I just wanted to know if there were any long term holders/investors( 3 years or longer), of NYB stock, on this message board, and if so, what do you think of the recent stock price action, as well as your thoughts on the long term prospects for the company?
Why did NYB's stock price take such a hit in the year of 2004? Any thoughts or insights from long term holders would be greatly appreciated.
My cost basis is $14.76/share. I am presently losing money on the position, while you, in turn, are not losing money, you, in your own words are "in deficit, on an accrual basis," which is a sophisticated way of saying, that you are also losing money.
As far as "seeking reassurances" on my NYB stock positions, I am certainly not going to seek that from you. I do my own homework and own up to my gains and losses, rather than be "in deficit, on an accrual basis."
As far as your trading positions making "north of 40% per annum," please save your fabrications and pontifications for some other sucker. By the way, I have a bridge for sale in Manhattan, if your interested - real cheap. I promise that you won't lose money on it, or to quote your words "that you won't be in deficit, on an accrual basis."
I will get lost -from you - and I hope that you get lost from the NYB message board, since you are so full of yourself and b.s. and verbiage, that you may actually start believing what you are printing and saying. Please realize that nobody is "buying" what you are saying and for someone who is supposedly making "north of 40% gains on his trading positions," I am surprised that you are still interested in NYB stock.
Have a good one.
The cost basis of the investment position is 14.67, the share price
13.59; so, yeah, the investment
positions' in deficit on an accrual
basis. Why would I worry about that
considering that the entire banking sector's is a much deeper hole?
Whether you understand it or not
many millions of shares of anything
have been dumped in the last month
and a half just to satisfy creditors
or redemption requests, completely
independent of fundamentals.
I've actually been thinking of
adding some to NYB
The trading positions were never
factored in because they're accounted on a realized basis--when sold or covered. The returns on these balances have been running
very high, well north of 40%
per annum. Actually, that isn't
especially good for such short
term trading, but it does solve
the income problem that causes
people like you to seek reassurance
on what ought to be worry-free
longer term investments.
Look, we owned some of our core
stocks--e.g. XOM--since the 1970's.
Do you think I dig those carrots up
every day to see whether they're
Nor do I think such "successful
investments" are especially
clever. When I do, I compare the
appreciation to something like
the cost of a quart of milk
over the same period.
What's hard about any of this?
The share counts and trading balances
aren't your concern.
Now, get lost.
Your cost basis is $14.67/share and you made how much money? Oh, that's right, you can't tell us that because "you buy assets," and blah, blah, blah. Nobody cares and no one is asking you to list your "300 trades," we simply want to know if you made any money in NYB? If you have to go through 300 trades, just to find your positions in NYB stock, in order to show this message board how much money you made/lost, then you are a trader, my friend. If your cost basis is $14.67/share, then when did you buy your shares and how many do you have?
Do you realize that you love to pontificate, and to hear yourself, or write to yourself, on and on, and on, to make this message board think that you know something. It sounds to me me like you have found a very sophisticated way to lose money and if any other message board readers took the time to actually read your messages (which they don't because they are too boring and tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing) they would realize that you are full of hot air.
How much money are you losing? Oh yeah," you are studying capital structures, and asset levels, etc...." And yes, "when you want to make money in stocks we trade them," so I assume that when you buy stocks to hold them, you are not looking to make money then, you are looking to.........?
Good bye. Please save the 5000 word return message, which will say nothing and mean nothing for someone who wants to read it. Realize, that I am the only one who ever reads it and responds, as no one else is interested in reading your self=pontificating treatise.
Wrong again. Look at savings deposits
per share, which have fallen off by
9.45% since 2005, despite the acquisition of three more banks
in the interim.
May mean something. May not. But
how would you know, not having taken
the trouble to learn the facts?
I'm not getting anything from you
on any level, so good night.
You're kidding, right? I just now
gave you that information. If you want the precise number, the cost
basis is now $14.67. Don't know
whether that's above or below
the current quotation.
And I don't care. If you don't
understand why, then you can't
be much of an "investor." Our
accountant could certainly tell
I do care about such matters very
much in the trading stocks; but,
as I told you, we stopped trading
NYB when better, simpler financial
media became available. Wasn't a
bad trade, just not as good as the
other stuff. Not about to go through
the 300 or so trades in the past
two years to find the ten or so
made in the NYB common. FWIW, only
one was closed at a loss and that
was a very small loss.
Maybe, we aren't really "investors"
like you. When we want money from
stocks, we trade them: we do not hold them. Otherwise, I'm mainly
concerned with the asset values:
capital structure, current and
potential income, cash flow.
Maybe this whole controversy's
entirely semantic. You call it
investment. I call it trading.
Even so, I don't understand why
you're wasting your time with NYB,
when you can get so much larger
realizations out of the sector
etfs I've mentioned, (or etfs in
other sectors or, even, leveraged
It's very simple arithmetic.
What's the average daily spread
between the highs and lows of
XYZ over N days? The greatest
daily excursion offers the greatest
profit potential. Why don't you
The etf is also much simpler as
you needn't concern yourself
with the fundamentals at all,
since company specific factors
are diversified away--whereas
someone actually invested in
anything would need to know
how it's done, how it's doing,
and how it's most likely to do.
Look, I've tried to be nice to
you, but I'm not really such
a nice person. I think you
are very inexperienced and I
know that you aren't very
intelligent. You should stop
taking council from the sell-side
jokers on CNBC and popular crap
about "investment success," find
yourself some decent and disinterested primary sources, and
think the investment/trading problem
through for yourself. On the technical level, you might begin
with Justin Mamis. On the fundamental, Martin Whitman.
