The incredible paragraphs of the ruthenium says it all in the last posting on SNV. The long and shorts are both jumping at the story of the matter. Look at the data and the numbers will jump out at you. The math points to the PPS and the underlying #'s on the Balance Sheet. Just look before you come on here piping off at the mouth about this that and the other you jerkoffs. What you need to do is look for the trends. The 2.64 and the 1.86% of the data and then you will know how to do it. Banks are risky. But what you need to see is the edition of the story at hand here. Then you will be ok. But the shorts and longs are both at odds. That's where you need to focus. FOCUS. When the data and the profits equals the shorts and the longs on the matter of truancy, then the formidable refunds and the dividends will jump back at you. Don't cuntpunt on the issue jerks.
Think. Making a list of the big important people in a corporation that is listed on the stock mkt, the list is headed by the CEO, B of D's, the rest of upper mgt, . . .. . . . the bottom of the list is the common share holders. The big boys always take care of the big boy. If there is anything left after the big boy line their pockets then a trickle may reach the common stock holders.
Yes! You crazy bottle nose. That is exactly right. The #'s are just nuts. Look at all the data. Crunch it. Get that TI calculator out and crunch it. The angle of the oppressed figures will jump out of the screen at you and then you will invest and then you will get the point here. The longs and shorts need to focus on the underlying balance sheet and the scorecard of the matter at hand.
This what you mean!! I compute that this vote means there goes at least a third of the TARP money for "Compensation" that includes performance bonus, etc (Payout) then loss portion of TARP money on bad investments.
The proposal was to approve the compensation of Synovus' named executive officers as determined by the Compensation Committee."
Makes little sense to compensate those whose stewardship led to its current financial state, and while they do deserve some pay; it would be much better to have these officers' pay linked to the health of this security. If the security begins to do better so will their compensation, and if it does not then they receive less in compensation. But, . . your take on what this proposal is saying seems right on the mark---