Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Meredith Whitney's firm owns one of Canada's largest banks. Is it any wonder they bash all other banks? Don't believe me? look up her wikipedia entry. Talk about conflict of interest.
But it has to stay under 5 several days. This will bounce big next week after "agressive bank saving plan" is unveiled.
Hope you're right Mr. Bill. That "agressive" bank plan better be good. Otherwise, these financials could take the entire market down a couple of notches.
As it is we're already looking over the edge of the cliff down to the abyss.
Agreed. The manipulation has been INSANE on both C and BAC these last couple of days. What gives?
No problem Thanks!!
Hey guys is it safe to say this one is trading in a channel?
OFG
Please advise.
How are you guys feelin' about Ford today? It's rated as a buy from AmericanBulls.com
Link at the bottom of your post is broken-- fyi
February 2, 2009: Genta Incorporated (OTCBB: GNTA | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating) announced today that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., will provide a company overview and update of corporate activities at the 11th annual BIO CEO & Investor Conference. The presentation is scheduled for Monday, February 9th at 10:00 am ET at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, NY. In addition, Dr. Warrell will be a panelist in the BIO CEO therapeutic workshop, "Oncology: The Forecast for the Melanoma Market-Partly Sunny or Mostly Cloudy", at 12:30 pm (ET) on Tuesday, February 10th. Expert panelists include Dr. Gary Schwartz, Chief, Melanoma/Sarcoma Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Dr. Anna Pavlick, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Dermatology, and Director of the NYU Cancer Institute Melanoma Research Program, NYU Medical Center, who is an investigator on the Company's Phase 3 AGENDA trial of Genasense in patients with advanced melanoma. The presentation will be webcast and accessible at the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at: http://www.genta.com/investorrelation/events.html. The presentation will be archived for 30 days. The panel will not be webcast.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2158112/
Wall St Journal: Obama's Dangerous Bank Bailout
Restoring Citi and BofA to greatness shouldn't be the goal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371119661046143.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
Team Obama is wrestling internally over the bank bailout supposedly to be introduced next week. We naturally are on the edge of our seats.
[Business World] AP
But let's understand something: The taxpayer already stands behind the banking system, and is on the hook for its losses in one sense or another. Moreover, that guarantee has become more and more explicit in recent months -- which is not an unmixed blessing, since such explicitness has tended to create new uncertainty among those stakeholders not specifically included in the safety net.
The main uncertainty lately has been whether the safety net includes bank shareholders as well as depositors and creditors. That uncertainty is why we have crazy gyrations in bank share prices, and yet don't have bank runs. Citigroup's shareholders only account these days for a measly $20 billion, in a bank with liabilities of $2 trillion -- yet market speculation over their fate has seemed to be driving government actions.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Here we see the downside of explicitness. By committing specific sums to given banks, policy makers only ended up inviting new speculation about what happens when those cushions are exhausted by fresh accounting writedowns. And now Team Obama seems about to recapitulate this folly with another round of explicit guarantees.
By current leakage, their plan will consist of explicit government insurance for certain bad assets and explicit purchases of other bad assets to be held by a so-called bad bank. For the months or years, then, that it takes to put the plan into effect, the market will have to speculate anew about how each bank's assets will be valued for bailout purposes.
Yet there is a solution better than trying to finalize a division of losses whose size won't be known for years to come. That solution is time, the healer of all wounds.
Remember, this is not the S&L crisis of the 1980s, when hundreds of small banks were incentivized by poor regulation to try to gamble their way out of self-made holes. Today's problems are concentrated on the balance sheets of the biggest, most visible banks. Little banks are relatively easy to close or force into mergers. Banks that are "too big to fail" aren't too big for government to manhandle in a crisis; it's just that the solution is not the same as for a small bank.
Which raises the question: Why not just leave Citi and BofA's bad assets where they are, albeit with regulators sitting at management's elbow to make sure their losses are being conservatively worked off and no wild gambles on resurrection are being taken? The losses would stay with bank shareholders, even if it took 15 years of cash flow to work them off. There'd be no perplexing muddle over how to value assets for bailout purposes. And because the shareholders' stake (much diminished) would remain intact, there'd be every incentive to manage the assets well while minimizing the risk of a bottomless mess like government has made of AIG.
But now we come to the most dangerous assumption underlying the rumored Obama approach -- the idea that we need something called Citi and BofA quickly liberated from their past mistakes so they can go back to serving as the engines of the economy.
They aren't the engines of the economy -- we have a vast and diversified financial sector. Today's real problem is a shortage of reliable borrowers, especially given the uncertainty about house prices. Washington's misguided goal, if you listen closely, seems to be turning these giant banks into public utilities to "jumpstart lending" under political duress. That is, shoveling money at an overleveraged private sector in hopes of stopping the economy from shrinking and markets from clearing.
We should keep in mind that Japan's "lost decade" wasn't so much an accident as a deliberate decision to avoid a rash of foreclosures and bankruptcies and layoffs that might disturb a somnolent "harmony." Whether or not that was the right choice for the Japanese, the U.S. is a different country, and would probably react differently, and not well, to a prolonged government-sponsored stagnation. Yet that's where the Obama bailout may be leading us.
Wall St Journal: Obama's Dangerous Bank Bailout
Restoring Citi and BofA to greatness shouldn't be the goal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371119661046143.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
Team Obama is wrestling internally over the bank bailout supposedly to be introduced next week. We naturally are on the edge of our seats.
[Business World] AP
But let's understand something: The taxpayer already stands behind the banking system, and is on the hook for its losses in one sense or another. Moreover, that guarantee has become more and more explicit in recent months -- which is not an unmixed blessing, since such explicitness has tended to create new uncertainty among those stakeholders not specifically included in the safety net.
The main uncertainty lately has been whether the safety net includes bank shareholders as well as depositors and creditors. That uncertainty is why we have crazy gyrations in bank share prices, and yet don't have bank runs. Citigroup's shareholders only account these days for a measly $20 billion, in a bank with liabilities of $2 trillion -- yet market speculation over their fate has seemed to be driving government actions.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Here we see the downside of explicitness. By committing specific sums to given banks, policy makers only ended up inviting new speculation about what happens when those cushions are exhausted by fresh accounting writedowns. And now Team Obama seems about to recapitulate this folly with another round of explicit guarantees.
By current leakage, their plan will consist of explicit government insurance for certain bad assets and explicit purchases of other bad assets to be held by a so-called bad bank. For the months or years, then, that it takes to put the plan into effect, the market will have to speculate anew about how each bank's assets will be valued for bailout purposes.
Yet there is a solution better than trying to finalize a division of losses whose size won't be known for years to come. That solution is time, the healer of all wounds.
Remember, this is not the S&L crisis of the 1980s, when hundreds of small banks were incentivized by poor regulation to try to gamble their way out of self-made holes. Today's problems are concentrated on the balance sheets of the biggest, most visible banks. Little banks are relatively easy to close or force into mergers. Banks that are "too big to fail" aren't too big for government to manhandle in a crisis; it's just that the solution is not the same as for a small bank.
Which raises the question: Why not just leave Citi and BofA's bad assets where they are, albeit with regulators sitting at management's elbow to make sure their losses are being conservatively worked off and no wild gambles on resurrection are being taken? The losses would stay with bank shareholders, even if it took 15 years of cash flow to work them off. There'd be no perplexing muddle over how to value assets for bailout purposes. And because the shareholders' stake (much diminished) would remain intact, there'd be every incentive to manage the assets well while minimizing the risk of a bottomless mess like government has made of AIG.
