[patientrenter]

[quote=capeman]Colonial alone will take the FDIC fund into negative territory by billions of dollars in losses.[/quote]

Insignificant. Just add the losses to the total taxpayer bailout tab. What we have already committed to do will become trillions in losses. The bank losses, whether they get filled by the FDIC, or by asset price subsidies from another branch of the govt, will be massive.

[patientrenter]

[quote=capeman]Colonial alone will take the FDIC fund into negative territory by billions of dollars in losses.[/quote]

Insignificant. Just add the losses to the total taxpayer bailout tab. What we have already committed to do will become trillions in losses. The bank losses, whether they get filled by the FDIC, or by asset price subsidies from another branch of the govt, will be massive.

[patientrenter]

[quote=capeman]Colonial alone will take the FDIC fund into negative territory by billions of dollars in losses.[/quote]

Insignificant. Just add the losses to the total taxpayer bailout tab. What we have already committed to do will become trillions in losses. The bank losses, whether they get filled by the FDIC, or by asset price subsidies from another branch of the govt, will be massive.

[patientrenter]

[quote=capeman]Colonial alone will take the FDIC fund into negative territory by billions of dollars in losses.[/quote]

Insignificant. Just add the losses to the total taxpayer bailout tab. What we have already committed to do will become trillions in losses. The bank losses, whether they get filled by the FDIC, or by asset price subsidies from another branch of the govt, will be massive.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]pr I believe the spelling is shmuck.

Say it like you mean it man!![/quote]

Actually, I think it’s spelled “schmuck”, SDR. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I was a fanatical speller as a kid, and some things are hard to shake completely as an adult. However we spell the words, I think we feel about the same about the government intervention in the market for homes. It’s kinda odd, because you probably get a net personal benefit from the intervention through your job (as a RE agent), and I probably do also, through my job in financial services.

But that doesn’t compensate me for what I feel is the long term damage done to the economy, for the unfairness of rewarding irresponsibility over responsibility, and for the higher price I will have to pay for the place I live in next.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]pr I believe the spelling is shmuck.

Say it like you mean it man!![/quote]

Actually, I think it’s spelled “schmuck”, SDR. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I was a fanatical speller as a kid, and some things are hard to shake completely as an adult. However we spell the words, I think we feel about the same about the government intervention in the market for homes. It’s kinda odd, because you probably get a net personal benefit from the intervention through your job (as a RE agent), and I probably do also, through my job in financial services.

But that doesn’t compensate me for what I feel is the long term damage done to the economy, for the unfairness of rewarding irresponsibility over responsibility, and for the higher price I will have to pay for the place I live in next.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]pr I believe the spelling is shmuck.

Say it like you mean it man!![/quote]

Actually, I think it’s spelled “schmuck”, SDR. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I was a fanatical speller as a kid, and some things are hard to shake completely as an adult. However we spell the words, I think we feel about the same about the government intervention in the market for homes. It’s kinda odd, because you probably get a net personal benefit from the intervention through your job (as a RE agent), and I probably do also, through my job in financial services.

But that doesn’t compensate me for what I feel is the long term damage done to the economy, for the unfairness of rewarding irresponsibility over responsibility, and for the higher price I will have to pay for the place I live in next.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]pr I believe the spelling is shmuck.

Say it like you mean it man!![/quote]

Actually, I think it’s spelled “schmuck”, SDR. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I was a fanatical speller as a kid, and some things are hard to shake completely as an adult. However we spell the words, I think we feel about the same about the government intervention in the market for homes. It’s kinda odd, because you probably get a net personal benefit from the intervention through your job (as a RE agent), and I probably do also, through my job in financial services.

But that doesn’t compensate me for what I feel is the long term damage done to the economy, for the unfairness of rewarding irresponsibility over responsibility, and for the higher price I will have to pay for the place I live in next.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]pr I believe the spelling is shmuck.

Say it like you mean it man!![/quote]

Actually, I think it’s spelled “schmuck”, SDR. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I was a fanatical speller as a kid, and some things are hard to shake completely as an adult. However we spell the words, I think we feel about the same about the government intervention in the market for homes. It’s kinda odd, because you probably get a net personal benefit from the intervention through your job (as a RE agent), and I probably do also, through my job in financial services.

But that doesn’t compensate me for what I feel is the long term damage done to the economy, for the unfairness of rewarding irresponsibility over responsibility, and for the higher price I will have to pay for the place I live in next.

[patientrenter]

[quote=patb]
well lets force that one.

Any entity receiving federal emergency assistance funds, may not
lobby.[/quote]

I agree. Let’s get a bill up to the right people on… Capitol Hill. Oops!

[Author]

Posts