Close your accoutns at banks that took TARP

[DWCAP]

Thanks for posting the link FLU. Unfornatually I just didnt have the energy or time to look into these “profits” for any form of reality.

Talk about a manufactured bottom/boom. All it took for Wells Fargo to only loose $300 million was for the government to step in an manipulate the markets to get a refi/housing boom, a few billion in TARP, aqusition of a failed competator, and the congressionally forced abandonment of the “mark to market” rules which were forcing reality. Oh, dont forget PIPP coming into existance to help out those troubled asset values as there will soon be an overeager buyer looking to loose money.

And I like Wells. I bank with them. I think they got forced into the TARP money, and they bailed us the taxpayer out of the BS they were gonna do with citi and wachovia. But still, all this market intervention and accounting schenanagans, to only loose $300 million!

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
So Wells comes out this morning and says they’re going to make a “record” profit, claiming an expected 55 cents (.vs. mid 30s expectation)

It must be nice to be able to keep loans on the books at whatever price you feel like, receive billions of taxpayer money including “assistance” in rolling up Wachovia, and then turn out to not need it, right?

That is, if these numbers are accurate.

Wells premarket is ramping from $14.89 at the close yesterday and now trading premarket at $18.10, up over $3 or some 30%.

This leads one inescapably to the following:

Either Wells is lying (obfuscating losses through unrealistic marks, etc) OR
These “bailouts” were no such thing – they were a simple and transparent looting operation by the banks that is now showing up directly in “earnings” (and will shortly show up in the bonuses of executives too!)
So which is it folks?

“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

This post is unintentionally hysterical.

First of all, to Karl’s point about lying or looting… IF the results are “real” (and that’s a big “if”)… isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to get our TARP money repaid as taxpayers? And don’t we want to see the banks we’ve made investments in making more money so that they can pay us back? I hate these big pigs, but, hell, they can’t win at this point. If they lose money, they lose OUR money, which is bad. If they make money, then they didn’t need our money, which is bad. But at least in the latter case we’re more likely to get paid back. Again, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the results had been poorer than expected, then Karl would have been saying, “See, we’re never going to see our money again!!” Personally, I’d like to get paid back. So, I’d rather see better results – even “black box better” – than poor results.

Regarding the “profit” math above… somebody doesn’t understand the first thing about accounting. The bailout money is CAPITAL. Not REVENUE. Capital is on the balance sheet. Revenue is on the income statement. Whoever wrote that passage should be barred from ever posting anything on a financial topic until they take Accounting 101. Lawzy, lawzy, lawzy. Words escape me. Wow.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
So Wells comes out this morning and says they’re going to make a “record” profit, claiming an expected 55 cents (.vs. mid 30s expectation)

It must be nice to be able to keep loans on the books at whatever price you feel like, receive billions of taxpayer money including “assistance” in rolling up Wachovia, and then turn out to not need it, right?

That is, if these numbers are accurate.

Wells premarket is ramping from $14.89 at the close yesterday and now trading premarket at $18.10, up over $3 or some 30%.

This leads one inescapably to the following:

Either Wells is lying (obfuscating losses through unrealistic marks, etc) OR
These “bailouts” were no such thing – they were a simple and transparent looting operation by the banks that is now showing up directly in “earnings” (and will shortly show up in the bonuses of executives too!)
So which is it folks?

“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

This post is unintentionally hysterical.

First of all, to Karl’s point about lying or looting… IF the results are “real” (and that’s a big “if”)… isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to get our TARP money repaid as taxpayers? And don’t we want to see the banks we’ve made investments in making more money so that they can pay us back? I hate these big pigs, but, hell, they can’t win at this point. If they lose money, they lose OUR money, which is bad. If they make money, then they didn’t need our money, which is bad. But at least in the latter case we’re more likely to get paid back. Again, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the results had been poorer than expected, then Karl would have been saying, “See, we’re never going to see our money again!!” Personally, I’d like to get paid back. So, I’d rather see better results – even “black box better” – than poor results.

Regarding the “profit” math above… somebody doesn’t understand the first thing about accounting. The bailout money is CAPITAL. Not REVENUE. Capital is on the balance sheet. Revenue is on the income statement. Whoever wrote that passage should be barred from ever posting anything on a financial topic until they take Accounting 101. Lawzy, lawzy, lawzy. Words escape me. Wow.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
So Wells comes out this morning and says they’re going to make a “record” profit, claiming an expected 55 cents (.vs. mid 30s expectation)

It must be nice to be able to keep loans on the books at whatever price you feel like, receive billions of taxpayer money including “assistance” in rolling up Wachovia, and then turn out to not need it, right?

That is, if these numbers are accurate.

Wells premarket is ramping from $14.89 at the close yesterday and now trading premarket at $18.10, up over $3 or some 30%.

This leads one inescapably to the following:

Either Wells is lying (obfuscating losses through unrealistic marks, etc) OR
These “bailouts” were no such thing – they were a simple and transparent looting operation by the banks that is now showing up directly in “earnings” (and will shortly show up in the bonuses of executives too!)
So which is it folks?