But now we come to the most dangerous assumption underlying the rumored Obama approach -- the idea that we need something called Citi and BofA quickly liberated from their past mistakes so they can go back to serving as the engines of the economy.
They aren't the engines of the economy -- we have a vast and diversified financial sector. Today's real problem is a shortage of reliable borrowers, especially given the uncertainty about house prices. Washington's misguided goal, if you listen closely, seems to be turning these giant banks into public utilities to "jumpstart lending" under political duress. That is, shoveling money at an overleveraged private sector in hopes of stopping the economy from shrinking and markets from clearing.
We should keep in mind that Japan's "lost decade" wasn't so much an accident as a deliberate decision to avoid a rash of foreclosures and bankruptcies and layoffs that might disturb a somnolent "harmony." Whether or not that was the right choice for the Japanese, the U.S. is a different country, and would probably react differently, and not well, to a prolonged government-sponsored stagnation. Yet that's where the Obama bailout may be leading us.
Toxic-Asset Guarantees Gain Momentum in U.S. Bank-Rescue Talks
Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, aiming to overhaul the $700 billion financial-rescue program, is refocusing on an effort to guarantee illiquid assets against losses without taking them off banks’ balance sheets.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is skeptical of setting up a so-called bad bank to hold the toxic securities, an option that still may form part of the final package, people familiar with the matter said. Senator Charles Schumer yesterday said debt guarantees are becoming “a favorite choice” of options because a bad bank would be too costly.
The debate comes as some former officials warn against measures that stop short of stripping banks of the illiquid investments tied to mortgages and related securities. Government protection for $400 billion of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. assets hasn’t sparked investor confidence in the firms’ viability.
“The tough decisions need to be made,” Frederic Mishkin, a former Federal Reserve governor and research collaborator with Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “You have to make sure that when all is said and done, you actually have financial firms that are either healthy and the ones that are not healthy can’t stay in business.”
Mishkin, a Columbia University professor, and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson both yesterday advocated government interventions that would split banks into “good” and “bad” units. The “good” parts should later be sold off to private investors, they said.
Three Parts
The administration has said it will likely announce a comprehensive plan for revising the Troubled Asset Relief Program early next week and that nothing has been settled. It is likely to use a multi-pronged approach that includes the asset wraps, some type of an aggregator bank and a mortgage foreclosure relief strategy.
With the deliberations likely to extend into the third week of Obama’s term, it is clear that settling on a program is more difficult than expected.
“The financial package, whatever they’re going to do, has to be the centerpiece” of the administration’s response to the economic crisis, said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University professor who serves with Geithner and White House economics director Lawrence Summers on the Group of Thirty counselors on financial matters. “I’ve been a little disappointed that we haven’t seen it already” he said in a Jan. 30 Bloomberg Television interview from Davos, Switzerland.
‘Two Problems’
Schumer, a New York Democrat who is on the Senate Banking Committee, said there are two problems with the bad bank, also known as an aggregator bank, solution. It would probably be “very expensive,” costing as much as $4 trillion. “Second, it’s very hard to value those assets,” and the prices could be set “so low that every other bank would go bankrupt.”
While debt backstops were used to help Citigroup and Bank of America, their share prices have fallen further. Citigroup is down 8.2 percent since Nov. 23, when the Treasury announced plans to protect the bank from losses on a $306 billion pile of troubled U.S. home loans, commercial mortgages, subprime debt and corporate loans.
Bank of America has lost 36.3 percent since the Jan. 16 government agreement to guarantee a $118 billion asset pool.
Executive Pay
As part of its overhaul of the TARP, the administration also will tighten rules on executive compensation for some recipients of taxpayer funds.
President Barack Obama reiterated in a CNN interview his concern that Wall Street executives are “still getting huge bonuses despite that fact that they’re getting taxpayer money.” He said he’ll unveil today new limits on executive compensation.
“You’ve got a banking system that is close to a meltdown, and we’ve got to figure out how to intelligently get credit flowing again” to small businesses and consumers, Obama also told CNN’s Anderson Cooper yesterday.
Larger firms getting “exceptional” public financing will likely see bans on severance payments for the top five executives and, along with 50 other senior officers, face limits on their bonus pools of 60 percent of 2007 levels, according to the Treasury. The department also will likely require that major expenses, such as aircraft or conferences in exotic locales, get prior government approval.
With Geithner in his second week on the job, some Republicans in Congress are looking to the new Treasury secretary to provide some clarity about the next steps.
“The seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense of direction,” House Republicans including Minority Leader John Boehner said in a letter yesterday to Geithner.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arG13cCBPnHY
Toxic-Asset Guarantees Gain Momentum in U.S. Bank-Rescue Talks
Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, aiming to overhaul the $700 billion financial-rescue program, is refocusing on an effort to guarantee illiquid assets against losses without taking them off banks’ balance sheets.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is skeptical of setting up a so-called bad bank to hold the toxic securities, an option that still may form part of the final package, people familiar with the matter said. Senator Charles Schumer yesterday said debt guarantees are becoming “a favorite choice” of options because a bad bank would be too costly.
The debate comes as some former officials warn against measures that stop short of stripping banks of the illiquid investments tied to mortgages and related securities. Government protection for $400 billion of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. assets hasn’t sparked investor confidence in the firms’ viability.
“The tough decisions need to be made,” Frederic Mishkin, a former Federal Reserve governor and research collaborator with Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “You have to make sure that when all is said and done, you actually have financial firms that are either healthy and the ones that are not healthy can’t stay in business.”
Mishkin, a Columbia University professor, and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson both yesterday advocated government interventions that would split banks into “good” and “bad” units. The “good” parts should later be sold off to private investors, they said.
Three Parts
The administration has said it will likely announce a comprehensive plan for revising the Troubled Asset Relief Program early next week and that nothing has been settled. It is likely to use a multi-pronged approach that includes the asset wraps, some type of an aggregator bank and a mortgage foreclosure relief strategy.
With the deliberations likely to extend into the third week of Obama’s term, it is clear that settling on a program is more difficult than expected.
“The financial package, whatever they’re going to do, has to be the centerpiece” of the administration’s response to the economic crisis, said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University professor who serves with Geithner and White House economics director Lawrence Summers on the Group of Thirty counselors on financial matters. “I’ve been a little disappointed that we haven’t seen it already” he said in a Jan. 30 Bloomberg Television interview from Davos, Switzerland.
‘Two Problems’
Schumer, a New York Democrat who is on the Senate Banking Committee, said there are two problems with the bad bank, also known as an aggregator bank, solution. It would probably be “very expensive,” costing as much as $4 trillion. “Second, it’s very hard to value those assets,” and the prices could be set “so low that every other bank would go bankrupt.”
While debt backstops were used to help Citigroup and Bank of America, their share prices have fallen further. Citigroup is down 8.2 percent since Nov. 23, when the Treasury announced plans to protect the bank from losses on a $306 billion pile of troubled U.S. home loans, commercial mortgages, subprime debt and corporate loans.
Bank of America has lost 36.3 percent since the Jan. 16 government agreement to guarantee a $118 billion asset pool.
Executive Pay
As part of its overhaul of the TARP, the administration also will tighten rules on executive compensation for some recipients of taxpayer funds.
President Barack Obama reiterated in a CNN interview his concern that Wall Street executives are “still getting huge bonuses despite that fact that they’re getting taxpayer money.” He said he’ll unveil today new limits on executive compensation.
“You’ve got a banking system that is close to a meltdown, and we’ve got to figure out how to intelligently get credit flowing again” to small businesses and consumers, Obama also told CNN’s Anderson Cooper yesterday.
