I agree that stock buybacks will be the primary focus, but I'm thinking the bank also understands they need to throw out something to the dividend players as well. My thought is $.05, but we'll see when it is all announced, hopefully soon.
Right, and the fact that you're pushing another stock in no way affects your ability to provide objective advice on BAC stock.
Special divy? Okay, and what exactly does the chatter say this special divy is supposed to be? How much? What is the reason for this special divy? And what have you been smoking?
That would be "dividend" my friend. And what cash are you speaking of. Do you mean the cash they are required to maintain as a reserve for all the deposits, cash that belongs to depositors, not shareholders? Or do you mean the cash the Feds require them to keep as a cushion in case anything happens, also called liquidity? Or is it perhaps you haven't yet realized that cash on the financial reports for banks is not the same as cash for most other companies financial reports?
One must be patient. They first have to ask the Feds, then pass the stress tests, then get approved by the Feds. No dividend increases or stock buybacks without the Feds approving first.
Right, the guy gave you his account number so you could deposit $70 into it? Okay, well, isn't that special.
Just put them on ignore. I've been on this board for many years and posters have complained about them almost daily, but they're still here. The ignore feature is a wonderful thing.
It gives them something to do. Makes them feel useful and important. They're desperate for recognition and will take whatever crumbs are thrown their way.
The only thing I've heard Buffett say is that he will hold his warrants for the full term. I don't believe he's ever mentioned a sell price point.
Be still my heart. :-)
"I've been on the wrong side with concerns about the legal risk, among other factors, " Mayo conceded in a telephone interview Friday following the ruling. He added, "it looks like my high-end tail risk estimates were wrong."
From other reports I've read the exception seems to be concerning modified loans. Not sure what that leaves BAC open to, or how much could be involved, but the judge stated BNY didn't do their job properly for those particular issues.
Fairly typical. I did notice, however, in the article on Bloomberg, that there was an exception in her ruling, but I didn't really understand what it was about, so I'd like to see that in more detail before I get too elated.