I know you are one of the most knowledgeable posters here on both banking and history. Why have you chosen to start slanting your knowledge to a political agenda? It seems that in the last few years you have taken to using a real bias in choice of information you want to present even when I know you know better and have more complete information: like declaring Ikes role was minimal when he was responsible for the development of the policy that led us in to and justified the Vietnam war. I know you know the history.
You were the person on the board who warned of the problem with derivatives 6 months before the game collapsed and you understand the abuse in the system. You know how BAC was abused by the Goldman crowd and why we have to have huge reserves today but you remain mute on the subject.
Lib, I guess you could ask the same question of anyone that sees things differently than you do in the sociopolitical landscape. I tend to react, not crusade. I don't think I have ever initiated a political dialogue here. If I seem to have become more caustic and entrenched it is because I am responding to comments from the left which are sweeping generalizations or gross misrepresentations Few people appreciate the continuum of events like the slow involvement in Nam that started with HST. Or take the inane comment, "The GOP owns 9/11." Should we forget that in 1998 the head of the CIA's counter intelligence unit informed Clinton of a plot brewing? Sure it happened on Bush's watch but could Clinton have been more vigilant? An your comment that the GOP owns every afterwards was a sweeping generalization. Who do you think controlled the Whitehouse and congress in '09 - '10 when much of the groundwork for our economic funk was laid admist a massive build up in debt and deficits?
On BAC, I don't own the stock. I sold 9/08 after having owned it since '91. But I still watch it. When someone here asks an honest question about the stock I'll try to answer it if no one else does. BAC is still mired in litigation. More troublesome is its growth prospects are unclear, particularly given Q1 revenue drop. Too, the new regs are about to hit the industry biggies. All considered they will need those reserves. But clearly, BAC is a better company now that it was a few years ago. It's a value play but without the dividend income.
I agree you have not initiated but you were always very level headed and above the political fray until recently. They had no proof bin Laden was behind things when Clinton had that opportunity. Then you will recall there was a lot of warning to Bush from the intelligence community that Rice , Cheney an W rejected. Clinton did make an attack on Bin Ladens site when it became clear he was behind the growing terrorist threat. Also you have to consider the crippling position the GOP had Clinton in with their attempts to impeach him at the time he could have been more aggressive with foreign policy had he not been dealing with those distractions.
Congress was obviously never under "party" control. Efforts were blocked on all fronts. When Obama took office there was the concept of cooperation expected from the administration which never happened as the GOP circled the wagons and fought even the good legislation like that proposed by Volker and Bowles/simpson.
I don't own BAC right now either and wish I had heeded your warning earlier but have managed to make some profits on it. I agree that the litigation is still an issued and the attempt to save the housing market for the government by taking on Countrywide was a disaster that Lewis should have avoided. BAC had stayed clear of those bad loans and then took on the worst of them.
Growth in banks is a questionable subject. Already to big to fail makes further concentration in the industry a threat to all of the finance system. I agree BAC is improving as it divests itself from those albatrosses hung around its neck in 2008 and the total number of shares outstanding is just unmanageable. The board is out of shareholder control and until circumstances are such that they can provide and issue a decent dividend I'm staying clear.