Larger firms getting “exceptional” public financing will likely see bans on severance payments for the top five executives and, along with 50 other senior officers, face limits on their bonus pools of 60 percent of 2007 levels, according to the Treasury. The department also will likely require that major expenses, such as aircraft or conferences in exotic locales, get prior government approval.
With Geithner in his second week on the job, some Republicans in Congress are looking to the new Treasury secretary to provide some clarity about the next steps.
“The seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense of direction,” House Republicans including Minority Leader John Boehner said in a letter yesterday to Geithner.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arG13cCBPnHY
Senator casts doubt on 'bad bank' plan for toxic loans
Financial shares took another sharp hit today, on an otherwise up day for the stock market overall.
Some traders blamed continued confusion over the government’s next step in the financial-system rescue -– specifically, whether the Obama administration would seek to create a "bad bank" to buy up garbage loans from banks, or try something else.
Charleschumer The bad-bank idea had been gaining traction in Washington in recent weeks as a way to remove rotten assets from banks’ books once and for all. But today, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) threw cold water on the concept.
From Bloomberg News:
Schumer said the Obama administration should provide guarantees for the toxic assets clogging lenders’ balance sheets, rather than set up a "bad bank" to purchase them.
There are "two problems" with the bad bank, also known as an aggregator bank, solution, Schumer said. It would probably be "very expensive," costing as much as $4 trillion. "Second, it’s very hard to value those assets," and the prices could be set "so low that every other bank would go bankrupt."
If the bad bank bought toxic loans at rock-bottom prices, other banks could be forced to mark down similar securities they hold, wiping out another chunk of their capital.
By contrast, providing government insurance for bad loans, while leaving them on banks’ books, could fence off those assets without forcing big markdowns in the banking system.
But the insurance idea potentially leaves the banks to collect on any better-than-expected recovery of the loans, while taxpayers would eat the losses if the loans worsened. It’s the old "Heads I win, tails you lose," although the government could benefit in part by demanding stock options in the banks as payment for the insurance.
In any case, the government already has used the insurance option on big blocks of troubled assets at Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. in the last few months. That hasn’t made investors feel much better about those banks, judging by the action in their stocks.
Citigroup fell 19 cents to $3.46 today, and is down 48% year to date. Bank of America fell 70 cents to $5.30. BofA shares are down 62% this year, and are nearing the multiyear closing low of $5.10 reached on Jan. 20.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/02/bad-bank-financ.html
Senator casts doubt on 'bad bank' plan for toxic loans
Financial shares took another sharp hit today, on an otherwise up day for the stock market overall.
Some traders blamed continued confusion over the government’s next step in the financial-system rescue -– specifically, whether the Obama administration would seek to create a "bad bank" to buy up garbage loans from banks, or try something else.
Charleschumer The bad-bank idea had been gaining traction in Washington in recent weeks as a way to remove rotten assets from banks’ books once and for all. But today, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) threw cold water on the concept.
From Bloomberg News:
Schumer said the Obama administration should provide guarantees for the toxic assets clogging lenders’ balance sheets, rather than set up a "bad bank" to purchase them.
There are "two problems" with the bad bank, also known as an aggregator bank, solution, Schumer said. It would probably be "very expensive," costing as much as $4 trillion. "Second, it’s very hard to value those assets," and the prices could be set "so low that every other bank would go bankrupt."
If the bad bank bought toxic loans at rock-bottom prices, other banks could be forced to mark down similar securities they hold, wiping out another chunk of their capital.
By contrast, providing government insurance for bad loans, while leaving them on banks’ books, could fence off those assets without forcing big markdowns in the banking system.
But the insurance idea potentially leaves the banks to collect on any better-than-expected recovery of the loans, while taxpayers would eat the losses if the loans worsened. It’s the old "Heads I win, tails you lose," although the government could benefit in part by demanding stock options in the banks as payment for the insurance.
In any case, the government already has used the insurance option on big blocks of troubled assets at Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. in the last few months. That hasn’t made investors feel much better about those banks, judging by the action in their stocks.
Citigroup fell 19 cents to $3.46 today, and is down 48% year to date. Bank of America fell 70 cents to $5.30. BofA shares are down 62% this year, and are nearing the multiyear closing low of $5.10 reached on Jan. 20.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/02/bad-bank-financ.html
Agreed. They are like wearing a ball and chain, while trying to swim.
I will become a spinoff. Read the news. Who cares how it's valued? C will be the strong bank.
Shareholder Lawsuit Over Wyeth Acquisition By Pfizer As ‘Too Low' Filed
2009-02-03 06:53:59 - A Wyeth shareholder (NYSE: WYE) filed a lawsuit over the proposed acquisition of Wyeth by Pfizer and asked a federal judge to block the drugmaker's sale, saying that it's 'unlawful and unenforceable'.
On January 27, 2009 a Wyeth shareholder filed a lawsuit over the proposed acquisition of Wyeth by Pfizer. The plaintiff asked a federal judge to block the drugmaker's sale, saying that it's 'unlawful and unenforceable', the $68 billion offer is too low. and that Wyeth directors failed to get the best price in the sale announced Jan. 26, breaching their fiduciary duty. According to the complaint the offer is 'unfair and grossly inadequate because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Wyeth's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered'.
If you currently hold Wyeth (NYSE:WYE) shares, you have certain options and you should contact the Shareholders Foundation Inc. immediately! E-mail Mail(at)ShareholdersFoundation.com or call us at +1-858-779-1554. The plaintiff asked the judge to halt the transaction until Madison-based Wyeth adopts 'a procedure or process to obtain a merger agreement providing the best possible terms for shareholders.' Pfizer agreed to pay a $4.5 billion breakup fee if banks decide against lending the drugmaker enough to complete the acquisition.
Pfizer Inc. shares have fallen 16 percent in the week since the company announced it would buy Wyeth, cutting the value of the cash and stock transaction by about $3.8 billion, or 5.6 percent, to $64.2 billion. The acquisition would give Pfizer the depression pill Effexor and pneumonia vaccine Prevnar to offset some of the $12 billion in sales it begins losing in 2011 when cholesterol pill Lipitor, which generates a quarter of the company's revenue, faces generic competition. The world's largest pharmaceuticals maker Pfizer Inc announced last Monday that it would purchase Wyeth in a deal worth 68 billion dollars. Pfizer announced to acquire Wyeth (NYSE:WYE) for $33 in cash and 0.985 of a share of PFE stock. Pfizer will pay roughly $49.44, based on a $16.70 in trading before the market opened from Friday's close of $17.45. Bloomberg subsequently reported that investment banks including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp. may share about $207 million in fees for arranging Pfizer Inc.'s takeover of Wyeth Inc., a rare feast amid the leanest merger market in four years and Pfizer's advisers -- Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Barclays Plc and Citigroup Inc. -- together may get $82 million in fees, not counting what they'll earn arranging a $22.5 billion lending package. The two companies currently employ more than 129,000 people worldwide and Fierce Pharma reported that the fallout from Pfizer-Wyeth deal begins, as Pfizer announced today that it plans to cut another 10 percent of its workforce, or 7,800 jobs. And Mlive.com agrees that the Pfizer-Wyeth merger to mean job cuts, manufacturing-plant closures. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Timothy Anderson predicts Pfizer would cut 70 percent of Wyeth's current $10 billion spending on R&D and marketing/admin, so Fierce Pharma.
http://www.pr-inside.com/print1039136.htm
Citi explores breaking Mets deal: report
(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets amid concerns over how lenders are using government bailout money, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.
Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, the people told the paper.
The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds, according to the paper.
A Citigroup spokesman in New York told Reuters on Tuesday that "no TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) capital will be used for Citi Field or for marketing purposes."
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal, the paper said.
"Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the paper quoted the letter as saying. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees."
If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely would not happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a break-up penalty to the Mets, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation.
Citigroup "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006," the Citigroup spokesman in New York told Reuters.
"The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz told the Journal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51213720090203
I am glad to hear that. You're a smart man! One place where we differ in opinion is in that either BAC or C will fail. The Government simply won't (or perhaps can't) let that happen.
They might actually consider nationalizing the failing one before ever letting that occur and we all know how much they hate the idea of nationalization.
Nasdaq's Stock Consultant says C is 100% Bullish!
Read the report and see for yourself:
3 bullish probability indicators and 3 bullish confirmation indicators including strong 3 day accumulation which only occurs 30% of the time!
Over $4 tomorrow easy!
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/stock_consultant.asp?symbol=C&selected=C
C is up and BAC is down...
Maybe it has something to do with this?
Citigroup to deploy $36.5 billion to boost lending
NEW YORK (AP) - Citigroup, under pressure to increase its lending, says it will spend $36.5 billion to issue mortgages, make credit card loans and buy mortgage-backed securities in the tight credit markets in the coming months.
The decision arrives after the bank received $45 billion in capital from the federal government in two installments late last year, and taxpayers' questions mounted about the use of that money.
In a report reviewed by The Associated Press that Citigroup Inc. plans to release Tuesday morning, the bank detailed how it is boosting lending efforts by using funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.
It's not that the $45 billion in TARP is being doled out by Citigroup directly to borrowers. Rather, having the extra capital allows the bank to borrow more money from various funding sources, and then lend that money out to others. A bank makes money by borrowing cheaply for the short-term and lending at higher rates for the long-term; if a bank has no capital, other institutions and investors won't lend to it.
So while Citigroup says it will deploy $36.5 billion in the coming months as a result of TARP, that figure could grow substantially should the funding markets improve.
"Our responsibility is to put these funds to work quickly, prudently and transparently to increase available lending and liquidity," said CEO Vikram Pandit in a statement included in the report.
"TARP capital will not be used for compensation and bonuses, dividend payments, lobbying or government relations activities, or any activities related to marketing, advertising and corporate sponsorship," Pandit said.
After considering $51.2 billion worth of proposals from its various arms, the bank said it approved $36.5 billion. That includes $25.7 billion in U.S. residential mortgage activities; $5.8 billion in credit card lending; $2.5 billion in personal and business loans; $1.5 billion in corporate loan activity; and $1 billion in student loans.
The $36.5 billion deployment is in addition to the $75 billion in new loans that Citigroup made in the fourth quarter. It also does not include the $10 billion Citigroup used in November to buy pools of mortgages secured by Fannie Mae.
Of the $25.7 billion Citigroup set aside for U.S. residential mortgage activities, $10 billion will go toward buying securities backed by mortgages that conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standards. Another $7.5 billion will be used to buy prime home mortgages in the secondary markets. The final $8.2 billion will be mortgages issued directly to aspiring homeowners — including mortgages with values that exceed the limits set for government-sponsored loans.
Citigroup will be making more loans than it would have without TARP, but said in the report it will not "take excessive risk with the capital the American public and other investors have entrusted to the company."
The bank will continue to read proposals for increased lending from its various divisions, and plans to issue quarterly reports on TARP use.
While TARP will be used to back lending efforts, Citigroup's expenses will come out of its cash flow, the bank said.
The government has used TARP money, in many cases, to buy preferred stock in banks.
Where TARP capital sits on banks' books, however, is just a technicality to many of Wall Street's critics, who have harshly excoriated banks for their spending decisions.
New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli reported last week that Wall Street spent $18.4 billion on bonuses for 2008; President Barack Obama called the payouts "shameful."
Citigroup has been criticized for its corporate jets — most recently, the fact that Citigroup's former CEO Sanford "Sandy" Weill, as a consultant to the company, had a contract that allowed him to use the jet for personal trips. (Weill and Citigroup last year agreed to terminate his consulting contract in April, and Weill on Sunday night said in a statement he would immediately stop using the corporate jet.)
Citigroup's announcement about TARP use comes as the government tries to figure out how to help the nation's ailing banks so they can lend more. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to announce new plans for rescuing the financial sector in a speech next week.
Banks are not lending massively because of three factors: Demand for loans is down due to the weak economy; there are fewer creditworthy borrowers in the weak economy; and the loans the banks already hold are expected to bring big losses in the coming quarters.
This is why banks' cash balances have jumped by $800 billion to $1.1 trillion since August, pointed out Miller Tabak & Co. analyst Tony Crescenzi in a note last week. Crescenzi said the idea of a "bad bank," or "aggregator bank" — which would take the bad assets off banks' balance sheets — could encourage banks to boost lending.
Another option is having the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. guarantee more securities issued by financial institutions.
The Federal Reserve in its quarterly survey of bank lending practices released Monday found that nearly 60 percent of banks said they tightened lending standards on credit card and other consumer loans, about the same portion as in the previous survey released in early November. About 80 percent of domestic banks said they tightened lending standards on commercial real-estate loans, slightly less than the roughly 85 percent that reported doing so in the previous survey.
In January, Citigroup reported a fourth-quarter loss of $8.29 billion — its fifth straight quarterly deficit — and announced that it would be splitting into two parts. One portion, Citicorp, will focus on traditional banking around the world, while the other, Citi Holdings, will manage the company's riskier assets and tougher-to-run ventures.
The company has also made some significant changes at the board level.
Robert Rubin, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, in January said he would be retiring from Citigroup's board. Less than two weeks later, Win Bischoff, chairman since December 2007, announced his retirement, too. Longtime board member Richard Parsons, the former CEO of Time Warner Inc., became the new Citigroup chairman.
CITI had already announced they were creating their own bad bank to isolate their bad assets last week (or was it the week before?). These guys show they aren't waiting for the government to push into action... That's not a dream. It's reality! But thanks for playing, Shorty.
One step closer to bankruptcy-- NOT!
NEW YORK (AP) - Citigroup, under pressure to increase its lending, says it will spend $36.5 billion to issue mortgages, make credit card loans and buy mortgage-backed securities in the tight credit markets in the coming months.
The decision arrives after the bank received $45 billion in capital from the federal government in two installments late last year, and taxpayers' questions mounted about the use of that money.
In a report reviewed by The Associated Press that Citigroup Inc. plans to release Tuesday morning, the bank detailed how it is boosting lending efforts by using funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.
It's not that the $45 billion in TARP is being doled out by Citigroup directly to borrowers. Rather, having the extra capital allows the bank to borrow more money from various funding sources, and then lend that money out to others. A bank makes money by borrowing cheaply for the short-term and lending at higher rates for the long-term; if a bank has no capital, other institutions and investors won't lend to it.
So while Citigroup says it will deploy $36.5 billion in the coming months as a result of TARP, that figure could grow substantially should the funding markets improve.
"Our responsibility is to put these funds to work quickly, prudently and transparently to increase available lending and liquidity," said CEO Vikram Pandit in a statement included in the report.
"TARP capital will not be used for compensation and bonuses, dividend payments, lobbying or government relations activities, or any activities related to marketing, advertising and corporate sponsorship," Pandit said.
After considering $51.2 billion worth of proposals from its various arms, the bank said it approved $36.5 billion. That includes $25.7 billion in U.S. residential mortgage activities; $5.8 billion in credit card lending; $2.5 billion in personal and business loans; $1.5 billion in corporate loan activity; and $1 billion in student loans.
