Um, no it won't. It has to go through the stress tests and have capital plans approved by the Feds. All this will take place the first quarter of next year, just as it has in prior years.
Doesn't really matter. The real story is in the steadily increasing deposits and bank accounts. It's like being in the military. When the troops stop complaining is when you have to start worrying. :-)
Must be about time. When everyone starts calling this stock a "pig" and talk about it never going up again, they usually miss out on the next big jump. Very short memories around here.
LOL! All you have succeeded in doing is proving to everyone that you have absolutely no clue about the financials for financials. Welcome to ignore.
I guess you've gotten so old that you don't bother to look out to the future. This pipeline is needed, not only to move oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast shipping and refineries, but it would also carry oil from the Dakotas which desperately need more pipeline capacity, or would you rather they continue to move the oil by truck and train? Oil prices won't stay down forever. Please stick your head back in the sand and leave longer term planning for those who still have a longer term ahead of them.
Not that I've seen. It's been rather frustrating trying to figure out. I don't think BAC was as big a player as the others but I've yet to see any potential numbers.
Wrong. But not surprising. Most folks like you tend not to educate themselves on the difference between actual shares owned and stock options. Welcome to ignore.
Yes, but let's be clear, they're not shares, they are stock options. He has the right to use those options to buy shares, to sell the options to buy shares, or sell the options for cash. Part of the original crisis era deals for the TARP money is that the top execs would have to take the options in lieu of a certain percentage of their cash salary.
Those are stock options that he exercises, as do the other execs, that are part of their compensation package. There is a big difference.
Things would look even more different if people would sit up straight instead of hunched over, then you could have a chart of correct postures rather than hunches. :-)
The only problem with that statistic is that it is based on the number of shares shorted, not percentage of shares shorted. As the article states, those shorted shares represent just 1% of total shares. And, since days to cover is 1, that means all those shorted shares could be covered in one day of trading, so no possibility of a short squeeze. If shorted shares were around 5% of total shares, then that would be news worthy.
When you run the cursor over the message of a user you'll see a shield with an X and the word "Flag". Click on that, then click on "ignore user".
Sure they will, since Fannie and Freddie are also clarifying the rules on what they can force the banks to buy back. The banks want to loan. The reason they have held back is precisely because the rules were so open to interpretation. If the banks feel comfortable that the rules are clear, they will loan to whomever the feds allow them to. After all, it's the feds who will be buying the loans.
Yes, but consider how many shares the bank had outstanding when it was that price. If I remember correctly, it had about 3.5 billion shares while today it as over 10 billion shares. Even with factoring in the negative of Countrywide and the positive of Merrill, you'll find that the real prices aren't all that far apart today.
Not if interest rates keep going down. Net interest margins are going to be squeezed at these levels. The rates banks pay to borrow funds are about as low as they are going to get, so if the rates they are able to charge customers for mortgages and such go down, banks make less money. That means they'd have to make it up somewhere else, and guess where that is, fees, fees, fees.