the bank and on the phone have treated me right.Comment
-
-
True dat, I have the super secret white man checking account that's free for anyone who can prove 95% caucasian heritage.Originally posted by mstng86 View Post
But I never said I word, I don't want my country club membership revoked for giving out any info...Comment
-
You have to keep those silly negros down....Originally posted by Silverback View PostOriginally posted by racrguyOriginally posted by racrguyComment
Comment