Citigroup reported a first-quarter profit of $1.6 billion

[zumbalak]

Originally Posted by brianhn1 I'm telling you. You're feeling threatened. Post all the gibberish you want. Make us laugh. Ever heard of healthcare insurance? Ever wonder why hospital bills are extraordinarily high when you don't have insurance and have to pay out of your pocket? Hint: There is a difference between the amount hospitals bill and how much they actually collect. The healthcare system is obviously over your head. You realize your reference regarding less than 50% graduation high school rate is specific to the 17 worst schools and contributes nothing to your claims? Post with less haste next time. Your reference regarding more students entering college actually supports my claim. Read your article before you post. If greater intelligence meant greater success for the entire population. Then education would 1st in everyone's eyes. In my own eyes, the more successful are the ones that work harder and work smarter. Going to school makes you book smart but gives you no experience. Working hard as hard as the low wage worker doesn't make you a smart worker. Life is tough eh? Blah blah blah... Again you can not bring any facts to the table, just personal opinions. I work with facts every day of my life, I work with numbers that are definite, not words that are opinions and don't hold any valid grounds. I have posted the rates of US high school graduation, I have also posted a link that clearly shows the decreasing HS graduation over the years, it even shows stats per birth group. Either you have not read those links, or you lack reading comprehension (both shows the intellectual level of yours = American youth). US HS graduation rate was around 80% in 50s, and now it is 70%. http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080101_dropout.htm Moreover, although the high school dropout rate improved steadily through the middle of the 20th Century, falling from 75 percent in the early 1920s to 20 percent in the late 1960s, it has worsened, by up to one-fourth, since then. What happened since the 60s? "only about 22 percent of 9th graders in the class of 2003 graduated having successfully completed the A-G curriculum." http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CollegeForAll/completion.html Look at the above link to see that completion years for college education is increasing over the years. 4 year graduation rates are decreasing and 5 year rates are increasing! the U.S. high school graduation rate peaked at around 80 percent in the late 1960s and then declined by 4-5 percentage points More students are entering college but you have also claimed high school graduation rates were increasing. Which it does not. And on top of that let's work your brain a little bit, you need this More people can go to college because, the population of the US has increased significantly, thus there are more people avaliable, on top of this the amount of high schools has increased as well. Which makes a good combination for more people entering colleges. Also the companies are requiring college degrees to hire employees which forces students to go into college. But then you don't know the full facts as well http://media.www.dailycampus.com/med...-2290009.shtml Read this link very clearly (and don't own yourself in your upcoming messages) It clearly states that US College Graduatian Rates are slipping in the new generation. As I stated to you before, bring facts to the table, not words and opinions! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859 U.S. college drop-out rate sparks concern Educators turn attention to getting students all the way to graduation Did you also compare the cost of going to a University now and to the 50s? Why do most students have to get student loans that they end up having to pay for the next 20 years, like a mortgage? Do you consider this increased quality in education? And coming back to health insurance. I seriously think you do not read messages, or you lack the skill of understanding what you read I specifically asked you to call BCBS (I hope you know what it is) and ask them how much it will cost variety of age groups to be insured and actually find out for yourself the monthly insurance premium rates. And with idiocracy you have stated the "how healthcare system works is over your head" even though you have no clue about what I do. It looks like you are totally clueless about life, a joke. Maybe I am a hospital manager in one of the largest hospitals in the state I live in. Do you have a clue? No you don't! And on top of that you seem to have no clue about the healthcare system in the US as well. You must be really young thus being inexperienced makes you speak foolish words No insurance premium will cover 100% of your hospital costs (surgery etc). And all insurance premiums have a lifetime spending limit (coverage). But of course you had no clue about that. That is why I asked you to call BCBS and talk to them about how insurance actually works, and learn something. Don't be one of those clueless youths wasting all their days and time on the internet acting like they know it all, when in reality they are just clueless about almost everything. Until you bring up facts to this argument I will ignore your message regarding healthcare issue and how the American life changed from the 50s onward.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[sleewell]

its funny that C releases their earnings and their stock falls, while WFC and BAC are in the green today. this market is seriously messed up. i cant wait to dump all my financials after this earnings rally has peaked. i sold WFC a little too early but couldn't resist with the profits i made.

its been good money but very nerve wracking with all the negative outlooks everyone is saying is coming.

