- This topic has 80 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 10, 2010 at 1:19 PM #17442May 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM #548922
davelj
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
1.5x all chargeoffs in the last 4 years ! Wow. That aint good. [/quote]OK, Meredith Whitney’s a good analyst. Despite the fact that she’s been steamrolled in this rally. (Lots of smart folks are in the same situation, so I don’t hold that against her). And the fact that NPAs are 1.5x cumulative charge-offs since 2005 isn’t a good thing, but…
I’m curious… why do you, sdduuuude, think this is a problem? In other words, forget that Meredith Whitney told you it was a problem. If YOU saw this figure amongst a bunch of others, why would it concern you?
In answering the question, a discussion of reserve methodology for NPAs is required. Also, what is the normal relationship between NPAs and historical charge-offs?
May 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM #549521Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
1.5x all chargeoffs in the last 4 years ! Wow. That aint good. [/quote]OK, Meredith Whitney’s a good analyst. Despite the fact that she’s been steamrolled in this rally. (Lots of smart folks are in the same situation, so I don’t hold that against her). And the fact that NPAs are 1.5x cumulative charge-offs since 2005 isn’t a good thing, but…
I’m curious… why do you, sdduuuude, think this is a problem? In other words, forget that Meredith Whitney told you it was a problem. If YOU saw this figure amongst a bunch of others, why would it concern you?
In answering the question, a discussion of reserve methodology for NPAs is required. Also, what is the normal relationship between NPAs and historical charge-offs?
May 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM #549622Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
1.5x all chargeoffs in the last 4 years ! Wow. That aint good. [/quote]OK, Meredith Whitney’s a good analyst. Despite the fact that she’s been steamrolled in this rally. (Lots of smart folks are in the same situation, so I don’t hold that against her). And the fact that NPAs are 1.5x cumulative charge-offs since 2005 isn’t a good thing, but…
I’m curious… why do you, sdduuuude, think this is a problem? In other words, forget that Meredith Whitney told you it was a problem. If YOU saw this figure amongst a bunch of others, why would it concern you?
In answering the question, a discussion of reserve methodology for NPAs is required. Also, what is the normal relationship between NPAs and historical charge-offs?
May 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM #549900Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
1.5x all chargeoffs in the last 4 years ! Wow. That aint good. [/quote]OK, Meredith Whitney’s a good analyst. Despite the fact that she’s been steamrolled in this rally. (Lots of smart folks are in the same situation, so I don’t hold that against her). And the fact that NPAs are 1.5x cumulative charge-offs since 2005 isn’t a good thing, but…
I’m curious… why do you, sdduuuude, think this is a problem? In other words, forget that Meredith Whitney told you it was a problem. If YOU saw this figure amongst a bunch of others, why would it concern you?
In answering the question, a discussion of reserve methodology for NPAs is required. Also, what is the normal relationship between NPAs and historical charge-offs?
May 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM #549033Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
1.5x all chargeoffs in the last 4 years ! Wow. That aint good. [/quote]OK, Meredith Whitney’s a good analyst. Despite the fact that she’s been steamrolled in this rally. (Lots of smart folks are in the same situation, so I don’t hold that against her). And the fact that NPAs are 1.5x cumulative charge-offs since 2005 isn’t a good thing, but…
I’m curious… why do you, sdduuuude, think this is a problem? In other words, forget that Meredith Whitney told you it was a problem. If YOU saw this figure amongst a bunch of others, why would it concern you?
In answering the question, a discussion of reserve methodology for NPAs is required. Also, what is the normal relationship between NPAs and historical charge-offs?
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM #549128paramount
ParticipantI heard a rumor on the Charles Payne show on 5/8/10 that BOFA and Wells Fargo (as I recall) are going to start dumping ‘toxic assets’ in the very near future.
Not sure what that exactly means though…
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM #549618ParticipantI heard a rumor on the Charles Payne show on 5/8/10 that BOFA and Wells Fargo (as I recall) are going to start dumping ‘toxic assets’ in the very near future.
