totally disagree I think trail is necessary -- previous trial for fannie loans was straight forward amount of fine clear-- this latest negotiation of 12 vs 17 billion is foggy. BOA doesn't seem to have as much to lose and more to gain by stretching it out. in long term moynihan should look after company and not short term traders looking for a profit.
good farnbourgh -- I guess I am a broken record but still think it would be a win-win for family and us subordinated shareholders if family would just be shareholders (like walton family did with wal-mart) they would still control company but I would guess the stock would be much higher.
maybe embraer is not a family owned company like bbd. if family decided to sell planes division for $1 tomorrow they can. i held bbd ($30+/share)--next thing I know planes in trouble needs money family sells recreational products (well technically only 70%) and price falls ---do not compare family owned companies to non-family owned-- especially with history of not being shareholder friendly. this stock acts as if its small dividend is only driver
Bank of America should have a trial to prevent shareholder class-action suits. A company just can not go giving billions of shareholder money to any entity without clarity. The fannie/freddie suit ($2.7 billion) was really against countrywide lack of following guidelines-- the evidence was clear, the loss by fannie was clear ($~877 million) the penalty was clear (up to 3x loss). As a shareholder I don't have a problem, but what is going on now where billions are up for negotiation is not clear-- to prevent shareholders who have suffered loss from class action suits I think it would be it BOA interest to have trial.
i don't think he would lose--the fault was not thebanks but the laws that required them to make subprime mortgages--- government will not admit this
please B o A take this to trial---if something criminal was done arrest the rascal, but if government told you that you had to make loans under laws starting in 1977 then just say we were playing by your rules. Worst is you may have to pay the fine but I don't think so.
sir I do not believe you-- there are no liberal farmers. they are not necessarily teabaggers but they align with them more often than not. sorry but you have never raised a farm animal or produced any food product, you sir are a consumer of their labor. a lot of good people live in singlewides also.
i have got a teabag card but i do consider myself a right winger and i hate to say it but you are correct we do not have an answer that people want to hear. Mitt said 47% he could not convince because they wanted or needed what the government would provide. We conservatives by definition oppose what the 47% want from the government. as technology further obseletes workers and society can afford to provide for the nonworkers the number will increase. the recession will push more people to want government help and I don't fault them. Immigrants will probably add to the 47% .they need some help (government?) to get started.So no matter what tea baggers say and it can be the words of Jefferson or even god it just does not matter people will vote for the party that can make their lives better next month. We (conservatives) don't have an answer. I have tried to think of an admendment
the way the number of shorts has increased then it is safe to assume that almost all shorts were less than $66--is that correct and this probably means that this jump is due to say 1/4 of shorts covering. if any good news is coming it could make this worse for shorts and more could cover and price would continue upward-- seems like very good news for longs
okay the last data said: 6/13/2014 33,968,106(short shares) 3,506,930(daily) 9.685995(days to cover)
this 6/13 was the largest amount of shorts -- but how short are these guys?? does it vary? and 9.7 days to cover or what happens?? can someone give me an example of what the holders of 34 million shares are doing to get out of what everybody says is a bad situation?? just trying to see what is going on thanks
neither-30 years ago mom could afford beef --heck most of us can't afford beef and much less brisket--- you don't see it in counter but butcher will cut it for you--- i use a dry rib rub(mostly paparika) --lightly--then slow cook with some hickory (250f for 3 hours)----anyway if obama gets his way argentina beef should arrive next year---although USA producers are fighting it-- should let the commonfolk eat a piece of beef. back to boa don't see why they don't fight this $17 billion thing don't see they have much to lose and long term may disueade some others from suing.
sometimes I think investors think they are the company-- but most investors are in the 1 year range and could care less about a company once they have their target percent gain. I am not sure whether settling with doj is in best interest of boa. Starting under Carter in 1977 and through to crash in 2007 federal pushed banks into this mess and a trial will at least bring this out while saving boa billions.
listen--if they did not make a profit they would not suply me gasoline. the same can be said or food, clothes,etc. profits are used to drill wells, run refineries, etc again i ask are you opposed to companies making a profit.are you an avocate of socialism or communism those systems are just not as efficient---very profitable companies are not necessarily corrupt. there is nothing wrong or evil about a company making profit
That is wonderful-- and when I want gasoline it is available. If I decide to travel along the interstate and my gas gauge says low I can usually find a station with gasoline. America works gasoline is available at a reasonable price. Should gasoline production become to profitable then other fuels will compete or other companies get into gasoline production business.
Your kind of post is implying something evil about a company making money or profit. You are implying that government should somehow tax or control excess profit. My friend that has been tried socialist and communist without profit will not provide gasoline at every exit along the interstate at a reasonable price.
we elected them and then re-elected them and if legal technicalities did not prevent then we would re=re-elect them. You can not transfer the money fast enough my friend these guys are very good. We shall not see their like again much to the dismay of the 47%.
no I am not talking about IMF making loans to ukraine to pay for russian gas at same time russia is seizing crimea?? That is pretty funny USA paying russia's bill to invade ukraine. that is funny but not nearly as funny as DOJ suing BOA for making poor loans to fannie????
My heavens they require banks to make to subprime loans then when it goes bad the blame the banks and sue the banks-- the punchline of course is the vast majority of folks ain't got a clue what's been going on and they are all for DOJ --- this is funny
These three loan types helped the GSEs meet their affordable housing (AH) mandates under the "Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992" (GSE Act). They were materially assisted in this effort by big banks and thrifts originating trillions in high risk loans to meet another mandate established under the federal Community Investment Act (CRA).
Speaking of CRA, let us not forget Krugman's assertion that CRA's in the financial crisis is a myth. Over the 17 year period 1992-2008, there was a total of $6 trillion in announced CRA commitments, covering all types of CRA lending. Ninety-four percent of this $6 trillion in commitments were issued by four banks or banks these four ended up purchasing by way of merger. The banks were Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. As a result, CRA single family origination volume over the period 1993-2008 also exploded, totaling an estimated $2.7 trillion.
what the hell is $6 trillion in CRA commitments??? Anything the government manages turns to -----.
My god if of $2.7 in mortgages what the heck is the other $3.3 trillion in CRA what is going on. Don't worry fannie is backing these loans it is what the government is requiring just make the damn loans.