[ucodegen]

Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint.

If it was a bargain, it would have been useful. Merrill was initially looking like a bargain until one looks beyond/behind the 10K/Q. On an acquisition, one does not get to see behind the 10K/Q until the acquisition is started. This is why the material clause is in place when doing an acquisition.

He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.

But that ‘abortion’ has an interesting side note. If BofA bought it somewhere at 2 cents on the dollar and its true value is 10 cents on a dollar, he bought it cheap. In addition, he gets to write off losses that have not yet occurred, but that caused the sale price to be discounted against any real income that is generated by either unit(paper losses to real tax benefits). BofA was interested in Countrywide for the loan servicing business, which is currently generating income. Most of Countrywide’s loans were securitized 2 years before the BofA purchase (2 years is the period at which they can be forced back to the originator – forced buyback).

My real concern with BofA is in its Commercial Real Estate loan portfolio..

[ucodegen]

Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint.

If it was a bargain, it would have been useful. Merrill was initially looking like a bargain until one looks beyond/behind the 10K/Q. On an acquisition, one does not get to see behind the 10K/Q until the acquisition is started. This is why the material clause is in place when doing an acquisition.

He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.

But that ‘abortion’ has an interesting side note. If BofA bought it somewhere at 2 cents on the dollar and its true value is 10 cents on a dollar, he bought it cheap. In addition, he gets to write off losses that have not yet occurred, but that caused the sale price to be discounted against any real income that is generated by either unit(paper losses to real tax benefits). BofA was interested in Countrywide for the loan servicing business, which is currently generating income. Most of Countrywide’s loans were securitized 2 years before the BofA purchase (2 years is the period at which they can be forced back to the originator – forced buyback).

My real concern with BofA is in its Commercial Real Estate loan portfolio..

[ucodegen]

Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint.

If it was a bargain, it would have been useful. Merrill was initially looking like a bargain until one looks beyond/behind the 10K/Q. On an acquisition, one does not get to see behind the 10K/Q until the acquisition is started. This is why the material clause is in place when doing an acquisition.

He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.

But that ‘abortion’ has an interesting side note. If BofA bought it somewhere at 2 cents on the dollar and its true value is 10 cents on a dollar, he bought it cheap. In addition, he gets to write off losses that have not yet occurred, but that caused the sale price to be discounted against any real income that is generated by either unit(paper losses to real tax benefits). BofA was interested in Countrywide for the loan servicing business, which is currently generating income. Most of Countrywide’s loans were securitized 2 years before the BofA purchase (2 years is the period at which they can be forced back to the originator – forced buyback).

My real concern with BofA is in its Commercial Real Estate loan portfolio..

[ucodegen]

This obviously puts me at a disatvantage when it comes to buying bank-owned homes with very specific criteria for purchase. Many/most will simply not accept FHA loans.

This is a red flag. The banks don’t care about the ‘color’ of the money on selling off the property. The part they do concern themselves with is: are the funds already available or approved, if not, how quickly can they be available or approved. What is the likelihood of the funds not being available or approved?

That said, I have found the perfect home for us- but it is bank owned, and they require a significant down in order to purchase.

Another red flag – FHA is allowing high LTVs, which means small down payments.

You purchase the home with your existing capital. You then sell it to me via traditional means at a premium that you and I will contractually agree to.

I suspect the ‘traditional means’ is owner(in this case you, the initial buyer) financed. Remember, this individual is stating ‘significant down’ required, which hints to me that their FICO is trash. It also raises the question, if they can’t get the down payment to buy from the bank, how are they going to get the down payment to buy from you?

The other option is that this person is trying to do a short sale with an inflated price (not quite bank owned but will soon be). What guarantee is there, that they will then purchase from you? You might end up being stuck with the property.

[ucodegen]

This obviously puts me at a disatvantage when it comes to buying bank-owned homes with very specific criteria for purchase. Many/most will simply not accept FHA loans.

This is a red flag. The banks don’t care about the ‘color’ of the money on selling off the property. The part they do concern themselves with is: are the funds already available or approved, if not, how quickly can they be available or approved. What is the likelihood of the funds not being available or approved?

That said, I have found the perfect home for us- but it is bank owned, and they require a significant down in order to purchase.

Another red flag – FHA is allowing high LTVs, which means small down payments.

You purchase the home with your existing capital. You then sell it to me via traditional means at a premium that you and I will contractually agree to.

I suspect the ‘traditional means’ is owner(in this case you, the initial buyer) financed. Remember, this individual is stating ‘significant down’ required, which hints to me that their FICO is trash. It also raises the question, if they can’t get the down payment to buy from the bank, how are they going to get the down payment to buy from you?

The other option is that this person is trying to do a short sale with an inflated price (not quite bank owned but will soon be). What guarantee is there, that they will then purchase from you? You might end up being stuck with the property.