Not sure what that exactly means though…
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM #549017ParticipantI heard a rumor on the Charles Payne show on 5/8/10 that BOFA and Wells Fargo (as I recall) are going to start dumping ‘toxic assets’ in the very near future.
Not sure what that exactly means though…
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM #549718ParticipantI heard a rumor on the Charles Payne show on 5/8/10 that BOFA and Wells Fargo (as I recall) are going to start dumping ‘toxic assets’ in the very near future.
Not sure what that exactly means though…
May 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM #549996ParticipantI heard a rumor on the Charles Payne show on 5/8/10 that BOFA and Wells Fargo (as I recall) are going to start dumping ‘toxic assets’ in the very near future.
Not sure what that exactly means though…
May 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM #549228sdduuuude
ParticipantWasn’t so worried about Meredith. The datapoint seemed interesting.
I have to admit, I don’t know how many of the 1.5x turn to charge-offs, but after 120 days, I’d guess it is at least 25%. (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I admit I don’t know) 120 days is a long time. So, to me it translates into roughly another year as bad as the last two or three, as such:
Amount of chargeoffs in last 4 years = C.
Avg. amt of chargeoffs in 1 year: C/4 = C1
Amount over 120 days: C * 1.5 = C1 * 4 * 1.5 = 6*C1.
% needed to be as bad as 1 avg year: 16.Like I said, I’d guess it is over 16%.
I have a feeling I’m about to learn something …
I think it was the 6x figure that jumped out at me. If it is 1.5 x 4, then that’s alot.
May 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM #549719ParticipantWasn’t so worried about Meredith. The datapoint seemed interesting.
I have to admit, I don’t know how many of the 1.5x turn to charge-offs, but after 120 days, I’d guess it is at least 25%. (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I admit I don’t know) 120 days is a long time. So, to me it translates into roughly another year as bad as the last two or three, as such:
Amount of chargeoffs in last 4 years = C.
Avg. amt of chargeoffs in 1 year: C/4 = C1
Amount over 120 days: C * 1.5 = C1 * 4 * 1.5 = 6*C1.
% needed to be as bad as 1 avg year: 16.Like I said, I’d guess it is over 16%.
I have a feeling I’m about to learn something …
I think it was the 6x figure that jumped out at me. If it is 1.5 x 4, then that’s alot.
May 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM #550097ParticipantWasn’t so worried about Meredith. The datapoint seemed interesting.
I have to admit, I don’t know how many of the 1.5x turn to charge-offs, but after 120 days, I’d guess it is at least 25%. (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I admit I don’t know) 120 days is a long time. So, to me it translates into roughly another year as bad as the last two or three, as such:
Amount of chargeoffs in last 4 years = C.
Avg. amt of chargeoffs in 1 year: C/4 = C1
Amount over 120 days: C * 1.5 = C1 * 4 * 1.5 = 6*C1.
% needed to be as bad as 1 avg year: 16.Like I said, I’d guess it is over 16%.
I have a feeling I’m about to learn something …
I think it was the 6x figure that jumped out at me. If it is 1.5 x 4, then that’s alot.
May 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM #549819ParticipantWasn’t so worried about Meredith. The datapoint seemed interesting.
I have to admit, I don’t know how many of the 1.5x turn to charge-offs, but after 120 days, I’d guess it is at least 25%. (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I admit I don’t know) 120 days is a long time. So, to me it translates into roughly another year as bad as the last two or three, as such:
Amount of chargeoffs in last 4 years = C.
Avg. amt of chargeoffs in 1 year: C/4 = C1
Amount over 120 days: C * 1.5 = C1 * 4 * 1.5 = 6*C1.
% needed to be as bad as 1 avg year: 16.Like I said, I’d guess it is over 16%.
I have a feeling I’m about to learn something …
I think it was the 6x figure that jumped out at me. If it is 1.5 x 4, then that’s alot.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.