Cramer's Stop Trading! One of the Best-Run Banks in the World (8/20/09) [View article]
I had owned WHR for its dividend for many years, selling it all when it got to the mid-80's a couple of years ago, which I thought was too rich a valuation, even with the then thriving house-ATM bubble.
Earlier this year, I again loaded up on it in the low-30's to low 20's, expecting to hold it for many years. However, the unexpected generosity of those who wished to pay mid-50's to low-60's for it overcame my desire to hold it long-term, and I confess that I had to let them have it. I hope I can buy it back at a lower price, but, if not, I am grateful for such an unexpected, quick and tidy profit.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Almost a footnote at the end of the page: "Georgia-based Southern Community Bank's closure will cost the FDIC $114M. North Carolina-based Cooperative Bank's closure will cost the FDIC $217M. Kansas-based First National Bank of Anthony's closure will cost the FDIC $32.2M."
These add up to roughly $365m, which is roughly the cost to the taxpayers of the entire real estate crash of the late 1980's.
In other words, the total cost to the taxpayers of the previous, disastrous real estate crash of twenty years ago is now treated as a minor footnote, repeated on a weekly basis, and almost unnoticed. Last time, fraudulent bankers were led in chains by the FBI, and this time they are getting bonuses. Is this the "change we can believe in" ?
Preview from Europe: All Fools' Day [View article]
As usual a great, succinct and witty summary. You state that suspending mark-to-market would allow bankers to "...... run their firms with little or no capital and leverage them to the hilt creating the biggest credit bubble the world has ever known ....".
I was under the impression that this has already come to pass.
S&P 500 Watch: March 'Winners' Are Actually the Biggest Losers [View article]
Thanks for an informative analysis. When the market was near its lows I had argued that sound stocks were by no means "cheap"; and that the low SP500 was more due to some of its constituents being demolished, rather than due to its good companies becoming "cheap". This was just an observation, now bolstered by your excellent analysis, which says that the demolished ones have stirred back to life in the ER, boosting the SP500.
I still maintain that at current levels stocks are not "cheap" except relative to the bubble era. Dividends are being slashed at astonsihing rates, and historically, companies which drastically cut dividends have restored them slowly, if at all. Thus, I expect SP500 dividends will not climb back to 2007 levels for many years, and this suggests to me that stocks will be worth less than they were in 2007 for many years as well.
Google: Priced for a Severe Recession? [View article]
I am not so sure that 13x trailing earnings is such a great bargain as we enter into what may be a long recession that can decimate advertizing revenues.
Cramer's Stop Trading! One of the Best-Run Banks in the World (8/20/09) [View article]
Earlier this year, I again loaded up on it in the low-30's to low 20's, expecting to hold it for many years. However, the unexpected generosity of those who wished to pay mid-50's to low-60's for it overcame my desire to hold it long-term, and I confess that I had to let them have it. I hope I can buy it back at a lower price, but, if not, I am grateful for such an unexpected, quick and tidy profit.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
These add up to roughly $365m, which is roughly the cost to the taxpayers of the entire real estate crash of the late 1980's.
In other words, the total cost to the taxpayers of the previous, disastrous real estate crash of twenty years ago is now treated as a minor footnote, repeated on a weekly basis, and almost unnoticed. Last time, fraudulent bankers were led in chains by the FBI, and this time they are getting bonuses. Is this the "change we can believe in" ?
Preview from Europe: All Fools' Day [View article]
I was under the impression that this has already come to pass.
S&P 500 Watch: March 'Winners' Are Actually the Biggest Losers [View article]
I still maintain that at current levels stocks are not "cheap" except relative to the bubble era. Dividends are being slashed at astonsihing rates, and historically, companies which drastically cut dividends have restored them slowly, if at all. Thus, I expect SP500 dividends will not climb back to 2007 levels for many years, and this suggests to me that stocks will be worth less than they were in 2007 for many years as well.
Google: Priced for a Severe Recession? [View article]