[e1000]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Perhaps you are correct, but what if we place the bread in the freezer?

Have you considered all of the implications?

can't, global warming

[brianhn1]

Originally Posted by zumbalak

I work with facts every day of my life, I work with numbers that are definite, not words that are opinions and don't hold any valid grounds.

So it seems like you work for or deal with BCBS, and I can see why you see the health care system as it is. Does it matter that I use BCBS?

I have posted the rates of US high school graduation, I have also posted a link that clearly shows the decreasing HS graduation over the years, it even shows stats per birth group.

Either you have not read those links, or you lack reading comprehension (both shows the intellectual level of yours = American youth).

US HS graduation rate was around 80% in 50s, and now it is 70%.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080101_dropout.htm
Moreover, although the high school dropout rate improved steadily through the middle of the 20th Century, falling from 75 percent in the early 1920s to 20 percent in the late 1960s, it has worsened, by up to one-fourth, since then.

What happened since the 60s?

"only about 22 percent of 9th graders in the class of 2003 graduated having successfully completed the A-G curriculum."

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CollegeForAll/completion.html
Look at the above link to see that completion years for college education is increasing over the years. 4 year graduation rates are decreasing and 5 year rates are increasing!

the U.S. high school graduation rate peaked at around 80 percent in the late 1960s and then declined by 4-5 percentage points

Ah but where did I actually say high school graduation rates (disregarding my statement in context) were increasing? I never disagreed there. You're wasting time to arguing that point. I never said anything about that.

More students are entering college but you have also claimed high school graduation rates were increasing. Which it does not.

More people can go to college because, the population of the US has increased significantly, thus there are more people avaliable, on top of this the amount of high schools has increased as well. Which makes a good combination for more people entering colleges. Also the companies are requiring college degrees to hire employees which forces students to go into college.
But then you don't know the full facts as well

http://media.www.dailycampus.com/med...-2290009.shtml

Read this link very clearly (and don't own yourself in your upcoming messages)

It clearly states that US College Graduatian Rates are slipping in the new generation.

As I stated to you before, bring facts to the table, not words and opinions!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859

Google searching "high school dropout rates" (whoops did I see 2 articles on page 1 of google?) or anything of that sort and posting links is easily done by anyone in front of the computer. It does not make anyone an expert at a certain subject nor make them more knowledgeable than the other person. Sounds like running a hospital makes you special. Must be one of those empty private hospitals with a computer in every drawer or one of those places that have to take everyone that comes through their doors?

Im sure I could do the same thing you did (links and quotes) and post away but you won't be convinced so why waste my time?

And coming back to health insurance.

I specifically asked you to call BCBS (I hope you know what it is) and ask them how much it will cost variety of age groups to be insured and actually find out for yourself the monthly insurance premium rates.

And with idiocracy you have stated the "how healthcare system works is over your head" even though you have no clue about what I do. It looks like you are totally clueless about life, a joke. Maybe I am a hospital manager in one of the largest hospitals in the state I live in. Do you have a clue? No you don't!

And on top of that you seem to have no clue about the healthcare system in the US as well. You must be really young thus being inexperienced makes you speak foolish words

No insurance premium will cover 100% of your hospital costs (surgery etc). And all insurance premiums have a lifetime spending limit (coverage).

That is why I asked you to call BCBS and talk to them about how insurance actually works, and learn something. Don't be one of those clueless youths wasting all their days and time on the internet acting like they know it all, when in reality they are just clueless about almost everything.

I wish I was really young and I was capable of spouting pointless attacks on others.

Of course no insurance policy covers all costs when you consider the deductible before the coverage kicks and takes the rest. Insurance companies have revised their policies to decrease their coverage and cutting their losses. We all know the system is crippled and companies, specialists, and resident aliens take advantage of a system that long needs to be revamped.

But back to my point and to stay on topic. Don't waste your time arguing about irrelevant stuff and getting all pouty. I really think that the quality of life for us today has greatly increased in various ways. Probably not going to be good since Obamer came into town. Heck I am always reconsidering to continue my career in medicine since he wants to socialize it. Guess physicians need to charge more 'just in case' we lose our job security later on.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by zumbalak

Well exactly that is what happened last year when new rules came into market. The banks ended up having to show their true losses on their loans. And that is when we all found out that banks were actually "insolvent".