The $36.5 billion deployment is in addition to the $75 billion in new loans that Citigroup made in the fourth quarter. It also does not include the $10 billion Citigroup used in November to buy pools of mortgages secured by Fannie Mae.
Of the $25.7 billion Citigroup set aside for U.S. residential mortgage activities, $10 billion will go toward buying securities backed by mortgages that conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standards. Another $7.5 billion will be used to buy prime home mortgages in the secondary markets. The final $8.2 billion will be mortgages issued directly to aspiring homeowners — including mortgages with values that exceed the limits set for government-sponsored loans.
Citigroup will be making more loans than it would have without TARP, but said in the report it will not "take excessive risk with the capital the American public and other investors have entrusted to the company."
The bank will continue to read proposals for increased lending from its various divisions, and plans to issue quarterly reports on TARP use.
While TARP will be used to back lending efforts, Citigroup's expenses will come out of its cash flow, the bank said.
The government has used TARP money, in many cases, to buy preferred stock in banks.
Where TARP capital sits on banks' books, however, is just a technicality to many of Wall Street's critics, who have harshly excoriated banks for their spending decisions.
New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli reported last week that Wall Street spent $18.4 billion on bonuses for 2008; President Barack Obama called the payouts "shameful."
Citigroup has been criticized for its corporate jets — most recently, the fact that Citigroup's former CEO Sanford "Sandy" Weill, as a consultant to the company, had a contract that allowed him to use the jet for personal trips. (Weill and Citigroup last year agreed to terminate his consulting contract in April, and Weill on Sunday night said in a statement he would immediately stop using the corporate jet.)
Citigroup's announcement about TARP use comes as the government tries to figure out how to help the nation's ailing banks so they can lend more. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to announce new plans for rescuing the financial sector in a speech next week.
Banks are not lending massively because of three factors: Demand for loans is down due to the weak economy; there are fewer creditworthy borrowers in the weak economy; and the loans the banks already hold are expected to bring big losses in the coming quarters.
This is why banks' cash balances have jumped by $800 billion to $1.1 trillion since August, pointed out Miller Tabak & Co. analyst Tony Crescenzi in a note last week. Crescenzi said the idea of a "bad bank," or "aggregator bank" — which would take the bad assets off banks' balance sheets — could encourage banks to boost lending.
Another option is having the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. guarantee more securities issued by financial institutions.
The Federal Reserve in its quarterly survey of bank lending practices released Monday found that nearly 60 percent of banks said they tightened lending standards on credit card and other consumer loans, about the same portion as in the previous survey released in early November. About 80 percent of domestic banks said they tightened lending standards on commercial real-estate loans, slightly less than the roughly 85 percent that reported doing so in the previous survey.
In January, Citigroup reported a fourth-quarter loss of $8.29 billion — its fifth straight quarterly deficit — and announced that it would be splitting into two parts. One portion, Citicorp, will focus on traditional banking around the world, while the other, Citi Holdings, will manage the company's riskier assets and tougher-to-run ventures.
The company has also made some significant changes at the board level.
Robert Rubin, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, in January said he would be retiring from Citigroup's board. Less than two weeks later, Win Bischoff, chairman since December 2007, announced his retirement, too. Longtime board member Richard Parsons, the former CEO of Time Warner Inc., became the new Citigroup chairman.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20090202&id=9570104
Pfizer’s Wyeth Deal Perverts U.S. Bailout, Group Says
By Alex Nussbaum
Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Pfizer Inc.’s Wyeth acquisition perverts the U.S. government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, relying on loans from five banks aided by the bailout for a deal that will cut 19,500 jobs, a California advocacy group said.
The Greenlining Institute asked the Justice Department and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to block the $64.6 billion transaction unless the companies lower consumer drug prices, said Bob Gnaizda, an attorney for the public policy group, in a telephone interview today. The letters, sent Jan. 29 by the Berkeley, California, group, ask whether the deal abuses taxpayer funds.
TARP funds were meant to bolster the economy by promoting lending, not finance job cuts, Gnaizda said. Pfizer, based in New York, said 19,500 jobs will be eliminated from the combined companies. The deal is financed by $22.5 billion in loans from banks that received at least $75 billion from the Treasury Department’s rescue plan, the drugmaker said on Jan. 26.
Backing the acquisition with bailout money is “a kind of perversity,” Gnaizda said. “There’s no way this deal could occur without the use of TARP money.”
Pfizer climbed 31 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $14.89 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 4:15 p.m. The world’s largest drugmaker fell 16 percent last week after the deal was announced and lost 37 percent in the past 12 months. Wyeth, based in Madison, New Jersey, rose 23 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $43.20.
Drop ‘Not Unusual’
Pfizer’s drop last week, which reduced the value of the deal from its initial $68 billion, is “not unusual” for acquisitions, Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Kindler said in an interview on CNBC television today. The company’s decision to halve its quarterly dividend also had an impact on shares, Kindler said.
The Justice and Treasury departments haven’t responded to the letters, Gnaizda said. Spokesmen for the departments didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment. Ray Kerins, a Pfizer spokesman, said he couldn’t respond to the complaint because he hadn’t seen it.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. assembled the loan package for Pfizer. All but Barclays have tapped TARP, according to data gathered by Bloomberg.
The deal amounts to “a bailout of two of America’s largest big pharma companies and sets a precedent for similar misuses of TARP funds,” Greenlining’s letter to Geithner says.
Drug Prices
The letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department’s antitrust division asks the government to block the deal unless Pfizer and Wyeth agree to sell medicines in the U.S. at no more than the lowest price they charge in Europe, Canada and other developed countries, Gnaizda said.
“You have the use of this money to promote something that’s anticompetitive and against the public interest and is also taking scarce funds away from what otherwise would be lending to small businesses,” Gnaizda said in the interview.
The complaints are unlikely to delay the deal, though they will create “perception problems” for Pfizer in the future, said Les Funtleyder, a Miller Tabak & Co. analyst in New York, in a telephone interview.
Pfizer shares rose today on Kindler’s public comments and a broader rise in financial markets, Funtleyder said. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Pharmaceutical Index, including Pfizer and 12 other companies, rose 0.7 percent today.
“The stock couldn’t keep going down forever,” Funtleyder said.
Two Lawsuits
The acquisition prompted two lawsuits from Wyeth shareholders who said their board should have held out for a better price.
The deal deprives investors of “the full benefit of the company’s stronger patent portfolio,” shareholder Anna Meisher said in a complaint filed Jan. 30 in Delaware Chancery Court. Meisher asked a judge to declare the deal “unlawful and unenforceable,” and rescind any merger agreement.
Pfizer said Jan. 26 it would pay $33 plus 0.985 of a Pfizer share for each share of Wyeth, valuing shares of Wyeth at $50.19. The value has fallen as Pfizer shares declined.
The case is Anna Meisher v. Bernard Poussot, CA4329, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington). The second complaint, filed Jan. 27, is Sheldon Drogin v. Wyeth, 09-cv-383, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Nussbaum in New York anussbaum1@bloomberg.net.
I agree that this should fly up on some good news, and with TWO big meetings going on in Washington today, there will likely be some kind of positive news leak in the late afternoon or evening (just as there has been through Reuters the last two times the banking and finance group has met). Just like clockwork.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other top banking officials are meeting again today to hammer out details of a major overhaul of the government's financial rescue program.
Each time these guys get together,(and this is the 3rd time in six days they do it)there is a leak that signals good news to shareholders and the market. I would expect the same today.
