Oh billdong…do you really believe the ridiculous drivel you post?
You expect us to believe that your response was an attempt to assist the poster? Please…that’s a load of BS. Your response was purely an attempt to use this posters problem as a way of ridiculing and harassing another poster on this board – which you continued to do in every other response. I am sure you are going to try to convince the board that you were bring helpful by suggesting the woman go to her branch – but even that is basically a worthless suggestion – it just shows how little you understand about USB and its businesses as well as this particular persons issue….to you, she is just a punchline for your feeble attempt at humor.
And trying to paint this issue as more relevant to the stock than the acquisition discussed by Bushman makes you appear even more ignorant…good thing you daytrade using your charts and trends…your grasp of fundamentals is clearly deficient.
Billiar...So here we have a post about USB....and as far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the stock of the company. Where is your reprimand to Carolyn? Whay aren't you questioning why she posted the message as you do with other posters?....it's that pesky double standard again, huh, billjoke.
Ok…let me get this straight…you see nothing wrong with posts that have absolutely nothing to do with this bank, its stock, its industry or the economy…but if it IS about USB, it better pass your test as to relevance to the stock. Is that it, billiar?
You really should just stop…you just compound your foolishness every time you try to rationalize your poorly veiled attempt to harass a poster you do not like.
I am sure I am not alone in welcoming any post that has to do with USB – at the very least it is a brief respite from your incessant off-topic postings that are only meant to insult people, advance your political bias, harass other posters and feed your fragile ego.
“I think this board should be about info that can have an impact on the stock, whether bullish or negative”
Wow billass…I don’t know where to start with this!!
As I noted before – your hypocrisy is profound…you seem so firmly deluded that you don’t even realize when you are making a fool of yourself in your posts.
So when you started a thread on the Louisiana Congressman Vance Mcallister – what impact will that have on the stock of USB?
When you started a thread suggesting a collection be taken up for the mental health treatment of another poster on the board – what impact will that have on the stock?
When you start threads calling members of the republican party stupid, immoral, racist and criminal – what impact will that have on the stock?
Let’s just cut to the chase. Your comment on what you think this board is about - it is a lie – plain and simple. Your post responding to Bushman was clearly an attempt to harass him…you do not like what he says so you post a demeaning comment. There are plenty of others who post equally or even less relevant information and you say nothing…why is that? Are you now in charge of keeping Bushman in line, too…has Yahoo added that to your job description of message board cop? Tell us Billie Fife…who else is in danger of incurring your frightening wrath…LMAO!!
I think as Gus' psychotic break has progressed, he has lost a grip on who the actual posters are and is consumed by the imaginary bad guys on the board. I used to be able to get a rise out of him with little effort - prompting him to call me a sewer rat, etc...kind of fun at the time. Now it looks like he has narrowed his fixation on just a few.
Billtard...not sure any level of reading comprehension can make sense of your previous post...LOL. You are correct - I attibuted the post to Keeb and it was Bushman...I guess Bushman is not allowed to post information relevant to this bank and its stock...is that your point?
Given the massive volume of totally off-topic and irrelevant posts that you place on this board bill...I would say that your attitude clearly exposes your well-known hypocrisy.
Billdouche - you are a piece of work! Are you questioning why Keeb posted information about an acquisition made by USB? Are you implying that becasue it may not have any impact on the stock price (in your opinion) that it is, in some way, not approriate for this board?
LOL...coming from you - that is rich!!
Not a very big or sexy acquisition for USB - but I imagine they got a good deal on it given Ally's situation and seems like a business with some significant synergies with USB's current custody business.
Oh billdouche, Keeb gets a heartfelt apology and I get brushed aside and told to use the ignore button...like so many things, your bias is so incredibly obvious!
As those who spent time on the WFC board know, the ignore button is useless when the offednign posters have multiple IDs that they post under...next....
I shorted the stock. It went a little up from my short, and I covered 1/2 for a profit of $0.37 in a few days.
so, billdip, can you explain - if you shorted the stock...then the price went UP...how you made any profit when covering?
Your credit score in 2000 is irrelevant delcon - what was it when you refinanced? - That may be a big part of your problem. Overall I find this whole issue rather sketchy...just wondering why this is an issue now - two years after it all took place...I guess you memory could be a bit challenged after two years...or you just want to sling a littel racist mud at the company!
Very interesting - then I take it you Democrats are in favor of adultery...and against family values?? That explains a lot - clearly the reason why you have no problem with the president engaging in adulterous, sexually deviant activity in HIS government office.
Keeb - you are not alone in your assessment of the condition of this forum. Much like the WFC board, the selfish, delusional impulses of one or two posters has resulted in a board that is completely devoid of its intended subject. I think it would be a rather intersting syudy to try and understand the kinds of psychoses that drive individuals to commit such significant amounts of their time to engaging in these imaginary feuds.