“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

This post is unintentionally hysterical.

First of all, to Karl’s point about lying or looting… IF the results are “real” (and that’s a big “if”)… isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to get our TARP money repaid as taxpayers? And don’t we want to see the banks we’ve made investments in making more money so that they can pay us back? I hate these big pigs, but, hell, they can’t win at this point. If they lose money, they lose OUR money, which is bad. If they make money, then they didn’t need our money, which is bad. But at least in the latter case we’re more likely to get paid back. Again, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the results had been poorer than expected, then Karl would have been saying, “See, we’re never going to see our money again!!” Personally, I’d like to get paid back. So, I’d rather see better results – even “black box better” – than poor results.

Regarding the “profit” math above… somebody doesn’t understand the first thing about accounting. The bailout money is CAPITAL. Not REVENUE. Capital is on the balance sheet. Revenue is on the income statement. Whoever wrote that passage should be barred from ever posting anything on a financial topic until they take Accounting 101. Lawzy, lawzy, lawzy. Words escape me. Wow.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
So Wells comes out this morning and says they’re going to make a “record” profit, claiming an expected 55 cents (.vs. mid 30s expectation)

It must be nice to be able to keep loans on the books at whatever price you feel like, receive billions of taxpayer money including “assistance” in rolling up Wachovia, and then turn out to not need it, right?

That is, if these numbers are accurate.

Wells premarket is ramping from $14.89 at the close yesterday and now trading premarket at $18.10, up over $3 or some 30%.

This leads one inescapably to the following:

Either Wells is lying (obfuscating losses through unrealistic marks, etc) OR
These “bailouts” were no such thing – they were a simple and transparent looting operation by the banks that is now showing up directly in “earnings” (and will shortly show up in the bonuses of executives too!)
So which is it folks?

“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

This post is unintentionally hysterical.

First of all, to Karl’s point about lying or looting… IF the results are “real” (and that’s a big “if”)… isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to get our TARP money repaid as taxpayers? And don’t we want to see the banks we’ve made investments in making more money so that they can pay us back? I hate these big pigs, but, hell, they can’t win at this point. If they lose money, they lose OUR money, which is bad. If they make money, then they didn’t need our money, which is bad. But at least in the latter case we’re more likely to get paid back. Again, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the results had been poorer than expected, then Karl would have been saying, “See, we’re never going to see our money again!!” Personally, I’d like to get paid back. So, I’d rather see better results – even “black box better” – than poor results.

Regarding the “profit” math above… somebody doesn’t understand the first thing about accounting. The bailout money is CAPITAL. Not REVENUE. Capital is on the balance sheet. Revenue is on the income statement. Whoever wrote that passage should be barred from ever posting anything on a financial topic until they take Accounting 101. Lawzy, lawzy, lawzy. Words escape me. Wow.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
So Wells comes out this morning and says they’re going to make a “record” profit, claiming an expected 55 cents (.vs. mid 30s expectation)

It must be nice to be able to keep loans on the books at whatever price you feel like, receive billions of taxpayer money including “assistance” in rolling up Wachovia, and then turn out to not need it, right?

That is, if these numbers are accurate.

Wells premarket is ramping from $14.89 at the close yesterday and now trading premarket at $18.10, up over $3 or some 30%.

This leads one inescapably to the following:

Either Wells is lying (obfuscating losses through unrealistic marks, etc) OR
These “bailouts” were no such thing – they were a simple and transparent looting operation by the banks that is now showing up directly in “earnings” (and will shortly show up in the bonuses of executives too!)
So which is it folks?

“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

This post is unintentionally hysterical.

First of all, to Karl’s point about lying or looting… IF the results are “real” (and that’s a big “if”)… isn’t that a good thing? Don’t we want to get our TARP money repaid as taxpayers? And don’t we want to see the banks we’ve made investments in making more money so that they can pay us back? I hate these big pigs, but, hell, they can’t win at this point. If they lose money, they lose OUR money, which is bad. If they make money, then they didn’t need our money, which is bad. But at least in the latter case we’re more likely to get paid back. Again, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the results had been poorer than expected, then Karl would have been saying, “See, we’re never going to see our money again!!” Personally, I’d like to get paid back. So, I’d rather see better results – even “black box better” – than poor results.

Regarding the “profit” math above… somebody doesn’t understand the first thing about accounting. The bailout money is CAPITAL. Not REVENUE. Capital is on the balance sheet. Revenue is on the income statement. Whoever wrote that passage should be barred from ever posting anything on a financial topic until they take Accounting 101. Lawzy, lawzy, lawzy. Words escape me. Wow.

[kicksavedave]

Back to the premise of the OP, so lets see how this works:

We, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt), lend trajillions to the banks, and call it “TARP”, in theory to help stablize the economy by restarting seized up lending.

The banks are, in theory at least, supposed to pay this money back to us, the taxpayers, once they get out of the woods, so that they can go back to paying their CEO’s millions.

Some moron decides that since he doesn’t like the premise of loaning the banks money, we should all boycott the banks, shutting them down, so that no more money ever gets lent by us, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt) to anymore banks. I suppose some people think never lending money again, is better than being paid back for the first loan you make?