Then what happened? They decided to change the accounting rules back, so that banks will appear "solvent" again

Why do you think the stock market has had a huge increase for the last 5-6 weeks? Look at the rule change consideration timeline.

A pig will always be a pig no matter what makeup you put on her.

Most banks are totally "insolvent" but they need to look "solvent" otherwise not only the US, but most of the Western World will be in a civil war immediately.

Also which mortgage packages only lost 15%?

Rev you should know that these packages are not traded publicly. They are traded privately, and if there is no buyer for a package it means the package is worthless.

When the house values drop by 50% how can you say the mortgage package only lost 15%?????

You are ignoring the fact that there is value is an asset, even if there is no current market (buyer) for it. Until its time to sell, the market value is meaningless.

The 15% was just an example, but a real example.

The fact is, FAS 157 forced a lot of insurance companies and financial institutions to devalue assets below the value of the underlying collateral of the asset because there was little to no market for it.

Aside from that, with the relaxing of FAS 157, I don't see how this would allow financial institutions to actually sell off an asset and hide the loss.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by e1000

MG for pres............................. I'm serious.

+1!

but i have one request.
can we bring back saturday hangings?

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by MG

My goodness, you have no idea what you are talking about. Citigroup, BOA, etc.... they are NOT the entire FS world. Letting them fail in bnakruptcy or disintegrate into constiuent parts is not the end of the world!

They definitely are not the entire FS, but their collapse could trigger another collapse and definitely will bring entire US FS down.

Maybe you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. I'm glad that people like you are not in Bush or Obama's administration now.

There are other banks out there dieing to go buy a piece of the big pie that is now zombified.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/ban...reet-beal.html

Of course some banks see this as opportunity, but how much can they buy when all those bailed banks fail.

No, it isn't. You can't rationalize and control an economy. Its not possible. All you can do is inhibit and steer, usually with massive unintended consequences, like what we are living through now.

Just admit it, you want economy to fail under Obama's watch, right? So when it fails, Obama can be ousted and be replaced with, maybe Limbaugh?

Keep wearing your tinfoil hat, maybe one day Obama really is a fraud, just maybe.

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

+1!

but i have one request.
can we bring back saturday hangings?

S55iPA for President, and MG for Vice President

[zumbalak]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You are ignoring the fact that there is value is an asset, even if there is no current market (buyer) for it. Until its time to sell, the market value is meaningless.

The 15% was just an example, but a real example.

The fact is, FAS 157 forced a lot of insurance companies and financial institutions to devalue assets below the value of the underlying collateral of the asset because there was little to no market for it.

Aside from that, with the relaxing of FAS 157, I don't see how this would allow financial institutions to actually sell off an asset and hide the loss.

Well the house values in the packaged mortgages did not go down in value of 15%, they went down 50% and even more.

That is why those assets are worth much less than what the banks tell us.

All the banks know this, that is the reason why there was actually a liquidity crises after the fall of Lehman. If you can investigate the issues and what actually went on after the fall of Sterns and Lehman you will see that the banks realized they will not get away with the BS they were holding on to and everybody stopped lending to each other.

This almost caused a crash of the money market, and the cash market. The loans crippled, and banks started to hoard cash as fast as they could. Government also knew what was going on, with the pressure from treasury to the fed, fed had to act and pump huge amounts of cash to the banks, knowing they will hoard that cash, but if such action was not taken there would have been hundreds of bank failures immediately.

The credit has slowly come back to life in the last 3-4 months, the reason is the chatter that came alive in December that the rules will be reversed, and banks will continue to hide their insolvency and appear solvent again.

But it still does not change the issues and problems, it does not make anything better. The only solution to the bank insolvency is to get rid of the bad debt. It can be done in two ways, one write them off (which is not possible), two inflate the currency so the debt will be worth(less). This is the reason why the printing press has been working overtime, actually no money is being printed, the money in circulation is the same, but in the electronic sense the money supply has increased dramatically.

