Tyler Durden - Founder
Marla Singer - Foil
Travis - Author
Cornelius - Author
Sacrilege - Senior Researcher
tips [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Our Reader Tips Mailbox
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
ads [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Advertising Inquiries.
abuse [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Abuse / Infringement Issues
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure.
Zero Hedge Offices:
United States:
888.qui.zero (888.784.9376)
Zurich:
+41 43 501 6717
London:
+44 20 3318 4753
copyright ©2009 zero hedge - limited reproduction (with attribution) permitted by request
zero hedge's redundancy powered by:
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:31
#138361
I'd believe 32 in march or april but by NOVEMBER. NO WAY.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:33
#138363
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trLcH868ld4&feature=youtube_gdata
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 02:18
#138595
in the summer, this guy was saying US embassies around the world were loading up on cash...in antisipation of USD defauld..hmmmm ))
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 13:15
#138728
TD should do an article on when "Too Big To Fail" fails. Looking into the longevity of some of the big banks, like BAC, if TARP ends in 2009, and FASB 166/167 rules force proper balance sheet disclosure for under-performing loans and credit.
When TARP capital infusion and backstops creating the warm fuzzy feeling inside banker's, many financial analysts on the outside looking in, were thinking, what? OK so you want to throw good money after bad out of bankruptcy court, and then what?
Before you do this unprecedented move, Hank, perhaps you would like to think of how you may have to unwind these positions? and what if, the vast amount of cash infusion was just offsetting bad debt and not used as constructive investment. What would the future hold?
Really, how can you justify, politically or financially, providing public funding to an insolvent private corporation (BHC, banks) to offset bad debt. Furthermore, with the knowledge that substantial bad debts are hidden off balance sheet?
Not wise!
If you want to provide financing, do so in Bankruptcy proceedings after the bad debts have been written off.
So how does this make sense? what was the win-win scenario with companies like BAC? lets say, for arguments sake, that it was a play for time until asset price was reestablished. Exactly, what was this "extend" time line? when would success be realized and normalcy achieved, and what would the signposts be along the way? Hmmm.
Then again, what if the justification was the fear of what might have been. The fear of the free market being free. If so, then once the panic is over, it is clear to me, that some bailed out would be allowed to fail. Without the threat of systemic risk, politically these programs will have to end, and as a result remove the solvency life line.
Mark Beck
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 16:31
#138815
Um, pretty sure thats propaganda, otherwise the SEC would be after his ass. Not that i think they are capable any more than a pre-pubescent ape, but still. Dont think this guy knows what hes talking about.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:19
#138462
I'd agree with that, but I wonder if the rally off the March lows is overextended NOW. If it is, BAC has probably topped out already. I think we will know by the first of December.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:14
#138486
There's no more steam in that engine. 32 will not be seen in 2010. They own Countrywide! LoL.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 09:04
#138647
By this time in 2010 the fed will be promising and backing everything that a sane person shouldn't promise and shouldn't back. It'll be crazy ramblings of a insane king.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:35
#138365
Typo in headline. Should be $3.20.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 23:06
#138547
LOL +1
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 13:40
#138738
in 2009 dollar terms, then I'd have to agree...
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:44
#138368
wasn't it here on ZH I read the reference,
BofA "TARP bank for life"
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:56
#138372
they used to say , you can't polish a horse turd. that sure hasn't stopped the banks from trying. forget merril, countrywide was enough to BK b of a
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:50
#138373
Though I voted under, I realized, maybe they'll has a 10:1 reverse split by then, that's the only way it will be over $32 (really $3.2, but that's a minor detail isn't it?)
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 12:25
#138701
I think you might've hit the nail on the head.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:06
#138383
I just guessed 'under'... and I was right!
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:28
#138393
How about the question of how many shares of BAC could you buy with an ounce of gold in Nov 2010.
I'd suggest over or under 100....
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:26
#138490
Who in the world would waste gold on BAC shares?
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:37
#138399
They are not done pumping this fecal matter...
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:41
#138404
Maybe after a stock split ...
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:07
#138423
'$' in Nov 10, lol u made my day
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:08
#138424
How about a poll on whether BAC share price will be greater or less than the cost of a gallon of milk?
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 09:35
#138655
Exactly.
BAC could very well be $32 a share in a years time.
BAC at $32 =
Gas at $9/gallon
Bread at $12/loaf
Milk at $13/gallon
$DXY at 52
Gold at $2650/oz
Unemployment (U6) at 35%
US under martial law with 8pm curfew
Even if you own BAC, you better hope it doesn't happen.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 14:00
#138745
+1
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 14:44
#138770
You said what I was thinking, and with more details.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:41
#138439
Last trade $16.09
With hyperinflation Nov 2010 $367,908,700,984,457,687,656,578.00 or BK
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:59
#138440
voting 'over', as $32 may not be sufficient to purchase a Happy Meal® by end of 2010
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:52
#138447
Over $32 nominaly, under $16 (BAC last close) in purchase power today (nominal inflation; real deflation).
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:06
#138458
Yeah, Paulson just dumped millions of shares per last filing yet he still thinks it will double? Laughable
BAC still has to raise loads of capital to deal with 10-12% jobless rates in perpetuity
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 05:55
#138621
The "jobless" rate is about 50%. Only half the people in this country work.
The rest? I don't know exactly what they do it's a hodgepodge of the rest, made up of students, social security recips, the ill, private pensioners, other retirees like railroad employees, government workers, teachers, the independently wealthy,trustfunders,the underground economy that will thrive no matter what...
When thinking of unemployment, it needs to be thought about in context of a country in which one half of 350,000,000 of
us do not work at any one time.
