Not a problem.. please take your needs to the government and they will include it somewhere in this..
$2.4 trillion in commercial paper purchases by the Fed.
$2 trillion in other loans and pledges from the Fed.
$1.4 trillion in rescue committments, including higher deposits insurance. Bloomberg explains: "The FDIC, chaired by Sheila Bair, is contributing 20 percent of total rescue commitments. The FDICs $1.4 trillion in guarantees will amount to a bank subsidy of as much as $54 billion over three years, or $18 billion a year, because borrowers will pay a lower interest rate than they would on the open market, according to Raghu Sundurum and Viral Acharya of New York University and the London Business School."
$892 billion for the Treasury's TARP and other Hank Paulson rescues.
$300 billion from FHA to guarantee mortgages through the Hope for Homeowners program, designed to keep distressed borrowers from foreclosure.
$444 billion bailout bucks for Sheila Bair's mortgage program. Bloomberg: "Not included in the calculation of pledged funds is an FDIC proposal to prevent foreclosures by guaranteeing modifications on $444 billion in mortgages at an expected cost of $24.4 billion to be paid from the TARP, according to FDIC spokesman David Barr. The Treasury Department hasnt approved the program."
So with the housing modification plan, that's $7.8 trillion.
Your resignation is accepted. I mean really. What ever happened to accountability that came with authority? The people who didn't see this coming are clearly not competent in their positions. There's an easy and immediate cure for that. Maybe the next confrence caller providing guidance can do better. They certainly couldn't do worse. The solutions to some of these problems is obvious. The problem is who exactly will be putting the bell on the fat cats?
Yet another example of the progressives' lack of self-control, self-sacrifice and accountability. All these progressive bank and financial CEOs... where do they get off?!? Oh, wait...
On a serious note, as time goes on it just floors me how the "experts" still don't get it. The wholesale numbers reported earlier are a perfect example; predictions were way rosier than reality.
Because the government has most of their downside risk now, even if their revenue generation is somewhat dysfunctional at the moment? Worst case would be they just don't lose any more money. Just my guess though.
These companies are toast. Why the enormous rally?
Because facing reality is something they'd rather put off for a while.
This reminds me a lot of last spring. The worse the numbers were, the more we rallied. Lots of talk of second half recovery and "looking across the valley".
Because the government has most of their downside risk now, even if their revenue generation is somewhat dysfunctional at the moment? Worst case would be they just don't lose any more money. Just my guess though.
Mr. Sparkle | Homepage | 01.06.09 - 2:39 pm | #
Quite right. We certainly don't see a recurrence of third quarter losses in the foreseeable future.
Equities are rallying as its not only contained but its understood and managed.....in reality its like that horror moment in the movie...don't open the door...aaarrrggghhh
Some are overestimating the importance of the level of the dollar and of foreign buying of treasury debt, etc. While probably there isn't even an issue, since as America goes....so goes the world, still we'd be better off with the dollar devalued some (say 30-40%) and self-financing ourselves. It's called reality, and we can thrive in it.
The issue re the dollar and foreign flows, etc. has a lot to do with China, which has problems of its own. Managing to avoid a flareup will be an accomplishment.
AP'Shadow asked "Poor visability...Please experts tell me what this ACTUALLY means."
Well - in accounting-speak, the Loan Loss Provision is the accrued Expense for the period (the estimated amount of loans that will default, net of recoveries).
Debit - Loan Loss Expense
Credit - Loan Loss Reserve.
Note - the bank doesn't "write-off" any specific loans at this time - because it doesn't know precisely who will, in-fact default.
The "charge-offs" are the amount of specific loans that have in-fact defaulted and the bank is "writing-off" those specific loan assets.
Debit - Loan Loss Reserve
Credit - Loan Portfolio
The net effect on the increase in the Loan Loss Provision is that the bank's Assets and its Net Income/Equity (aka Capital) are lower. Thus, the bank becomes less solvent and (in bank regulator-speak) less-well capitalized.
If you're asking what this means about the economy - then, it's clear that the recession is deepening and more home mortgages, auto-loans, credit cards, commercial real estate loans,etc. will go into default, and the securities, which are backed by these assets will continue to lose value.
Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota
State Bank of Park Rapids issued cease-and-desist order from FDIC
The order itself is far from anything that would even remotely suggest any kind of closing, said State Bank executive vice-president Tom Ogaard.
I agree with dunnage. It may be many, many quarters before the bank's charge-offs decline to the level of the 3rd Q. It was an example of sloppy thinking on the part of the analysts on the call to assume that the speaker was referring to a ceiling, and not a floor.
Oh well
"we certainly don't see a recurrence of the third quarter charge-off level in the immediate future"
You guys need to read things in a more lawyerly manner. The above statement can easily be construed as either positive or negative. Obviously, they want to give it a positive spin, but here's the opposite.
