Bank Of America Scrambles To Defend Itself From Henry Blodget's Allegations It Is Massively Undercapitalized

Tyler Durden's picture

Early this morning, Henry Blodget penned a post titled "Here's Why Bank Of America's Stock Is Collapsing Again" in which he used Zero Hedge data among other, to determine that the capital shortfall for the bank is between $100 and $200 billion. It took BAC exactly 6 hours to retort. Below is the full statement.

BANK OF AMERICA STATEMENT REGARDING HENRY BLODGET
2011-08-23 16:29:04.675 GMT

 

(The following is a reformatted version of a statement from Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman. The statement was confirmed by the sender.)

 

Mr. Blodgett is making “exaggerated and unwarranted claims” which is what the SEC stated publicly when he was permanently banned from the securities industry in 2003.  The sovereign exposure is off by a factor of 10.  The commercial real estate figures are off by a factor of four.  The mortgage analysis was provided by a hedge fund that has acknowledged it will benefit if our stock price declines.  The recommendations on goodwill accounting would be prohibited by generally acceptable accounting practices.  Traditional bank valuation relies upon tangible book value per share, which excludes by definition 100 percent of goodwill and other intangibles.  As of June 30, our tangible book value per share was $12.65.

Oh ok, Bank of America, that explains it all. As for the mortgage analysis being provided by a hedge fund "that has acknowledged it will benefit if our stock price declines", co-authored by Zero Hedge, does that make it wrong? Last time we checked Muddy Waters made money on Sino Forest...