That's an awful lot of unemployed that this country seems to absorb without batting an eye. What's another few percent on top of that, on a Macroeconomic level?
Nada.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 23:50
#139059
Yes, I'm with you brother!
I always had a hard on for child labour, so I think we should step it one up - baby labour!
I'm sure babies can be useful for perpetual crawling in a circle or something to generate electricity. By the time they are 5, they can be better athletes.
on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 00:23
#139078
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://davengrace.com/dave/babymop.j...
Japanese already beat ya too it. Sorry.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 10:46
#138673
Yeah, Paulson just dumped millions of shares per last filing yet he still thinks it will double?
He dumped approx 8 million shares last quarter but he still owns somewhere around 150-160 million as I recall from the ZH summary presented recently.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:41
#138472
If mark to market reinstated then Paulson is wrong else he is right. By this time next year BAC would have sold of a lot of assets and will become a smaller bank. It will survive just because its name is Bank of "America".
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:24
#138525
With that name, you KNOW it's owned by foreigners.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:21
#138524
Real or nominal?
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:47
#138534
If you hold a lot of gold and gold miners, BAC would be a hedge. That may be the reason Paulson is in.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 14:02
#138746
+1
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:31
#138527
What was the reason for him selling BAC if it was going to double? Shouldn't he have bought more?
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 23:06
#138548
Everything you guys are talking about is way over my head...
I just went for the "Paulson Incorrect" label.
on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 23:51
#138564
32 cents maybe. He sold Goldman and bought BAC. Muuch as I despise Goldman that was a stupid trade.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 00:35
#138578
OK, which Paulson is it? Hank or John?
Big difference.
Besides, this is cannot be answered on the fundamentals. It is about how much will the Fed print to save them? What you really need to do ask what will be:
BAC * DXY
That has at least some meaning.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 01:21
#138586
I voted under but looks like Morgan Stanley agrees with Paulson.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20755324/Best-Ideas-ms
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 02:26
#138597
i voted under and then immediately kicked myself in the ass for not voting over, I hear that mummies can sell for a lot of money, especially those which are contained in protective glass cases.
Or thrown under a TARP.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 03:17
#138610
If this poll was on AIG 6 months ago it would be even more than this. Prolly upward of 95% for the under
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 15:10
#138788
Exactly why I voted over.
I'm often wrong, but always in doubt.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 04:24
#138615
The monthly chart remains bearish.
Thus it's longer term trend is down.
I would not be long BAC.
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/market-outlook-0
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 09:45
#138657
Fool For The Citi - apologies to Foghat!
Goin' to the citi, got you on my mind,
Countrywide is pretty, I'll leave it all behind,
This is my decision, I'm comin' home to stay this time.
'Cause I'm a fewl for the citi, I'm a fewl for the citi,
Fewl for the citi, I'm a fewl for the citi.
Breathin' all the clean air, sittin' in the sun,
When I get my train fare, I'll get up and run.
I'm ready for the citi, air pollution here I come!
'Cause I'm a fewl for the citi, I'm a fewl for the citi,
I'm a fewl for the citi, I'm a fewl for the citi.
I'm like a fish out of water, I'M JUST A MAN IN A HOLE.
The citi lights turn my blues into GOLD.
I ain't no countrywide, I'm just a homesick man.
I'm gonna hit the bid just as fast as I can.
I'm tired of layin' back, hangin' around,
I'm gonna catch that train, then I'll be CITIBOUND!!!!!
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 10:44
#138672
John Paulson seems to have gotten a taste for the limelight. I wonder if his celebrity is tainting his objectivity? They guy who believes he has the Midas touch is the guy who is in line to shit the bed. He may have faith in the Fed but I don't considering how this is the same Fed that gave us the dislocation of 2008.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 11:53
#138693
The game is rigged. If he said it's going to be 132 by next Wednesday then that's what it'll be. Why do you guys hold on to the rules of free markets? This isn't even about money any more. It's about power.
Pile in, make a double.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 15:22
#138793
Unfortunately true,me thinks, #138693.
Damn shame really.
F*** it.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 18:26
#138851
BankAmerica can't even entice someone to run the place. If this thing is such an attractive investment, why can't they find a CEO? Hell, if a potential CEO thought there was value, he'd get in there today, get his options price at $16 and make a fortune in a year. I'm not buying it.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 23:55
#139063
They should get a janitor to run it.
Reminds me of a movie with a similar plot. The board at a large toy company decide to buy more company shares. They realize that the price of their stock is relatively well priced, so they needed to create a panic. They hire some yong guy to run the company who had the idea of producing hula hoops. No one buys, them - stock plummets. Board loads up on stock... funny movie actually.
Point being, they should hire an intern who never worked at a bank to be CEO. Unfortunately, he'll do a decent job of running a bank.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 21:50
#138934
$32.50. That's for the whole index, right?
Regards.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 21:54
#138944
it could very well be 32, heck it could be 62. does that mean victory? NO, it means it has CRASHED. YES, you heard me right, 32 , 42, 62, who cares when usdx will be at 50 or lower?
in fact, I think 'nominal' numbers will go up, exactly because dollar will go down (just ask Shalom Bernanke how that's possible).
so, remember, we could have a crash 'on the upside'. Dow could go up to 20k, 30k who knows, exactly because no one knows how much Shalom will print. but by that time Gold will have gone to Pluto and a loaf of bread will be $20.
on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 23:22
#139040
Based on the fact that 85% of you have voted that it will be under I am saying that chances are it will in fact be over 30.
on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 11:47
#192448
Mr Paulson may prove how fleeting
financial fame can be if both BAC and Gold
take a dive...
http://www.jubileeprosperity.com/