daffy

Comment Stream » BAC

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Number of U.S. Homes With Negative Equity Is Stunning
    vbierschwale~

    I would hope that you would add:

    Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for endorsing high loan to value and other practises in Fannie and freddie therefore giving the market par to shoot for. Who was the major purchaser of Country Wide loans? Hmmm.

    I wonder

    Home loans for all ~ ~ ~

    keep the practise going!
    Nov 14 08:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Market Skepticism About BofA / Merrill Deal
    lewis . . . incompetent?

    Hmmm, he is the CEO of BofA. Seriously. If you were half the man that he was, you still would be no where near where he is. SA is continuing to show me that the readers have fallen a few grades to be par with the contributors.
    Sep 16 07:43 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Alternative Buyers for Lehman (and Not Just the Usual Suspects)
    wow, I see great humor here.

    Someone actually has a sense of humor!

    XOM's R&D will never buffer a buyout though, and to tell you the truth XOM likes geoscientists in management, not MBA's. XOM does a hell of a lot more than buying a few mortgages for our society (that would be like throwing a doallr in the offering plate for them). So all of you who actually take any of this article seriously, try Paxil, you might actually feel better about yourself.
    Sep 14 08:35 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • BAC's Ken Lewis Mulls Another Deal as Lehman Reaches Brink
    Yeah, I am long BAC. Yeah, I am not so happy about it. Yeah, the only reason I hold onto it is the realization tha there has to be at least one bank out there that doesn't fail over this financial mess we are in. At least one Ken. AT LEAST ONE!
    Sep 14 08:26 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • An Involuntary Transaction: Why BAC + CFC May Never Close
    way to kill the thread H2O,

    seriously, after reading that crap from you, I am sure no one will come back to comment.

    Go away.
    May 07 07:52 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Under The Radar News - Monday
    Reagan,

    There are many more where the following comes from:

    and you can quote me.

    I hope pray and prey that iTechnology becomes byeTechnology.

    Apple should be embarrassed, but I figure that they will be following their current "plan" to re-invent everything and sell it to the idiots of the world.
    Apr 28 13:59 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Hitting the Reset Button On Home Mortgages
    I think that everything you are writing is fine and dandy as far as a bailout for homeowners go, but there seems to be one thing that people are increasingly willing to ignore.

    A good percentage of people who are in danger of foreclosure shouldn't have been in the home in the first place.

    I have been on my block for about 5 years now. In the last 8 months there have been 4 foreclosures (I live in Miineapolis). Of those foreclosures, one was a cut to pieces mansion for rental units that I have offered the value of the land minus tear down costs (after foreclosure). It really is that bad. Two of the home are valued higher but are really the least valuable homes on the block (they are like track homes in a neighborhood of turn of the century architecture). The final home is a traditional home symbolic of the neighborhood.

    OK, now onto the "owners". The first home was occupied by some young partier who threw outrageous parties with sword fighting and the likes at all hours. Foreclosed, I am sure failure to make payments. The second two were occupied by people who had migrated home to home as renters and were always evicted (either by the city (condemnation) or the landlord). The fourth one was occupied by a couple who took out an arm loan and invested all of thier savings into a restaraunt in 2007. A start up restaraunt.

    Ok, if you ask me, the only people who should have been in their home are the restauranteers. The other three occupiers did not belong in the position of having a mortgage to be responsible for. They couldn't even handle a lease for god's sake.

    So, as far as I can see, at best 75% of the people in this bad debt situation should have never been there in the first place. So, no we should NOT bail them out. If the government wants to step in, well, let them help the couple who made a mistake in their mortgage choices and the choices of their business start up. At least they were willing to risk what they had to possibly provide a better life for themselves and others as well as provide for a larger tax base.

    Seriously folks, you are not going to entrust your Maserati Quattroporte Executive GT to an alcoholic with a BAC of 0.33%. Just the same as you are not going to entrust your retirement porfolio to the homeless guy on the park bench.

    Let's stop with the broad sweeping regulatory changes. Pretty soon home ownership will be a right, and the governemnt will be bailing out everyone. Driving is a priviledge, and so IS HOME OWNERSHIP. THESE ARE PRIVILEDGES YOU HAVE TO TAKLE SERIOUSLY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

    Mar 31 08:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Stocks: Risky, But Tempting
    There is something that scares me worse than a 10,683 DJIA. That is statements like the following:

    If you buy stocks when they're going down, they might be cheap, but they're almost certainly going to get cheaper before they rebound (if they rebound).

    If they rebound?

    What stocks are you looking at?

    Are you telling me that MSFT is going to go down, maybe to 23 and stay there forever? Maybe they might go away altogether. Maybe MSFT will just fold, and everyone who falls under the 267.2B market cap will die.

    Come on Felix. Get a grip.