Example "We don't see a recurrence of the 3rd Q charge off" does not preclude that management might expect them to actually be higher than Q3.
It's always important to nail people down. For example a good follow up would have been "Do you expect Q4 to be higher or lower than Q3?"
Millions? Is that like the new dollar?
It depends on what "immediate" is. And "see".
And "certainly"...
UCBI should've stopped at "we certainly don't see"...
Did they preface it with 'hoocoodanode?'
Is there a point in having a board if company execs can pull this stuff and still have a job at the end of the day?
Unreal.
We need an Immediate Future Czar !
Poor visability...Please experts tell me what this ACTUALLY means.
@Windowdog - yes, because the execs can thereby scratch the backs of several of their friends as well!
Clearly they meant no more charge-offs for the third quarter.
It's sort of scary when bankers have no idea what is going on in their business.
Forget sort of, it's extremely frightening!
CR - is there going to be another conference call?
74 is less than 76.
Not a problem.. please take your needs to the government and they will include it somewhere in this..
$2.4 trillion in commercial paper purchases by the Fed.
$2 trillion in other loans and pledges from the Fed.
$1.4 trillion in rescue committments, including higher deposits insurance. Bloomberg explains: "The FDIC, chaired by Sheila Bair, is contributing 20 percent of total rescue commitments. The FDICs $1.4 trillion in guarantees will amount to a bank subsidy of as much as $54 billion over three years, or $18 billion a year, because borrowers will pay a lower interest rate than they would on the open market, according to Raghu Sundurum and Viral Acharya of New York University and the London Business School."
$892 billion for the Treasury's TARP and other Hank Paulson rescues.
$300 billion from FHA to guarantee mortgages through the Hope for Homeowners program, designed to keep distressed borrowers from foreclosure.
$444 billion bailout bucks for Sheila Bair's mortgage program. Bloomberg: "Not included in the calculation of pledged funds is an FDIC proposal to prevent foreclosures by guaranteeing modifications on $444 billion in mortgages at an expected cost of $24.4 billion to be paid from the TARP, according to FDIC spokesman David Barr. The Treasury Department hasnt approved the program."
So with the housing modification plan, that's $7.8 trillion.
Your resignation is accepted. I mean really. What ever happened to accountability that came with authority? The people who didn't see this coming are clearly not competent in their positions. There's an easy and immediate cure for that. Maybe the next confrence caller providing guidance can do better. They certainly couldn't do worse. The solutions to some of these problems is obvious. The problem is who exactly will be putting the bell on the fat cats?
Disregard my last post.
There was a bubble in bankers and most weren't qualified.
dryfly, probably. But I'm not sure when. I hope an analysts pulls out that previous quote!
best wishes
draining the srs pool
Send them to Germany and toss 'em under a train!
we certainly don't see a recurrence of the [glory days of the small] third quarter charge-off level in the immediate future.
Speaking of banking holding companies...
Figures that the GMAC Bowl would consist of a matchup between Tulsa and Ball State.
Why is this even a bowl, except that ESPN has managed to charge all cable subscribers a couple of pennies for it?
Either an unforgiveable level of cluelessness, or blatant dishonesty.
This is why you shouldn't talk during conference calls. Just nod and grunt.
Sorry if this has already been posted. Under the categories of containment and decoupling:
Toyota orders 11-day output halt as sales slump
Yahoo! 404 - Page Not Found
A sweeping suspension of domestic production is almost unprecedented. In 1993, Toyota halted output for one day as a strong yen hammered sales.
This sounds encouraging, doesn't it? (New York)
The state's unemployment insurance claims systems crashed today after more than 10,000 people were calling it every hour.
ever been a better time to buy or sell the "immediate future"
PRU, HIG
"Toyota orders 11-day output halt as sales slump..."
The article also goes on to state that Toyota will now pay their employees in cars only and they will only serve windshields in the company cafeteria.
Downside risk to growth remains substantial
anyone!
bottom?
what's the upside to negative gdp?
Yet another example of the progressives' lack of self-control, self-sacrifice and accountability. All these progressive bank and financial CEOs... where do they get off?!? Oh, wait...
On a serious note, as time goes on it just floors me how the "experts" still don't get it. The wholesale numbers reported earlier are a perfect example; predictions were way rosier than reality.
The zombies are throwing a party today.
HIG, PRU, MET, SPG, GS, financials, CRE. Absolutely amazing.
These companies are toast. Why the enormous rally?
Fed's own inflationary expectations being exceeded by downside risks to future growth in deflationary expectations.
go bulls, beat navy !!
This is typical of a mid-cycle slowdown.
"what's the upside to negative gdp?
BottomCallTabulatorMatrix "
Ever eat an upside down pineapple cake while standing on the ceiling?