Again, this is how we make our
living; but we had to learn to
think accurately and independently
before we were able to do that.
Don't bother me again with your
NYB is gaining market share, in their specialized niche (multi-family lending on rent-controlled and rent stabilized properties) as we speak. All of their acquisitions have been accretive to earnings and your question as to the merits of Queens County Savings Bank merging with Roslyn Savings Bank speak for themselves. If you were an original investor (oh, that's right, you don't buy NYB stock, you buy "the assets"), when NYB went public (I believe in 1993 or 94) you are a happy camper, since with dividends and price appreciation you have made much money. Therefore, again, as stated above, the merits of Queen County Savings Bank and Roslyn Savings Bank are self-evident.
I don't want to engage in tedious and laborious conversation, unlike yourself.
You have written numerous messages containing numerous paragraphs and yet no mention or sentences are devoted to the simple question I have asked you repeatedly.... have you ever made any money holding NYB stock? Simple question and it does not need a lengthy answer. As an investor, in the stock market, you buy stocks of companies, not assets. You buy them or trade them for the purpose of making money, pure and simple. The b.s. about buying them for "the assets," and pontificating on and on and on, incessantly, is simply an exercise to hear yourself speak and/or write.
I don't mean to be disrespectful or mean-spirited, but can't you simply write an email that tells this message board what your experience has been buying and holding NYB stock relative to profits and losses? Please save the rest of the dialogue (that does not indicate what your profit or loss is, on NYB stock) for another time.
Good question, but a market technical one. Let me think about
it when I review our (technical)
trading data for the week tonight
and get back to you early next week.
Meanwhile, in case you're looking
at NYB as an investment, let me
raise the question that bothers
me and that no one on this board
has yet addressed. Was the
M & A game that led from plain-old
Queens County Savings to the present
mini-empire of NYCB worth the candle?
I mean that they must have bought
all these banks in expectation of
greater funding (deposits) at lower,
or at least good, cost. We now know
that their share of their excellent
niche loan market is only about
15%, and that their most uneconomic
competitors have gone to the wall;
so they should be able to greatly
increase lending of the highest
But only if they were right to pay
so much for the branch banks, (cf:
the huge goodwill subtractions from
book value.) If those branches aren't
producing, and are probably unsalable
to the large retail franchises now
scooping up other big problem banks
w. Government aid, then NYB's future
is either limited or deferred.
Understand that I'm talking about
the bank as a business here, not as
a trade. I was disturbed to see that
their largest local competitor,
Citibank--the poster child for
bad management--is now offering
4% on 6 month time deposits or
300 bps over Fed Funds. NYCB
wouldn't want to that and shouldn't
have to if they weren't competing
with an enormous corporate welfare
No, you still don't understand. We don't want the "money." We want the
The same logic would apply to our
New York City row house, bought in
foreclosure from Citibank in the
deep local real estate recession
of the 90's. At the height of
the recent boom, it had a fair
market value on the order of 6-7X
our cost--which is now either
less or will soon be.
Should we have sold at the top?
Why would we do that? The "money"
merely involves us with locally
high progressive taxation, whereas
the asset (the house) represents
an important strategic advantage
in a local market where housing
costs have done nothing but go
up on average for many decades.
I haven't adjusted our mean cost
on the NYB common lately, but it
would be somewhere right around
the quotation when adjusted for
dividends which carry no tax
liability in that particular account.
If we also adjusted for all the
trades we made before switching
to better bank/financial trading
media, that cost basis would be
down around $8; but I try to account
for trades on a realized and investments on an accrual basis
But where we really "made the money,"
that so concerns you, in this phase
of the cycle was in the developing
"inverse" etfs--SKF, DUG, and SDS,
mainly. These are essentially
the derivative equivalent of short
sales against financial and energy
indicies and against the S & P 500.
But past a certain point, the money
is really no good to us: nearly
half of it is, (or will ultimately be,) siphoned off by taxation. It's
supposed "value" is entirely a
function of the credibility of the
issuing Government, and, until
very recently, the banks in which
that cash was held were not to
be trusted. (BTW, I shifted a
CD to NYCB in 2007, also in
consideration of their asset
What you call investment is what
I mean by "trading," I think.
The profit picture there is something
else entirely, because cash return
@ very high time value is the ONLY
But, if that's what you want, I
don't see why you're playing around
with NYB instead of something with
obviously better trading potential.
For instance, you surely must realize just how much UYG will
appreciate off the bottom of this
financials led bear market. If you
don't like the leverage, you can
always "invest" less in UYG or
try XLF. (KBE is also a nice
index etf, more concentrated in
money center banks.)
Hopefully, you understand now;
or, if you don't, you ought to:
we never gave a damn about NYB
and very little of a damn about
whether our small investment position is "going up" or
"going down." What we wanted
was a fractional ownership stake
in the rent equalized apartment
market of New York City, and their
common stock was an attractive way
to that. (By contrast, we closed
every trading position when the
run, whether up or down, showed
signs of petering out.)
Actually, I haven't even kept
very close tabs on the NYB stock
price since we stopped trading it.
Instead, I look the quarterly
financial reports and the FDIC
examination summaries of same.
"How is 'our' loan book doing?"
is what I really care about.
If you want to belabor this
tedious discussion further,
I'd suggest we switch to another
stock where you have no emotional
involvement. For instance, why
did we invest in ADP during the
October debacle? What's the
point of that?