[ucodegen]

This obviously puts me at a disatvantage when it comes to buying bank-owned homes with very specific criteria for purchase. Many/most will simply not accept FHA loans.

This is a red flag. The banks don’t care about the ‘color’ of the money on selling off the property. The part they do concern themselves with is: are the funds already available or approved, if not, how quickly can they be available or approved. What is the likelihood of the funds not being available or approved?

That said, I have found the perfect home for us- but it is bank owned, and they require a significant down in order to purchase.

Another red flag – FHA is allowing high LTVs, which means small down payments.

You purchase the home with your existing capital. You then sell it to me via traditional means at a premium that you and I will contractually agree to.

I suspect the ‘traditional means’ is owner(in this case you, the initial buyer) financed. Remember, this individual is stating ‘significant down’ required, which hints to me that their FICO is trash. It also raises the question, if they can’t get the down payment to buy from the bank, how are they going to get the down payment to buy from you?

The other option is that this person is trying to do a short sale with an inflated price (not quite bank owned but will soon be). What guarantee is there, that they will then purchase from you? You might end up being stuck with the property.

[ucodegen]

This obviously puts me at a disatvantage when it comes to buying bank-owned homes with very specific criteria for purchase. Many/most will simply not accept FHA loans.

This is a red flag. The banks don’t care about the ‘color’ of the money on selling off the property. The part they do concern themselves with is: are the funds already available or approved, if not, how quickly can they be available or approved. What is the likelihood of the funds not being available or approved?

That said, I have found the perfect home for us- but it is bank owned, and they require a significant down in order to purchase.

Another red flag – FHA is allowing high LTVs, which means small down payments.

You purchase the home with your existing capital. You then sell it to me via traditional means at a premium that you and I will contractually agree to.

I suspect the ‘traditional means’ is owner(in this case you, the initial buyer) financed. Remember, this individual is stating ‘significant down’ required, which hints to me that their FICO is trash. It also raises the question, if they can’t get the down payment to buy from the bank, how are they going to get the down payment to buy from you?

The other option is that this person is trying to do a short sale with an inflated price (not quite bank owned but will soon be). What guarantee is there, that they will then purchase from you? You might end up being stuck with the property.

[ucodegen]

This obviously puts me at a disatvantage when it comes to buying bank-owned homes with very specific criteria for purchase. Many/most will simply not accept FHA loans.

This is a red flag. The banks don’t care about the ‘color’ of the money on selling off the property. The part they do concern themselves with is: are the funds already available or approved, if not, how quickly can they be available or approved. What is the likelihood of the funds not being available or approved?

That said, I have found the perfect home for us- but it is bank owned, and they require a significant down in order to purchase.

Another red flag – FHA is allowing high LTVs, which means small down payments.

You purchase the home with your existing capital. You then sell it to me via traditional means at a premium that you and I will contractually agree to.

I suspect the ‘traditional means’ is owner(in this case you, the initial buyer) financed. Remember, this individual is stating ‘significant down’ required, which hints to me that their FICO is trash. It also raises the question, if they can’t get the down payment to buy from the bank, how are they going to get the down payment to buy from you?

The other option is that this person is trying to do a short sale with an inflated price (not quite bank owned but will soon be). What guarantee is there, that they will then purchase from you? You might end up being stuck with the property.

[ucodegen]

If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.

And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?

I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:

1) Comply with the strong-arming.
1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed.
1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk).
1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them.
1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at.
1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.

2) Not comply and sing like a bird.
2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up.
2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding.
2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve)
2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA.
2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.

I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.

[ucodegen]

If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.

And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?

I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:

1) Comply with the strong-arming.
1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed.
1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk).
1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them.
1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at.
1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.

2) Not comply and sing like a bird.
2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up.
2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding.
2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve)
2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA.
2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.

I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.

[ucodegen]

If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.

And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?

I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:

1) Comply with the strong-arming.
1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed.
1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk).
1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them.
1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at.
1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.

2) Not comply and sing like a bird.
2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up.
2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding.
2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve)
2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA.
2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.

I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.

[ucodegen]

If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.

And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?

I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:

1) Comply with the strong-arming.
1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed.
1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk).
1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them.
1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at.
1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.

2) Not comply and sing like a bird.
2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up.
2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding.
2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve)
2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA.
2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.

I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.

[ucodegen]

If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.

And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?

I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:

1) Comply with the strong-arming.
1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed.
1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk).
1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them.
1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at.
1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.

2) Not comply and sing like a bird.
2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up.
2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding.
2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve)
2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA.
2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.

I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.

[ucodegen]

It has lower administrative costs (as a percentage of total expenditures) than any other insurance company in the country…

Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.

[ucodegen]

It has lower administrative costs (as a percentage of total expenditures) than any other insurance company in the country…

Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.

[Author]

Posts