Obama will probably come out and say it's one of the best managed banks he knows.

Possibly they could sell the second mortgages to the UAW? That way priority doesn't matter and they still have some value. <sarc>

Attila wrote..

Obama will probably come out and say it's one of the best managed banks he knows.

And no crimes were committed, either, Attila. Don't forget that, it's real important for shaping perceptions among the rubes voters: "No crimes were committed by my campaign donors these Big Banks."

Mcmwest wrote..

Possibly they could sell the second mortgages to the UAW? That way priority doesn't matter and they still have some value.

ROTFLMAO!!!

On second thought, we shouldn't be giving them any ideas...

liar gov ,believe the lie,all is good

Just make HELOC's non-dischargeable like student loan debt. Problem solved…now back to picking cotton.

If Obama had a bank it would be Citibank.

Quote:

If Obama had a bank it would be Citibank.

LOLZ !!! spit-up coffee on that one !!!!

Clearly, time for bonuses all around!

This explains why Citi has been paying out their bonused in cash vs. stock. They need to loot while the looting is still good.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41318294/Citigrou....

Quote:

Unlike other firms, Citigroup does not disclose how much money it sets aside for compensation in its investment banking unit. It is not known if the average bonus at the bank is higher or lower than last year. What is known is the firm is opening the salary spigots. It recently gave CEO Vikram Pandit a hefty raise to $1.75 million from the $1-a-year salary he has been taking since 2009, having vowed not to take anything more until the bank returned to sustained profitability. It did that in 2010, posting its first annual profit since 2007. Its five other named executives, including newly appointed President and COO John Havens and CFO John Gerspach, also well rewarded this year with total compensation for the five expected to range from $6,999,996 for Gerspach to $14,250,000 for Havens.

Like Citigroup, Bank of America increased cash payouts as well, though to levels that put senior management at its investment bank on par with firms like Morgan Stanley[MS 13.47 0.22 (+1.66%) ]. A person close to the firm said 80 percent of BofA's [BAC 7.24 0.09 (+1.26%) ] senior executives' bonuses are in restricted stock, with the remaining 20 percent being paid in cash. It is a bonus structure similar to the one for Morgan Stanley's senior executives, and a welcome change for BofA's senior team which received only five percent of their payout last year in cash.

The changes in Citigroup and BofA's bonus structures reflect the fact both are now free of compensation restrictions placed on them by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). As two of the seven firms that received exceptional assistance from the government during the financial crisis, pay at the firms was subject to oversight from the Special Master for Executive Compensation, Ken Feinberg. Late in 2009, both Citigroup and BofA repaid the government billions of dollars freeing them from these restrictions for 2010.

So what happens if you have a ****ibank credit card and owe $10,000 on it when ****ibank goes under? Can you simply stop your payments because the entity you owe the money to no longer exists? I'm just tempted to get a card with them and buy tons of guns, food and ammo.

When you think about saving CITI think this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX9k6gFX_....


and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Kpm-yHC....

So 4 more years and they are solvent?

Quote:

The pool includes subprime mortgage- backed securities the firm values at 10 cents on the dollar, as well as corporate bonds, loans, leases and letters of credit.

Read that again.

Citibank values the MBS in their pool at 10¢ on the dollar.

Are the Subprime MBS held by Citibank actually being Marked to Market?

No?

-IF these securities are 'non-performing' ( People are not making mortgage payments on their wildly underwater homes ), and Citibank has been unable to sell them; -then how are these securities being valued at all?




WAIT A MINUTE: Yet MORE Bankster bungling and lies:

JPMorgan sells off prime performing assets to cover part of the Whale Fail Losses !

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-w....

Quote:

Obama . . . it's one of the best managed banks he knows.

The sad - and scary thing - is that this is most likely a TRUE STATEMENT. Gives you much confidence in 'El Precedente' and all the other banks.... (and NO, I never had any confidence that he would do the right thing).

Quote:

Possibly they could sell the second mortgages to the UAW? That way priority doesn't matter and they still have some value. <sarc>

Why the sarc tag? This is actually a pretty good idea.

At least you know the UAW would do a good job at trying to make all those notes "money good"... They would be able to send out their, uuhhum, members (enforcers?!?) to "collect" on those mortgages and HELOC notes!!!

'Hi! We're from the UAW, and we're here to HELP you make your mortgage payments. We know it was just a minor oversight that you missed those payments, and you that you DO FULLY INTEND to pay us off since we now own the notes. It's for the children you know...


Oh ~ and by the way, while walking up your driveway, we noticed on that your Toyota Prius is all smashed up and the batteries are leaking. We can make you a great deal on one of our new and much better Volts!'

They should change the name of the TBTF banks to Privately Held RTC. The problem is who do we trust in this game?

For all you guys*****ing all over yourselves about the Fed creating excessive reserves, here is an article on how banks really work, instead of the nonsense we hear all the time. A bank has to have capital to operate. They get the reserves, when they need them through whatever means possible. Problem has been the past few years that the reserves were acquired on the good faith and credit of the banking system, which the bankers in general knew wasn't present.

http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/20....

Here is the honest to God truth and they can't tell us the honest to God truth or there would be bank runs. This truth is the banking system is nothing but a sum of the balance sheets of various banks and if the debts on the TBTF banks are insufficient to balance the credit side of the equation, then the solution has to come on the credit side of the equation. Putting government debt on the debit side of the equation is merely a silent method of screwing the holders of the non-equity holders of the credits, basically the depositors and bond holders. Paying the depositors with government debt does the same thing, as whether the debt is external or internal to the balance sheet, it can only be paid with the deposits insured.

A haircut has to be taken. It should be taken in this order. Shareholders equity, getting rid of management, firing the board, taking the stock either to zero or leaving such a minimal amount of ownership that the existing structure no longer has any power in the corporation. The remaining credits need to be resolved as to where the depositors and other creditors of the bank now own the bank with reduced funds available to them. I would haircut the bonds a fixed percentage and move the haircut to equity. Depositors would be haircut on a sliding scale, a certain amount, maybe $50,000 or $100,000 wouldn't be touched, then haircuts would be applied on a scaled manner, making the haircut the equity in the bank. There would be losses, but the haircut depositors and bond holders would own the banks, proportionally. Stock would trade and those that wanted their money would get much of it back in the market, should they choose to sell.

The debits on the balance sheet are owed by people without sufficient cash to pay them, either immediately or over time. The cash belongs to a different group of people and these people are being haircut through inflation, future taxes or a myriad of liabilities being created for them in the future.

What exists on one side of a bank ledger can only exist to the extent it exists on the other side. The entire scheme is internal and not external. What is a credit is all that can be used to pay the debits. Liquidity exists on the debit side, maybe, but the money is always on the credit side of the ledger. It is only money if the bank decides to make it money.

Debt deflation? This principal exists because as debt is repaid, credits disappear from the system. Fisher may have forgotten the other side of this, that as the debits rot, the credits have to go with them. The people with credit balances in the banking system can pay and thus no longer have their cash if they do pay. It is those that can't pay that the ponzi is about.

What Karl is basically saying is since the debits represented by this trash are overstated, so are the credits of capital and liabilities of the bank. This might really mean the depositors money isn't really there, as the assets to support the deposits are overstated, in part to prevent the resolution of the bank. Worse yet, as the time line implies, the bank can only be recapitalized over time, if everything remains the same. These dead men or zombies don't get up and walk on their own.