Coming back to the value of asset issue;
Banks do not hold real assets, (tangible). They only hold speculated values. The loan a bank holds today in his books can be worth much less tomorrow, but it will never be more. Because when a bank sells a mortgage of 300K @ 5% that loan is already sold and will never be more than 300K. On the other hand if the payment is not made, and default occurs the loan value will be much less, depending on the recovered real asset value.

I hope I did not lose you there

Let me give a quick and easy example (which will show how much crap the banks are in)

A person comes to real estate agent, wants to buy a home.
Subprime mortgage approval happens.
He puts 0 down
100% loan.
In here you clearly see that bank has no real asset at all, nothing, zero, the only asset (BS) they claim is the future earnings from the loan.
Loan amount: 500K.
Bank gives the money, and claims the loan as an asset backed by the house value, and future expected appreciation.
The bank values this asset at 5M (30 year interest payments plus future appreciation of the house).

You see how 500K became 10 fold to 5M.

Bank says I have asset of 5M. In reality do they have this? If all goes as planned yes, but what happens next?

The person defaults.
And the value of the house goes to 250K.

How much did the bank lose? 250k? No.

The new value of this so called asset is now 250K + 30year interest payments + future value of the home (if house is sold at 250K now) - selling and admin expenses. = (lets say hypotethically 2M).

So how much did the bank lose in its books?
About 3M.

And this is from an original loan of 500K.

That is the reason why this subprime mess literally destroyed the books of the banks, because it crashed the home prices as well as defaulted the loans.

If the home prices do not crash, and the new sales would happen in similar prices the losses would be much less, only the unrecovered value of the home.

Subprime is now phasing out, but there is the problem with Alt A loans that will reset soon, and they are as big as subprime mess. You will see many more defaults. And on top the commercial real estate will explode as well.

Banks are totally insolvent now, imagine what they will be at the end of this year, next and next year

I think the government realized this, or knew it from the beginning (but intentionally changed the rules to start taking ownership in banks), and now reversed the rules to take more time to allow banks to be dissolved or taken over by the government. The biggest problem right now is FDIC is also insolvent

If they let big banks fail, FDIC will fail, and there will be a new banking holiday just like in the 30s, but this time holiday may end up being months. That is why FDIC just got an approval of 500B from the treasury, and they will need a lot more than that.

The government had to take ownership in banks, to let them fail in easier ways, and issue a better transition. I think the government also has an intention to create hyperinflation to pay off its debts as well.

We will see what time brings. Again, the pig is a pig no matter what the makeup is.

[vraa]

zumba you gotta stop being so conspiracy theorist

think of the bright side
if this massive investment in banks pays off, the tax payher will reap 100000% on his orignialp PPIP investment

(sad part is i know mg will agree with what you said, indirectly i'ev agree too, anyone disagree?)

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by vraa

zumba you gotta stop being so conspiracy theorist

think of the bright side
if this massive investment in banks pays off, the tax payher will reap 100000% on his orignialp PPIP investment

(sad part is i know mg will agree with what you said, indirectly i'ev agree too, anyone disagree?)

he got a point there, maybe you just refuse to accept his explanation.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by zumbalak

Well the house values in the packaged mortgages did not go down in value of 15%, they went down 50% and even more.

Home values did not decline by 50%, it was more like 4.5% over the last year. Perhaps in certain markets they might have decreased to 50%, but they did not across the board. And even with a decrease in home values, there were still plenty of mortgages where the balance was less than the value of the home. You can't take the worst case scenerio for one specific area and apply it to the entire market. So yes, based on the new accounting rules, packages with collateral which only decreased in value by 15% were devalued to 50% or more because there was no real market for the asset.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out back in a Septermber Forbes article Link:

It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market...

when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market.....

As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.....

Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, which drives their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero. Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency.

Coming back to the value of asset issue;
Banks do not hold real assets, (tangible). They only hold speculated values. The loan a bank holds today in his books can be worth much less tomorrow, but it will never be more. Because when a bank sells a mortgage of 300K @ 5% that loan is already sold and will never be more than 300K. On the other hand if the payment is not made, and default occurs the loan value will be much less, depending on the recovered real asset value.

