That could be true, or at least close to the truth. That's still far removed from all the shrill screaming about all the shorting that is supposed to be going on but that the facts have never supported.
If as much actual shorting took place as gets posted on this board, more than 50% of float would be in the short column. As it is the figure usually sits around 1%, so just because a stock goes down doesn't mean it's being shorted. Some investors do actually sell.
Get a life. Real shorts don't talk about what they're doing. Go play your silly games somewhere else.
If the street thought a shareholder approval of a spin off/break up of BAC was even remotely possible, shares would be soaring in PM trading this morning. It won't be approved. Vast majority of shares are in the hands of large institutional investors and most of them support management.
Nothing has been nor is being spun off. The SEC ruled that BAC must allow a shareholder vote on a proposal to spin off ML, but it would be very, very unusual for shareholders to vote against management.
LOL. Good luck with that. This stock has had so many such manipulation/conspiracy theories about it the past twenty years that they are a dime a dozen. This proposal is pure show and will never pass shareholder vote unless management approves.
As you know, I'm one of the old-times on this board and owning the stock. I've seen a lot in over 20 years, but I've reached the point were enough is enough. I've reduced my holding in this stock considerably and, to tell the truth, I'm about ready to call it quits completely. It' not just the capital planning issue. They can't seem to get focused on a vision where this bank needs to go. Trying to be all things to all people simply isn't tenable in this environment. So far most of their cost cutting efforts seem to have been on the backs of their employees and not enough on shedding businesses and customers that bring nothing to the bottom line. I've known a lot of good people that have worked for the bank and it isn't the employees that are holding it back, it's the lack of clear direction from the leadership. It's time for radical change.
So, since oil is still mostly denominated in USD, can anyone not understand how the Saudis are able to withstand the oil price declines? With the USD value soaring, they are making big bucks on the USD they hold even while US oil producers are beginning to suffer.
The soaring USD, and falling oil prices, are caused largely by circumstances outside of our control. Both of these factors are making US economic data appear far stronger than they really are. I seriously doubt we are anywhere near being prepared for the time when oil prices go back up and/or the USD value falls. The markets will not react well to either. In short, the emperor has no clothes and the emperor's tailor, the Feds, have nothing but smoke and mirrors with which to dress him.
The Feds, and other central banks around the world, have backed themselves into a corner. They have kept rates so low for so long that even the smallest increase can have oversized impacts. The issue right now is that central banks around the world are still in a rate cutting mode, so if the US begins rate increases the impact is that much greater with the potential of the USD causing US producers to be priced out of world markets. So, on the one hand, the Feds need to raise rates sooner rather than later, but on the other hand, raising rates now would be very unproductive since the rest of the world is so out of sync.
It won't help if higher rates end up destroying the economy. The fear is that higher rates in the US will cause the USD to strengthen even more, which could cause a competitive disadvantage for US producers which would not be a good thing. The Feds have a delicate balancing act. One wrong move and they can wipe out whatever progress the economy has made thus far.
The fact that you "battered" to even mention the idea left you open to comment. Why bring up something you know isn't going to happen? In fact, when has BAC ever paid a special dividend?
We all agree that BAC did well, yet we argue about which measure to use. Since there were four capital ratio measures listed in the report for each bank it would seem prudent for everyone to clearly delineate which ratio they are using so we can avoid these unnecessary arguments. But then again, that would take all the fun out of this board.