I think saying this guy "Managed USB's money" is quite a stretch...he did maintainence on ATMs - not really the same thing..LOL!
Look at it later in the week!?!?! What a joke!
It is right there on the BH website...clear as day....BH has done buybacks - you were dead wrong saying they have not!
Of course Buffet had a good reason to buy back stock. Over the years he has commented a number of times that he is in favor of doing buybacks when the conditions are right - and they were for BH on more than one occassion. Other posters on this board pointed this out to you - even posting his actual words. But you simply dismissed these posters, claiming they were wrong and makeing additional - CLEARLY ERRONEOUS claims that Berkhire has never done a buyback.
Now, instead of admitting your error and moving on - you express doubt about the facts that I posted and go on to make broad generalizations about the reasons companies do buybacks. You rely on an article - which very much like your posts - is simply a collection of opinions and lacks any facts in support of the assertions.
just admit you were wrong billdo - it is clear to all here and your "look at it later in the week" attitude is pitiful!
Really billy…cut to the chase…ok, I will…
In September of 2011, the Board of BH authorized the repurchase of both classes of its shares – they wound up repurchasing approximately $67 million in stock in the few days following the authorization before the stock reached the price limit. In December of 2012, following the additional repurchase of over $1billion of its shares, BH raised the price limit for repurchases from 110% of book to 120% of book. Buffet has made it clear for years that there are circumstances where he is in favor of stock buybacks. I know others have posted here that this is the case – and I alluded to the same…but according to you – actions speak louder than words – and I agree that they do!
These are facts that were very difficult to unearth, bill – it must have taken all of about six minutes to find this information. Is there a reason why you missed it? Was it your arrogance?…or your ignorance? (A question asked previously on this board.) Perhaps if you spent a little less time making smug, demeaning comments to those who disagree with you and do a little research, you could avoid looking like such a fool.
I realize that in the past you have stubbornly refused to admit you were wrong – often trying to spin your errors to make you seem correct even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary…but this is going to be a tough one to get out from under.
No - actually I do not think that. My comment that I thought we were dealing with multiple individuals was realtive to VS's assertion that You, Uncle and WFC's Gus were all the same person. My belief is that you are all three separate, very different people - each with your own set of delusions and deficiencies.
Interesting concept VS – but it is unlikely. As I have noted before, I think there are some key differences between the Gus entities on WFC and the Bill/Uncle combo on USB. The delusions that prevail among these individuals are distinctly different. Gus has clearly landed in a world where he believes that the management of WFC is evil and is out to get him. He clearly thinks his words are reaching a wide audience that will at some point rise up to defeat the evil corporate empire. Bill, on the other hand, clearly thinks he is protecting a wide audience by acting as the judge, jury and executioner against anyone who violates his delicate sensibilities. Gus empowers these fictional board denizens while Bill demeans them. Another key difference is the rate of ID creation. Gus clearly has a lock not only on the volume of IDs but in the creativity he uses – his use of a variety of themes and patterns sets him apart from the more self-indulgent brand name approach. While the unfortunately negative impact on the WFC and USB message boards is the same, I still think we are dealing with multiple individuals on these boards – considering the copious volumes of posts coming from these individuals, I do not think there are enough hours in the day for one person to post all of that.
Well that is an interesting example but it is a bit superficial and as usual is quite narrow-minded in its conclusions. You are more concerned with how these two individuals are perceived – that people think one is wealthier than the other even though they have the same net worth. Quite frankly – this argument, just like the other anti-buyback arguments, is weak and short sighted. Are you really saying that we should base our evaluation of a company simply on the fact that other people tell us it is a great company or that people “ascribe wonderful qualities” to the company?? Let’s look a little deeper at your example here…You are ignoring the possibility that the owner that bought the more valuable house will gain more on the appreciation of that asset over time – I know – you have to consider tha cost of the debt but unless he was not diligent when financing the asset, he will likely still come out ahead. In addition, the owner with the mortgage will have the benefit of the tax deduction for his mortgage interest – making the cash portion of his balance sheet effectively worth more than the other owner. Now, I will be the first to admit that the more detailed argument I have given does not definitively prove or disprove the value of buy backs. As someone will likely point out, if you make different assumptions (i.e interest rates, tax rates, rates of return) you can show either person with greater net worth than the other or you can make them be the same. What it does demonstrate is that stock buy backs need to be examined in the context of the current condition of the company, the value of its stock, the state of the economy and the industry, the impact on the investors, etc… Ignoring these things and dismissing buy backs out of hand as simply manipulation meant to enrich management is rather poor judgement. Even Buffet concedes that there are conditions where he thinks a stock buy back is a good decision – so let’s not rely on that argument.