Yes, it's true. It was a gala function for a new Middle Easter Christian group and he got booed and jeered when he started talking about Israel being the Christian's best friend.
There are more conspiracy theories than a camel has fleas or, if you prefer, this message board has basher/shorts, not that there's any difference.
The issue, at the moment, seems to be about the swaps. The value of the swaps Detroit had out was $345 million. BAC and UBS eventually settled for $85 million. However, this Syncora and I think Fidelity were the insurers which, of course, BAC and UBS are expecting to pay on their claims for their losses on the swaps. However, it appears Syncora is using the excuse that Detroit now says the original $1.4 billion loan in 2005 was illegal. If that argument holds, then it basically means Detroit would have to return the $1.4 billion it borrowed from investors because the whole deal was illegal on their part. Detroit made this mess and now they have to live with it but the media, and others, are painting the banks as the bad guys that are holding up a bankruptcy deal. We can only hope the judge will see through all that, but I'm not holding my breath.
In these times of increased regulation and less fee and loan income, BAC is going to focus on the tech savvy and higher wealth customers. The tech savvy customers are much less expensive to service and the higher wealth customers do more business. As a result we will continue to see more banking centers redesigned, relocated or closed to make sure they are where they need to be.
Sorry, but it's not his policies that have done this. In fact, he fought fracking, adding pipelines etc. This all happened despite him.
In 2010 the US imported almost 50% of it's oil requirements. Today it is slightly over 20%. This will have increasing impact on our economy as we've already seen with the return of some manufacturing to this country because of the low energy prices, particularly natural gas. This is only part of the positive macro economic changes that are taking place. The economy is not what it was and the old rules simply do not work anymore. Investors need to look forward, not backward.
Personally, I think it will last longer, not just because of the fracking onshore, the they are also seeing new life in the old wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever happens it means big changes for as long as it lasts. The biggest changes will be more dollars staying at home and, if more exports are allowed, even more coming back home. That will help replace some of the lost income of the boomers which wasn't expected earlier, and will help keep interest rates low despite what the Feds may think. That, and the unwinding of Fannie and Freddie which will see the mortgage markets much smaller than in the past. All of this means big changes in the whole economic landscape on the horizon.
I pretty much focus on the macro economic changes that are taking place in this country, such as our coming oil independence and even becoming a major exporter, as well as the death of the American dream of home ownership. Neither of these are good or bad, just different, and will change the economic landscape. We still have yet to see the full impact of boomer retirements or of the move of retail sales to the Internet. The point being, we can't continue to measure things, or base our judgments on how things were in the past because they simply don't work anymore. Unfortunately, our government data is among the last to catch up with any new trends, as are most common investors.
Just all the better for those of us who can take advantage of the market stupidity.
Not that concerned. Any new rules would be phased in over time and I don't think BAC would have any issues meeting even higher capital rules, particularly now that the big settlements are probably over (notice the Feds waited until after all the settlements before moving). It's not the big banks that will suffer in the long run, it's bank customers. The banks will simply increase fees on services and institute fees on services that are currently free. In fact, I'm not all that bothered by the increased capital requirements at all. I simply don't think they will be as onerous as some seem to think.
If you are speaking of the virus in the Midwest, it is a known virus, just one that hasn't seen this much action in a long time. The problem has been correctly identifying it since the symptoms are so similar to the flu and other viruses. Nothing strange or sinister here.
It depends on what regs are put in place. Let's face it, the banks really are very big (not necessarily bad) and a failure of one of these big banks, such as BAC, will be very, very harmful to the US and world financial systems. Putting in a little extra protections isn't always a bad thing.
The Feds are simply trying to talk down what many people think is a bubble in the stock market, but the jury is still out on if's really a bubble or not. Personally, I don't think it is.
LOL! You do remember that this company has over 10 billion shares outstanding. 22 million is barely a blip on the radar.
Sorry, BAC's target is 8.5% and they beat that quite handily. WFC's target is 8% and both C and JPM are targeted at 9.5%
Most of this is old news. And BAC fared better than JPM in how much extra they are required to carry under the new rules. If I remember correctly BAC only needed an extra 1% compared to JPM's 2.5%.