Great point. I thin there is a senator who is proposing the same thing.
Whitehouse: Bank Rescue Plan NOT delayed
By Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought to rally support for his emerging economic rescue package on Saturday, as he stood by his latest Cabinet nominee to run into tax problems that could impede confirmation.
Obama, in his second weekly radio address since taking office, pledged to help lower Americans' mortgage costs under a new plan to be unveiled soon to help revive the financial system and "get credit flowing again."
An administration official said the roll-out of the plan was on track in response to a CNN report saying the plan's announcement is being pushed back due to its complex nature.
Obama's finance team is working on a plan to stem huge losses at banks caused by so-called toxic assets, mostly mortgage-backed loans that plunged in value as the housing market crashed.
Options under consideration include creating a "bad bank" that could take toxic assets off the balance sheets of banks in the hope of reviving lending; government insurance on troubled assets to help shield banks from future losses; and further capital injections by the government into banks, a source familiar with the administration's thinking said last week.
So far, about half the $700 billion of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program has been used up since it was rushed out late last year to tackle the crisis, and economists have said a lot more money may be needed to fund the next phase of the rescue.
Even as he moved to confront the economic crisis, Obama was facing a new political distraction -- the disclosure that Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. healthcare reform, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
It was the latest glitch in Obama's effort to complete his Cabinet and focus on top priorities, including a mid-February target for Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill with more than $800 billion in tax cuts and spending. Continued...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessCompany/idUKTRE50P6MB20090201
Whitehouse: Plan NOT delayed
By Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought to rally support for his emerging economic rescue package on Saturday, as he stood by his latest Cabinet nominee to run into tax problems that could impede confirmation.
Obama, in his second weekly radio address since taking office, pledged to help lower Americans' mortgage costs under a new plan to be unveiled soon to help revive the financial system and "get credit flowing again."
An administration official said the roll-out of the plan was on track in response to a CNN report saying the plan's announcement is being pushed back due to its complex nature.
Obama's finance team is working on a plan to stem huge losses at banks caused by so-called toxic assets, mostly mortgage-backed loans that plunged in value as the housing market crashed.
Options under consideration include creating a "bad bank" that could take toxic assets off the balance sheets of banks in the hope of reviving lending; government insurance on troubled assets to help shield banks from future losses; and further capital injections by the government into banks, a source familiar with the administration's thinking said last week.
So far, about half the $700 billion of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program has been used up since it was rushed out late last year to tackle the crisis, and economists have said a lot more money may be needed to fund the next phase of the rescue.
Even as he moved to confront the economic crisis, Obama was facing a new political distraction -- the disclosure that Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. healthcare reform, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
It was the latest glitch in Obama's effort to complete his Cabinet and focus on top priorities, including a mid-February target for Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill with more than $800 billion in tax cuts and spending. Continued...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessCompany/idUKTRE50P6MB20090201
Thanks so much for that link!!!
Yes! I hope so too!!!
Sign/spread the CNBC petition-- Here is the link:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cnbcintegrity
CNBC is the self proclaimed leader in business news, yet the recent on-air behavior of their On-Air Editor, Charles Gasparino- who also appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble- has caused great damage, fear and panic in the markets.
Gasparino, in his role as on-air Editor, is supposed to provide news reports based on fact and tangible evidence, and while he has covered some of the biggest stories affecting the financial markets in recent months, his most recent fumbles and biased opinions about the banking industry, and in particular his completely mistaken and off the mark misrepresentations about the Obama administrations efforts to save the banking industry in the United States have crossed the lines and blatantly breached journalistic integrity.
As the most recent example, we would like to cite what he reported about the government's intentions to ease the banking crisis. Mr. Gasparino reported that members of the Obama administration were "more confused now than ever before" in regards to their efforts to add an aggregator bank. He also reported that such efforts to solve the banking crisis were "in limbo"- yet multiple White House officials and news agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters have since reported that all efforts are "on track" and will likely be announced shortly.
Gasparino's increasing use of anonymous "sources" (who, if they even exist, have obviously led him astray) and his ego-driven, free reign without any apparent editorial supervision have caused panic and fear in investors. His rants have spurred sell-offs at perhaps the worst possible time, given the fact that the markets themselves are teetering on the edges of a very dangerous cliff. For that, he must be reigned in and held accountable.
Mr. Gasparino, who is also a columnist and a freelance writer for other publications, has been challenged on several occasions by other CNBC contributors and staff on the air. More than once, co workers have questioned the legitimacy and accuracy of his reports, but he is always quick to rebut and dismiss anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reports' integrity- often times refusing to attribute his facts to anyone but "my sources."
His cynical, disparaging, insinuating, malicious, sarcastic, and snide responses- not to mention his sneering- appear completely unprofessional and ego-driven; and yet he insists on becoming the story instead of reporting it. He and CNBC continue to betray the trust of their viewers and often cause great harm to the companies, entities and financial markets they cover.
Viewers of CNBC business news programming are investors, business executives, financial professionals and others who depend on the delivery of untainted, un-biased news and information to make significant decisions that affect not only their own portfolios, but also entire markets.
These recent episodes illustrate serious disregard their jobs as journalists and editors and it is time that CNBC reverse course.
The network's use of "experts" like ****yst Meredith Whitney to bash and present particularly pessimistic opinions of the American banking sector without so much as disclosing that her firm- Oppenheimer & Co.- owns part of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is not only irresponsible, but just as likely reckless and illegal.
A signed copy of this petition will be presented to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose job it is to to protect investors and the markets. We'll let them decide whether any violations exist. In the meantime, we urge you to find fairness, balance and integrity in your reporting of the news so that the current turmoil in the markets isn't made worse by any members of your reporting and editorial staff.
cc: NBC Universal, General Electric, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sign/spread the CNBC petition-- Here is the link:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cnbcintegrity
CNBC is the self proclaimed leader in business news, yet the recent on-air behavior of their On-Air Editor, Charles Gasparino- who also appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble- has caused great damage, fear and panic in the markets.
Gasparino, in his role as on-air Editor, is supposed to provide news reports based on fact and tangible evidence, and while he has covered some of the biggest stories affecting the financial markets in recent months, his most recent fumbles and biased opinions about the banking industry, and in particular his completely mistaken and off the mark misrepresentations about the Obama administrations efforts to save the banking industry in the United States have crossed the lines and blatantly breached journalistic integrity.
As the most recent example, we would like to cite what he reported about the government's intentions to ease the banking crisis. Mr. Gasparino reported that members of the Obama administration were "more confused now than ever before" in regards to their efforts to add an aggregator bank. He also reported that such efforts to solve the banking crisis were "in limbo"- yet multiple White House officials and news agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters have since reported that all efforts are "on track" and will likely be announced shortly.
Gasparino's increasing use of anonymous "sources" (who, if they even exist, have obviously led him astray) and his ego-driven, free reign without any apparent editorial supervision have caused panic and fear in investors. His rants have spurred sell-offs at perhaps the worst possible time, given the fact that the markets themselves are teetering on the edges of a very dangerous cliff. For that, he must be reigned in and held accountable.
Mr. Gasparino, who is also a columnist and a freelance writer for other publications, has been challenged on several occasions by other CNBC contributors and staff on the air. More than once, co workers have questioned the legitimacy and accuracy of his reports, but he is always quick to rebut and dismiss anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reports' integrity- often times refusing to attribute his facts to anyone but "my sources."