Talk about irony missed?

[kicksavedave]

Back to the premise of the OP, so lets see how this works:

We, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt), lend trajillions to the banks, and call it “TARP”, in theory to help stablize the economy by restarting seized up lending.

The banks are, in theory at least, supposed to pay this money back to us, the taxpayers, once they get out of the woods, so that they can go back to paying their CEO’s millions.

Some moron decides that since he doesn’t like the premise of loaning the banks money, we should all boycott the banks, shutting them down, so that no more money ever gets lent by us, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt) to anymore banks. I suppose some people think never lending money again, is better than being paid back for the first loan you make?

Talk about irony missed?

[kicksavedave]

Back to the premise of the OP, so lets see how this works:

We, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt), lend trajillions to the banks, and call it “TARP”, in theory to help stablize the economy by restarting seized up lending.

The banks are, in theory at least, supposed to pay this money back to us, the taxpayers, once they get out of the woods, so that they can go back to paying their CEO’s millions.

Some moron decides that since he doesn’t like the premise of loaning the banks money, we should all boycott the banks, shutting them down, so that no more money ever gets lent by us, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt) to anymore banks. I suppose some people think never lending money again, is better than being paid back for the first loan you make?

Talk about irony missed?

[kicksavedave]

Back to the premise of the OP, so lets see how this works:

We, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt), lend trajillions to the banks, and call it “TARP”, in theory to help stablize the economy by restarting seized up lending.

The banks are, in theory at least, supposed to pay this money back to us, the taxpayers, once they get out of the woods, so that they can go back to paying their CEO’s millions.

Some moron decides that since he doesn’t like the premise of loaning the banks money, we should all boycott the banks, shutting them down, so that no more money ever gets lent by us, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt) to anymore banks. I suppose some people think never lending money again, is better than being paid back for the first loan you make?

Talk about irony missed?

[kicksavedave]

Back to the premise of the OP, so lets see how this works:

We, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt), lend trajillions to the banks, and call it “TARP”, in theory to help stablize the economy by restarting seized up lending.

The banks are, in theory at least, supposed to pay this money back to us, the taxpayers, once they get out of the woods, so that they can go back to paying their CEO’s millions.

Some moron decides that since he doesn’t like the premise of loaning the banks money, we should all boycott the banks, shutting them down, so that no more money ever gets lent by us, the taxpayers (controlled by the Govt) to anymore banks. I suppose some people think never lending money again, is better than being paid back for the first loan you make?

Talk about irony missed?

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

I gotta know, arraya. Considering how much pseudo-economic gibberish you spout (or post from other websites) here, how can you not know the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet? And the fact that you don’t know the difference between the two begs a question: How do you understand anything that you read related to finance? Virtually every economist and financial commentator has a decent – albeit not technical – understanding of accounting. Debits on the left, credits on the right, how the income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement fit together, that sort of thing. If you have no understanding of accounting… how do you know which end is up where finance is concerned? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. I think we both know the answer.

It’s like you want to have an intelligent discussion about math, but you think 2+2=173. I don’t get it.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

I gotta know, arraya. Considering how much pseudo-economic gibberish you spout (or post from other websites) here, how can you not know the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet? And the fact that you don’t know the difference between the two begs a question: How do you understand anything that you read related to finance? Virtually every economist and financial commentator has a decent – albeit not technical – understanding of accounting. Debits on the left, credits on the right, how the income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement fit together, that sort of thing. If you have no understanding of accounting… how do you know which end is up where finance is concerned? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. I think we both know the answer.

It’s like you want to have an intelligent discussion about math, but you think 2+2=173. I don’t get it.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

I gotta know, arraya. Considering how much pseudo-economic gibberish you spout (or post from other websites) here, how can you not know the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet? And the fact that you don’t know the difference between the two begs a question: How do you understand anything that you read related to finance? Virtually every economist and financial commentator has a decent – albeit not technical – understanding of accounting. Debits on the left, credits on the right, how the income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement fit together, that sort of thing. If you have no understanding of accounting… how do you know which end is up where finance is concerned? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. I think we both know the answer.

It’s like you want to have an intelligent discussion about math, but you think 2+2=173. I don’t get it.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
“Is this $3 billion profit before or after you account for the $25 billion in bailout money. Revenue is $20 billion, we gave them $25 billion, that’s a net of -$5 billion. Where’s the $3 billion in profit coming from?”
[/quote]

I gotta know, arraya. Considering how much pseudo-economic gibberish you spout (or post from other websites) here, how can you not know the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet? And the fact that you don’t know the difference between the two begs a question: How do you understand anything that you read related to finance? Virtually every economist and financial commentator has a decent – albeit not technical – understanding of accounting. Debits on the left, credits on the right, how the income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement fit together, that sort of thing. If you have no understanding of accounting… how do you know which end is up where finance is concerned? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. I think we both know the answer.

It’s like you want to have an intelligent discussion about math, but you think 2+2=173. I don’t get it.

[Author]

Posts