What is blocking the view are the $500 million law suits filed by Canada and Illinois, multiple investigations by several government agencies including the DOJ and FBI, and a number of predatory law firms. This action could easily be followed by civil actions. Bribery and fraud are serious stuff that could greatly impair TRN's liquidity, and it should not be dismissed on the grounds that the gov't is out to get TRN or it's all about manipulation of the shareprice. At least that is what the market is telling us.
I dunno. The $1.13/sh included .18/sh from sale of assets so they missed the street estimate by a penny. Great guidance, though, and sales were good. These investigations by the Feds and a host of hyena law firms should not be lightly dismissed. If bribery is indeed charged it will be a mess. Hopefully management will address the issue at tomorrow's CC.
Vice Admiral Davidson, Commander of the 6th fleet, would never have followed such a directive.
This BAC forum is probably not the appropriate or fruitful place to specify the problems in society and weapons systems development. But I would agree there is a tremendous amount of waste in the DoD. However, there a a lot of very bright people that have access to info I don't so I tend not to second guess the direction or advisability of weapons enhancement.
But I do know the world is not a warm and fuzzy place.
I don't have a good feeling about Cruz. I know he is well credentialed academically but there is something rigid and doctrinaire about him. He comes across to me as Joe McCarthy sort. Rubio speaks well but tends to be verbose. He is youthful looking, to his detriment. I really don't like Paul, especially his views on the Fed, and his foreign policy seems Chamberlin-esque. Not good in a dangerous world. The GOP has to nominate someone that is electable and those on the far right just won't cut it. I would like to see Kaisch or John Thune throw their hats into the ring. Romney has been effectively demonized by the populist movement. He is a good man but I don't think electable. Jeb Bush by any other name is probably electable.
No need to protect yourself fish. No boxing match intended. BTW, if you thought the stealth gyrocopter was intriguing you should see my plans for a hover-tank. The problem is I haven't yet solved the the recoiling force of the 105mm.
That's not correct. When Bush left office the deficit was under $780 billion. In March, '09 the dem controlled Congress added another $800 billion to the deficit with the passage of a vast spending program that did little other than redistribute income. By the end of that fiscal year the deficit was $1.412 trillion
Actually, 10 year projections are CBO's creation. The pols, both libs and conservatives, use them to support their agendas and programs. It seems beneficial to see the implications of long term projections objectively derived. The obvious downside is the gov't (Congress and the exec. branches) will not stay with any 10-year plan because of circumstance and the changing constituency of Congress and the WH.
Don't hold your breath about interest rate going up soon or by much. In her speech last week she said it would be a kinder, gentler approach to raising rates.She also spoke of the inequality kerfuffle. My sense is the Fed will pursue a policy which would increase labor's share of national income. They will set an unemployment target between 4% and 5% which would foster a tight labor market and put upward pressure on wages. This means even with the risk of inflation they will keep the FF and discount rates at between 1% and 2% and not shrink the monetary base for at least three years. We shall see.
You have a death watch on a megabank that is well on the road to full recovery and is selling at 9 times earnings and a 20% discount to TBV? Is investing that tough??
It may be hard to grasp but the banking industry is a very homogenous industry in terms of operating and balance sheet characteristics. The superregional and mega banks all have p/e's from 10 to 13 multiples. A 11.1 p/e for BAC is appropriate and in line with its historical average. The bank does not have "significant POTENTIAL legal exposure". Further, if earnings are "normalized" based on a normal ROA and ROE, eps exceeds 2.00/sh.
Revenues have declined recently but looking backward at that trend as a guide to future revenue growth is fatuous. As Henry Ford said, "History is bunk." Regardless, eps and dividends can advance on tepid revenue growth because of cost cutting, higher margins and buybacks, etc. Further, greater regulation means higher quality balance sheets and income streams. The market may well translate that into applying lower discount rates in the valuation process. In case you don't know what that means it means higher multiples and shareprices.
You have your assumptions and I have mine, let's drop it at that. Good luck with your short.
As I said, there were disappointments in the report and the market reacted negatively. But I am sure you are aware that while 123 million shares were sold 123 million were bought. And it is ludicrous to assume all "experts" were selling and only tyros were selling. More like the HTFers were selling the trend and knowledgeable investors were buying. BAC is well on its way to earn $1.40/sh this year, putting the p/e at 11.1. An ill-advised short at these levels.
Hard to ignore the fact that operating eps were .36 a share, the company significantly improved its balance sheet and tbv, costs were further reduced and this summer they will submit a successful revised capital plan to the Fed. The only disappointments were lighter than expected revenues and anemic trading ops. In the near term BAC seems to be neither a short or long. But, hey, good luck with your rear view mirror short trading.