His cynical, disparaging, insinuating, malicious, sarcastic, and snide responses- not to mention his sneering- appear completely unprofessional and ego-driven; and yet he insists on becoming the story instead of reporting it. He and CNBC continue to betray the trust of their viewers and often cause great harm to the companies, entities and financial markets they cover.
Viewers of CNBC business news programming are investors, business executives, financial professionals and others who depend on the delivery of untainted, un-biased news and information to make significant decisions that affect not only their own portfolios, but also entire markets.
These recent episodes illustrate serious disregard their jobs as journalists and editors and it is time that CNBC reverse course.
The network's use of "experts" like analyst Meredith Whitney to bash and present particularly pessimistic opinions of the American banking sector without so much as disclosing that her firm- Oppenheimer & Co.- owns part of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is not only irresponsible, but just as likely reckless and illegal.
A signed copy of this petition will be presented to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose job it is to to protect investors and the markets. We'll let them decide whether any violations exist. In the meantime, we urge you to find fairness, balance and integrity in your reporting of the news so that the current turmoil in the markets isn't made worse by any members of your reporting and editorial staff.
cc: NBC Universal, General Electric, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sign/spread the CNBC petition-- Here is the link:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cnbcintegrity
CNBC is the self proclaimed leader in business news, yet the recent on-air behavior of their On-Air Editor, Charles Gasparino- who also appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble- has caused great damage, fear and panic in the markets.
Gasparino, in his role as on-air Editor, is supposed to provide news reports based on fact and tangible evidence, and while he has covered some of the biggest stories affecting the financial markets in recent months, his most recent fumbles and biased opinions about the banking industry, and in particular his completely mistaken and off the mark misrepresentations about the Obama administrations efforts to save the banking industry in the United States have crossed the lines and blatantly breached journalistic integrity.
As the most recent example, we would like to cite what he reported about the government's intentions to ease the banking crisis. Mr. Gasparino reported that members of the Obama administration were "more confused now than ever before" in regards to their efforts to add an aggregator bank. He also reported that such efforts to solve the banking crisis were "in limbo"- yet multiple White House officials and news agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters have since reported that all efforts are "on track" and will likely be announced shortly.
Gasparino's increasing use of anonymous "sources" (who, if they even exist, have obviously led him astray) and his ego-driven, free reign without any apparent editorial supervision have caused panic and fear in investors. His rants have spurred sell-offs at perhaps the worst possible time, given the fact that the markets themselves are teetering on the edges of a very dangerous cliff. For that, he must be reigned in and held accountable.
Mr. Gasparino, who is also a columnist and a freelance writer for other publications, has been challenged on several occasions by other CNBC contributors and staff on the air. More than once, co workers have questioned the legitimacy and accuracy of his reports, but he is always quick to rebut and dismiss anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reports' integrity- often times refusing to attribute his facts to anyone but "my sources."
His cynical, disparaging, insinuating, malicious, sarcastic, and snide responses- not to mention his sneering- appear completely unprofessional and ego-driven; and yet he insists on becoming the story instead of reporting it. He and CNBC continue to betray the trust of their viewers and often cause great harm to the companies, entities and financial markets they cover.
Viewers of CNBC business news programming are investors, business executives, financial professionals and others who depend on the delivery of untainted, un-biased news and information to make significant decisions that affect not only their own portfolios, but also entire markets.
These recent episodes illustrate serious disregard their jobs as journalists and editors and it is time that CNBC reverse course.
The network's use of "experts" like ****yst Meredith Whitney to bash and present particularly pessimistic opinions of the American banking sector without so much as disclosing that her firm- Oppenheimer & Co.- owns part of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is not only irresponsible, but just as likely reckless and illegal.
A signed copy of this petition will be presented to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose job it is to to protect investors and the markets. We'll let them decide whether any violations exist. In the meantime, we urge you to find fairness, balance and integrity in your reporting of the news so that the current turmoil in the markets isn't made worse by any members of your reporting and editorial staff.
cc: NBC Universal, General Electric, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Six Flags Preferred Stock News
NEW YORK, Jan. 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Six Flags, Inc. (NYSE: SIX) announced today that its Board of Directors decided not to declare and pay a quarterly dividend on its outstanding Preferred Income Equity Redeemable Securities ("PIERS") for the quarter ending February 15, 2009, each such PIERS representing one one-hundredth of a share of the Company's 7 1/4% Convertible Preferred Stock.
Under the terms of the PIERS, dividends are not required to be paid currently and any unpaid dividends accumulate without interest. The Board's decision not to declare and pay the February 15, 2009 dividend does not violate any covenants under any of the Company's debt agreements. The Company's deficit in stockholders' equity(1), the overall state of the credit markets and the fact that unpaid dividends accumulate on an interest-free basis, were factors that the Board considered in reaching its decision not to declare and pay the quarterly dividend. The Board will continue to evaluate all facts and circumstances, including relevant legal restrictions, prior to any future PIERS payments.
/CONTACT: Media, Sandra Daniels, +1-212-652-9393; or Investors, William Schmitt, +1-203-682-8200
/Web site: http://www.sixflags.com
White House pledged action against "irresponsible" bonuses for executives
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House pledged action against "irresponsible" bonuses for executives at bailed-out Wall Street companies as a Democratic senator unveiled legislation to limit their compensation to $400,000 a year.
Sen. Claire McCaskill proposed a law Friday that would prevent executives from making more money than the U.S. president until their companies no longer rely on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
McCaskill, an early endorser of President Barack Obama's candidacy, gave an angry speech on the Senate floor in which she said an average of $2.6 million dollars had been paid in bonuses to executives from the first 116 banks that got money from the TARP rescue plan.
"I am mad," the Democrat from Missouri said. "We have bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer. ... They don't get it!"
At the White House, Obama's spokesman said the president's upcoming plan for financial stability also would address executive compensation and bonuses.
"I think you will see the president and his economic team outline a plan to deal with what he found irresponsible yesterday," Robert Gibbs told reporters. "Stay tuned, because something on that is coming soon." He declined to say more.
Obama on Thursday said recent Wall Street bonuses, given the current situation, were "shameful." His Democratic administration is working on options to stabilize the U.S. banking industry after various experts have said the $700 billion already allocated to TARP will not be enough.
A senior Republican senator, Charles Grassley of Iowa, agreed that Obama should claw back the bonus money.
"The President should use his full power to pull back bonuses for bail-out recipients. That includes past recipients and those going forward," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said on the Senate floor.
HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS MORE
The Congressional Budget Office chief said this week that U.S. banks will need hundreds of billions of dollars more.
Public outcry has grown over reports of corporate excess by companies getting bailout funds, including Citigroup Inc, which intended to purchase a private jet, and bonuses paid by Merrill Lynch & Co, now owned by Bank of America Corp.
Citigroup later canceled the plane order. Bank of America's Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis ousted former Merrill chief John Thain this month after Merrill awarded large bonuses just days before the merger closed, and following huge losses that led Bank of America to obtain $20 billion of government aid to absorb Merrill.
McCaskill's office said the $400,000 compensation cap she was proposing would apply to all employees of a firm and include salary, bonuses and stock options.
Bob Monks, a shareholder rights advocate and former executive who has written nine books on corporate governance, said McCaskill's proposal reflected the rage in the country felt by people who are "having a terrible time".
"That said, the idea is a genuinely bad one. The government mandating a pay-cap is a genuinely bad idea because it never works," he said.