    Everybody seems to be focused on the short term gain that they have lost sight of a simple truth. Short-term gain tax-rates jump from 15% to 28% on plays lasting less than a year. Of course that is a simplification, and just a side note. But seriously. I am curious as to how many people are out there, at age 48, are fretting the 10-15% continued downturn that might occur over the next 4-6 months in their IRA. In their IRA. Should I say it again?

    I think you made another huge mistake in your article to bring CFC into this picture. Not only is the CFC deal RISKY, it may be downright stupid. CFC is going to drag down BAC with it, and the only spread there is, is the difference between BAC*(0.1822) - CFC which puts the spread at $1.78 on a CFC current price of $4.78. CFC is valued, according to my understanding of the deal, at 6.57 when I did these numbers. You have to be careful there. $7.16 is not the price right now. So, 1.78/4.78 = 37.6% gain on something that might not happen, and if it does might get revamped, and then it will only happen in 3Q 08 . . . maybe. That is why there is such a spread. I am suprised it is not more for the risk.

    OK, now that there is clarification on the CFC-BAC deal, I will have to give you credit to your statement which I take as bordering on lunacy. CFC might go away. But MSFT? GRMN? RTP? BAC?

    I think you need to reel yourself back in, and maybe try and take the "Death to all Mankind" out of your fear-mongering.

    And just to clarify, I am not short term bullish on the market, but over the next two years, you could say that I am moderately bullish.

    I think you need to lighten up Felix.

    I wish my name was Oscar.


    I just would really like to know when all this "sky is falling rhetoic is going to stop". Of course the sea is choppy. Do you really think we don't know that? Who are you talking to? I am still buying in, and will continue to. I could care less what my stocks are going to do in the next month or two, or 5. What goes up, might come down, and what goes down, will usually go up. Look at the DJIA over the last 20 years and you will have no choice but to agree that USUALLY trumps MIGHT every time in the previous statement.

    That is for all you math people out there USUALLY > MIGHT. Notice there isn't even an equals sign udner that symbol. Unless of course you are talking about CFC.

    Bad example Felix.

    Mar 11 12:45 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Financials and Retail: Not as Dire as They Seem
    I love it:

    "give yourself some time for stupid to be finished"
    Mar 08 13:34 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Financials and Retail: Not as Dire as They Seem
    Don't agree with retail at all. I have a lot of discretionary income and I have to say, it is going into the market right now, not to BBY, or JWN, or a new car, et cterea. The spending of my discretionary income has gone almost to zero. If that is the case with someone who has discretionary income, what say about those who don't?

    Financials? whoa . . . I made a few bucks on the cfc-bac deal. Might make a few more if CFC gets down to four and BAC stays put. Doubt it though, it will have to look pretty darned good. Although, a 3/4 point reduction might just get one a good short term gain on the deal. Timing there. Now might be the time to get into that one, or next week. Other than that, well, I am staying away from financials. Too risky. The only financial I am playing with right now is ETFC (and some might say I am crazy for doing that).

    The hypothesis about 02-03 prices is interesting. If you take the 80 month EMA, and find that the stock price is under that AND is under the 2002 share price, you might have a stock that is worth investigating (in financials and retail). BAC falls short by about 5$ on the share price. I would say that is too risky right now. If the price went to $29, yeah, I would buy. This summer isn't going to be very nice to financial stocks, but there will be a few winners, and they will bethe agressive ones.

    Opinions and conjecture.

    embarassing disclosure: 1% of my portfolio is CFC @ $16.80. OUCH.
    Mar 08 08:26 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Financials Offer Patient Bulls Many Opportunities
    Earnings will be fine once the major losses are done being written off, which is presumably already priced into the stock at this point, no?

    With all of the doomsdaying nellies out there, I would say that it is more than factored in.

    Prospector -

    I am new to the market (investing wise). I could not see a better time to buy into financials. I still see no better time over the next three months. Although I am breaking even on everything right now (which says a lot since I started buying in early November), I see that in the next 8 - 16 months I am going to be very happy I put my money where I thought it should go. I have only fallen once when I chose not to buy ETFC at 2.08. I have had C on a watch for awhile and I will continue to watch. Unfortunately, I still think C has a huge write down coming, or a couple. I am going to wait until the next beating (or two), then buy.

    One thing to remember is that we have an election year and the fear mongering in the media is going to be many fold. The economy, in the eyes of the media, is going to be the worst in decades for the time until at least late November, then the party that wins will decide how quickly the market will turn around. If the naysayers win, well, it might be May of 2009 before we see beauty in our current investments. If the yeahsayers win, well, probably beginning right away and a banner Christmas (compared to this last one) will be had, sending confidence through the market. Either way, does it matter? Doubling your money (or even quadrupling it) is no losing game in a few months over a one year investment.

    Agreed . . . putting all disposable money into the market when I get it. Oooops, there goes the retail sector.

    Cheers
    Feb 25 08:39 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

daffy's Comments Stream Stats

  • 85 Comments, 6 , 4
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 2