I hope I did not lose you there

Let me give a quick and easy example (which will show how much crap the banks are in)

A person comes to real estate agent, wants to buy a home.
Subprime mortgage approval happens.
He puts 0 down
100% loan.
In here you clearly see that bank has no real asset at all, nothing, zero, the only asset (BS) they claim is the future earnings from the loan.
Loan amount: 500K.
Bank gives the money, and claims the loan as an asset backed by the house value, and future expected appreciation.
The bank values this asset at 5M (30 year interest payments plus future appreciation of the house).

You see how 500K became 10 fold to 5M.

Bank says I have asset of 5M. In reality do they have this? If all goes as planned yes, but what happens next?

The person defaults.
And the value of the house goes to 250K.

How much did the bank lose? 250k? No.

The new value of this so called asset is now 250K + 30year interest payments + future value of the home (if house is sold at 250K now) - selling and admin expenses. = (lets say hypotethically 2M).

So how much did the bank lose in its books?
About 3M.

And this is from an original loan of 500K.

I think you are confusing a few things. In your example, the $5M is not the "current" value of the asset. That would be it's value plus future earnings potential. Under the old accounting rules, this income potential would be used in the model to determine it's current value, but it would not be it's current value. Under the new accounting rules, except in un-ordinary circumstances, this earnings potential would not be used to determine a value of an asset but rather the market value, even in an illiquid market.

That is the reason why this subprime mess literally destroyed the books of the banks, because it crashed the home prices as well as defaulted the loans.

If the home prices do not crash, and the new sales would happen in similar prices the losses would be much less, only the unrecovered value of the home.

I don't disagree with this. However, the new accounting rules only multiplied this situation. This is also evident in the fact that they have relaxed the new rules. The purpose of doing this was not to make banks financial situation look better on paper, but because the new accouting rules were not working as intended in a depressed market.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MotorWerkz

Did you mean the Stimulus check?

No, I meant exactly what you quoted.

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by revstriker

No, I meant exactly what you quoted.

Tax cuts in economy crisis? It seems to help companies, but don't you think it will further deepen the deficit?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MotorWerkz

Tax cuts in economy crisis? It seems to help companies, but don't you think it will further deepen the deficit?

You mean compared to what Obama is doing? The fact is, more money in the economy helps the economy. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses will accomplish this. But the government does not have enough money to do this as a whole. That is why they need to "stimulate". This will help build confidence which will get people and businesses spending out monies. So yes, tax cuts in an economy crisis make sense. Certainly tax increases don't.

[RedG]

Originally Posted by vraa

zumba you gotta stop being so conspiracy theorist

think of the bright side
if this massive investment in banks pays off, the tax payher will reap 100000% on his orignialp PPIP investment

(sad part is i know mg will agree with what you said, indirectly i'ev agree too, anyone disagree?)

The taxpayer will get screwed in the long run because the government will never give up the money again.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You mean compared to what Obama is doing? The fact is, more money in the economy helps the economy. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses will accomplish this. But the government does not have enough money to do this as a whole. That is why they need to "stimulate". This will help build confidence which will get people and businesses spending out monies. So yes, tax cuts in an economy crisis make sense. Certainly tax increases don't.

it amazes me that this simple concept escapes so many people.

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You mean compared to what Obama is doing? The fact is, more money in the economy helps the economy. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses will accomplish this. But the government does not have enough money to do this as a whole. That is why they need to "stimulate". This will help build confidence which will get people and businesses spending out monies. So yes, tax cuts in an economy crisis make sense. Certainly tax increases don't.

I don't disagree.

[A Robinson]

Just as Obama predicted.


Obama=WIN!!!

[MotorWerkz]

Originally Posted by A Robinson

Just as Obama predicted.


Obama=WIN!!!

Bank of America Corp.'s first-quarter net income more than tripled.

[zumbalak]

Originally Posted by MotorWerkz

Bank of America Corp.'s first-quarter net income more than tripled.

Wonder why

Mark-to-market accounting provided a $2.2 billion gain that helped boost profits.

For some reason the banking stocks are doing great today

The makeup artists lured the crowds to the beauty, and the crowds flocked to get a hold of the hottest and the most beautiful out there. But the makeup artists know a pig is still a pig, no matter how you paint its face. Pretty soon the lusty ones will find out too.