These companies are toast. Why the enormous rally?
Gavshire Hathaway
they just finished monetizing their ust holding's. pump into new year, sold into new year buyers last three days. good for 100billion in eps.
These companies are toast. Why the enormous rally?
Gavshire Hathaway | 01.06.09 - 2:35 pm | #
Clearly to make me bitter.
Gavshire,
Because the government has most of their downside risk now, even if their revenue generation is somewhat dysfunctional at the moment? Worst case would be they just don't lose any more money. Just my guess though.
These companies are toast. Why the enormous rally?
Because facing reality is something they'd rather put off for a while.
This reminds me a lot of last spring. The worse the numbers were, the more we rallied. Lots of talk of second half recovery and "looking across the valley".
And they weren't even desperate back then.
Hmm, TLT / TBT do not seem to be giving much credibility to the Fed's pledge to hold long-term Treasury rates down...
It also looks like TBT might be a better way to short treasuries than shorting TLT (and not just because of the leverage)...
Because the government has most of their downside risk now, even if their revenue generation is somewhat dysfunctional at the moment? Worst case would be they just don't lose any more money. Just my guess though.
Mr. Sparkle | Homepage | 01.06.09 - 2:39 pm | #
Quite right. We certainly don't see a recurrence of third quarter losses in the foreseeable future.
Equities are rallying as its not only contained but its understood and managed.....in reality its like that horror moment in the movie...don't open the door...aaarrrggghhh
anyway to spite my SRS poor performance I've bought SPY puts and sold my DXO longs....aaahh now I'm back on the short bus
Some are overestimating the importance of the level of the dollar and of foreign buying of treasury debt, etc. While probably there isn't even an issue, since as America goes....so goes the world, still we'd be better off with the dollar devalued some (say 30-40%) and self-financing ourselves. It's called reality, and we can thrive in it.
The issue re the dollar and foreign flows, etc. has a lot to do with China, which has problems of its own. Managing to avoid a flareup will be an accomplishment.
So much cash sloshing 'round, bubble, bubble toil and trouble....
My apologies to William.
The sky is falling...
Safe Haven | Is America Broke Part II -- The Debt God
If only we had read the Constitution in grade school...tsk...tsk..tsk
AP'Shadow asked "Poor visability...Please experts tell me what this ACTUALLY means."
Well - in accounting-speak, the Loan Loss Provision is the accrued Expense for the period (the estimated amount of loans that will default, net of recoveries).
Debit - Loan Loss Expense
Credit - Loan Loss Reserve.
Note - the bank doesn't "write-off" any specific loans at this time - because it doesn't know precisely who will, in-fact default.
The "charge-offs" are the amount of specific loans that have in-fact defaulted and the bank is "writing-off" those specific loan assets.
Debit - Loan Loss Reserve
Credit - Loan Portfolio
The net effect on the increase in the Loan Loss Provision is that the bank's Assets and its Net Income/Equity (aka Capital) are lower. Thus, the bank becomes less solvent and (in bank regulator-speak) less-well capitalized.
If you're asking what this means about the economy - then, it's clear that the recession is deepening and more home mortgages, auto-loans, credit cards, commercial real estate loans,etc. will go into default, and the securities, which are backed by these assets will continue to lose value.
Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota
State Bank of Park Rapids issued cease-and-desist order from FDIC
The order itself is far from anything that would even remotely suggest any kind of closing, said State Bank executive vice-president Tom Ogaard.
(yeah, right...)
Wrong. Unjustifiable criticism. The 4thQ. was not a recurrence of the 3rdQ level. It was higher.
...it depends on what the meaning of "is"...is...bwahahahahahaha
Bank of America, Li Ka-Shing Reduce China Bank Stakes (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Bank of America selling big chunk of Chinese bank it bought in November at a large discount. Sounds a bit desperate to me.
I agree with dunnage. It may be many, many quarters before the bank's charge-offs decline to the level of the 3rd Q. It was an example of sloppy thinking on the part of the analysts on the call to assume that the speaker was referring to a ceiling, and not a floor.
Oh well
o worries, wall st knew and already had it priced in.
what a line of hooey
"we certainly don't see a recurrence of the third quarter charge-off level in the immediate future"
You guys need to read things in a more lawyerly manner. The above statement can easily be construed as either positive or negative. Obviously, they want to give it a positive spin, but here's the opposite.
Example "We don't see a recurrence of the 3rd Q charge off" does not preclude that management might expect them to actually be higher than Q3.
It's always important to nail people down. For example a good follow up would have been "Do you expect Q4 to be higher or lower than Q3?"
"we certainly don't see a recurrence of the third quarter charge-off level in the immediate future"
but in the next 3 months, well that's a different story.
I think it is quite possible that United Community Banks could fail before they see charge-offs near the $56 million level again.