Obama is also working with the Democratic-majority Congress to pass a stimulus plan of over $800 billion in tax relief and government spending to try to revive the moribund economy. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH47702_2009-01-30_23-18-22_N30382099.htm
Bloomberg: Bank Rescue Takes Shape
By Alison Vekshin
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will retain Republican John Dugan, the supervisor of national banks, for another year, keeping intact the team of policymakers crafting a the administration’s response to the financial crisis, two people familiar with the decision said.
Dugan, who heads the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has helped shape policy as Obama grapples with deteriorating credit markets. His agency oversees more than 1,500 banks, including those of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. His term expires in August 2010.
OCC spokesman Kevin Mukri declined to comment.
Dugan, 53, participated in discussions this week with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair on reshaping the administration’s approach to the $700 billion bank bailout. Obama has decided to keep Bair, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has said.
While details could change, the bank-rescue initiative is likely to feature an aggressive effort to remove toxic assets clogging lenders’ balance sheets. The FDIC will probably run a so-called bad bank to buy some of the underwater securities; others will be insured by the government against losses but remain on lenders’ books. In addition, another round of capital injections for the biggest banks is planned.
The Obama economic team also has said it will spend $50 billion to $100 billion to help homeowners facing foreclosure, and will provide aid to cities unable to borrow money.
Geithner, speaking to reporters this week, said the administration is “putting together a comprehensive plan for helping repair the financial system.” The plan could be released as early as next week, people familiar with the plans said.
Financial, Regulatory Reform
Dugan has taken part in decisions on how the government should use authority under the rescue package that lets the Treasury inject capital directly into financial institutions and buy their bad assets.
Yesterday’s discussions centered on financial and regulatory reform, the Treasury said in an e-mailed statement.
Collapsing the Office of Thrift Supervision, the regulator of savings and loans associations, into the OCC is among possible changes Congress and the Obama administration will consider as they overhaul the U.S. financial regulatory system.
Dugan has said while he’s not advocating the idea, his agency is preparing for that possibility.
“We do have a lot of bank regulators and there is a lot of overlap,” Dugan said in a Jan. 14 telephone interview. “If you’re going to go down that path, I think that we will work with Congress to do whatever makes sense.”
Law Firm
Dugan, appointed by President George W. Bush, was sworn into office in August 2005. He was a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling in Washington, where he led the financial institutions group and specialized in banking regulation. Presidents have the option of replacing agency heads, even before the expiration of their terms.
He served at the Treasury Department from 1989 to 1993, including an appointment as assistant secretary for domestic finance in 1992. He also has served as counsel for the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.
The Washington-based OCC was created in 1863 and issues rules and guidelines concerning bank operations.
John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said in November he planned to step down in a few months.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as4Obv7ZYA3A&refer=home
Bloomberg: Bank Rescue Takes Shape
By Alison Vekshin
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will retain Republican John Dugan, the supervisor of national banks, for another year, keeping intact the team of policymakers crafting a the administration’s response to the financial crisis, two people familiar with the decision said.
Dugan, who heads the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has helped shape policy as Obama grapples with deteriorating credit markets. His agency oversees more than 1,500 banks, including those of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. His term expires in August 2010.
OCC spokesman Kevin Mukri declined to comment.
Dugan, 53, participated in discussions this week with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair on reshaping the administration’s approach to the $700 billion bank bailout. Obama has decided to keep Bair, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has said.
While details could change, the bank-rescue initiative is likely to feature an aggressive effort to remove toxic assets clogging lenders’ balance sheets. The FDIC will probably run a so-called bad bank to buy some of the underwater securities; others will be insured by the government against losses but remain on lenders’ books. In addition, another round of capital injections for the biggest banks is planned.
The Obama economic team also has said it will spend $50 billion to $100 billion to help homeowners facing foreclosure, and will provide aid to cities unable to borrow money.
Geithner, speaking to reporters this week, said the administration is “putting together a comprehensive plan for helping repair the financial system.” The plan could be released as early as next week, people familiar with the plans said.
Financial, Regulatory Reform
Dugan has taken part in decisions on how the government should use authority under the rescue package that lets the Treasury inject capital directly into financial institutions and buy their bad assets.
Yesterday’s discussions centered on financial and regulatory reform, the Treasury said in an e-mailed statement.
Collapsing the Office of Thrift Supervision, the regulator of savings and loans associations, into the OCC is among possible changes Congress and the Obama administration will consider as they overhaul the U.S. financial regulatory system.
Dugan has said while he’s not advocating the idea, his agency is preparing for that possibility.
“We do have a lot of bank regulators and there is a lot of overlap,” Dugan said in a Jan. 14 telephone interview. “If you’re going to go down that path, I think that we will work with Congress to do whatever makes sense.”
Law Firm
Dugan, appointed by President George W. Bush, was sworn into office in August 2005. He was a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling in Washington, where he led the financial institutions group and specialized in banking regulation. Presidents have the option of replacing agency heads, even before the expiration of their terms.
He served at the Treasury Department from 1989 to 1993, including an appointment as assistant secretary for domestic finance in 1992. He also has served as counsel for the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.
The Washington-based OCC was created in 1863 and issues rules and guidelines concerning bank operations.
John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said in November he planned to step down in a few months.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as4Obv7ZYA3A&refer=home
Bloomberg: Rescue Takes Shape
By Alison Vekshin
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will retain Republican John Dugan, the supervisor of national banks, for another year, keeping intact the team of policymakers crafting a the administration’s response to the financial crisis, two people familiar with the decision said.
Dugan, who heads the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has helped shape policy as Obama grapples with deteriorating credit markets. His agency oversees more than 1,500 banks, including those of Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. His term expires in August 2010.
OCC spokesman Kevin Mukri declined to comment.
Dugan, 53, participated in discussions this week with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair on reshaping the administration’s approach to the $700 billion bank bailout. Obama has decided to keep Bair, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has said.
While details could change, the bank-rescue initiative is likely to feature an aggressive effort to remove toxic assets clogging lenders’ balance sheets. The FDIC will probably run a so-called bad bank to buy some of the underwater securities; others will be insured by the government against losses but remain on lenders’ books. In addition, another round of capital injections for the biggest banks is planned.
The Obama economic team also has said it will spend $50 billion to $100 billion to help homeowners facing foreclosure, and will provide aid to cities unable to borrow money.
Geithner, speaking to reporters this week, said the administration is “putting together a comprehensive plan for helping repair the financial system.” The plan could be released as early as next week, people familiar with the plans said.
Financial, Regulatory Reform
Dugan has taken part in decisions on how the government should use authority under the rescue package that lets the Treasury inject capital directly into financial institutions and buy their bad assets.
Yesterday’s discussions centered on financial and regulatory reform, the Treasury said in an e-mailed statement.
Collapsing the Office of Thrift Supervision, the regulator of savings and loans associations, into the OCC is among possible changes Congress and the Obama administration will consider as they overhaul the U.S. financial regulatory system.
Dugan has said while he’s not advocating the idea, his agency is preparing for that possibility.
“We do have a lot of bank regulators and there is a lot of overlap,” Dugan said in a Jan. 14 telephone interview. “If you’re going to go down that path, I think that we will work with Congress to do whatever makes sense.”
Law Firm
Dugan, appointed by President George W. Bush, was sworn into office in August 2005. He was a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling in Washington, where he led the financial institutions group and specialized in banking regulation. Presidents have the option of replacing agency heads, even before the expiration of their terms.
He served at the Treasury Department from 1989 to 1993, including an appointment as assistant secretary for domestic finance in 1992. He also has served as counsel for the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.
The Washington-based OCC was created in 1863 and issues rules and guidelines concerning bank operations.
John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said in November he planned to step down in a few months.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as4Obv7ZYA3A&refer=home