Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Do you think this crisis started within the last two years? Unfortunately the better lines are coming out now. And it may be to late. That's Southern Cal.. here on the east coast any luxury SUV is mainly a Tahoe or a suburban. I have a new Suburban. It is by far the best SUV I have driven. There are more cars currently on the 405 between Long Beach and Irvine than are on the whole east coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Do you think this crisis started within the last two years? Unfortunately the better lines are coming out now. And it may be to late. That's Southern Cal.. here on the east coast any luxury SUV is mainly a Tahoe or a suburban. I have a new Suburban. It is by far the best SUV I have driven. GM, Ford make great trucks. No one is denying that. The demand decreased when people stopped being able to afford the gas on those trucks. On the other hand, have you ever owned a small American car? Well I've owned several. I now own a Honda Civic 2000 with 60 000 Miles. Although it is obviously a small sample, I've ever experienced less issues with the car I drive now in comparison with the American small cars I used to drive. That's the problem. The big 3 got dominated in the small car market and that's what the majority of middle income Americans/Canadiens began to purchase. When the big 3 can make a car as durable as the Honda Civic from the early 2000's or Toyota, that is when they will regain their market share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 It's not the same thing. One is a viable business that is struggling due to a lack of consumer confidence (Citi) and one is a struggling business due to bad business decisions while competitors were making the right ones (GM, Ford, Chrysler) Citi isn't the only bank taking a beating. Pretty much any US bank is highly volatile due to a lack of confidence. On the other hand, the Big 3 made some very bad moves in terms of vehicles produced and as a result, no one wants them. It's not as if Banks don't make business decisions. They are just as much at fault for their failures as the car companies are for theirs. The bailouts are ridiculous no matter who they go to. And in the end they won't work anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Don't let facts get in the way of your rant, mkay? "Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other top management will keep their jobs despite the intervention, but the government will have the final say on executive pay packages. More details on compensation may come next week, government officials said." http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20081124?rpc=44 with all the give aways to citi in this package that means nothing. so whats worst case for bandit pandit and his banditos? treasury cuts their total comp from $200 million to $199 million when they shouldnt be getting a dime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 with all the give aways to citi in this package that means nothing. so whats worst case for bandit pandit and his banditos? treasury cuts their total comp from $200 million to $199 million when they shouldnt be getting a dime? rant rant rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 The CEO's should be dealt with. Any other person out there who f'd up within their career in a major way would be canned. Most of these people have a new golden parachute called job security. Why? US government (ie taxpayers) having to pump nearly $50 billion and gaurantee more than $300 billion is by any measure a regulatory take over of a failed bank. and in these instances management is the 1st thing to go and they get nothing. as it should be. so why let pandit the bandit and his banditos stay and reap personal benefit in this instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 US government (ie taxpayers) having to pump nearly $50 billion and gaurantee more than $300 billion is by any measure a regulatory take over of a failed bank. and in these instances management is the 1st thing to go and they get nothing. as it should be. so why let pandit the bandit and his banditos stay and reap personal benefit in this instance? You realize that $50B is a drop in the bucket compared to Citi's assets, right? Citi is as low as it is due to consumer confidence (or lack thereof) and not due to fundamentals, for the most part. The entire banking industry is in turmoil and it's not like Citi based its business on terrible fundamentals. Heck, when my wife and I tried getting a mortgage from them 6 years ago, the best they'd offer us was 8%!!! We got 5.5% elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 You realize that $50B is a drop in the bucket compared to Citi's assets, right? Citi is as low as it is due to consumer confidence (or lack thereof) and not due to fundamentals, for the most part. The entire banking industry is in turmoil and it's not like Citi based its business on terrible fundamentals. Heck, when my wife and I tried getting a mortgage from them 6 years ago, the best they'd offer us was 8%!!! We got 5.5% elsewhere. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 How so? Because people are scared to invest with them. They don't want to be stuck in the next Lehman. Remember, banks run mostly on confidence. Of course they screwed up and took 50 B in credit hits, but pretty much every bank in the US as well as many Canadian and European banks have as well. Do you think this is all happening due to poor management? I work at a Canadian bank that only had one writedown last year due to commercial paper. 1 writedown that's peanuts compared to it's assets and revenues. The shares are trading way below what they should be. Why? Because everyone is scared. What's going to happen? Layoffs, zero compensation and i could forget about my bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Because people are scared to invest with them. They don't want to be stuck in the next Lehman. Remember, banks run mostly on confidence. Of course they screwed up and took 50 B in credit hits, but pretty much every bank in the US as well as many Canadian and European banks have as well. Do you think this is all happening due to poor management? I work at a Canadian bank that only had one writedown last year due to commercial paper. 1 writedown that's peanuts compared to it's assets and revenues. The shares are trading way below what they should be. Why? Because everyone is scared. What's going to happen? Layoffs, zero compensation and i could forget about my bonus But what does that have to do with taking government money? Does it suck that people will lose their jobs? Of course. Does it suck you don't have a bonus coming? Sure. But if the bank has been doing good business, the scaling down should be enough for them to get through these times. When the economy picks back up, they will grow with it. The downturn has consequences. People are going to lose their jobs. They'll have to tighten their belts. Why is Citi taking money from citizens to hold itself up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 But what does that have to do with taking government money? Does it suck that people will lose their jobs? Of course. Does it suck you don't have a bonus coming? Sure. But if the bank has been doing good business, the scaling down should be enough for them to get through these times. When the economy picks back up, they will grow with it. The downturn has consequences. People are going to lose their jobs. They'll have to tighten their belts. Why is Citi taking money from citizens to hold itself up? Because they were just doing that. Sucking it up while the economy picks itself back up. What's happening? Traders are betting they will fail and taking short positions on them. Banks that have zero confidence can never survive. It doesn't take much in these kinds of markets. Why is the share dropping to 2-3$? Do you really think it's worth that little? I think if they simply sold off their real estate they'd probably get more than that. And one last thing. How much do you think the FDIC will have to dish out in $$$ to cover the deposits of all Citigroup clients? Probably more than the bailout will cost (although I have not actually verified this myself so I could stand corrected) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Because they were just doing that. Sucking it up while the economy picks itself back up. What's happening? Traders are betting they will fail and taking short positions on them. Banks that have zero confidence can never survive. It doesn't take much in these kinds of markets. Why is the share dropping to 2-3$? Do you really think it's worth that little? I think if they simply sold off their real estate they'd probably get more than that. And one last thing. How much do you think the FDIC will have to dish out in $$$ to cover the deposits of all Citigroup clients? Probably more than the bailout will cost (although I have not actually verified this myself so I could stand corrected) Don't get me started on FDIC. And let me ask you this, do you really think bailout money, especially after how most of the public feels about it now, is going to increase confidence in the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Don't get me started on FDIC. And let me ask you this, do you really think bailout money, especially after how most of the public feels about it now, is going to increase confidence in the company? Not sure. I can't predict the future and this is something that even the most experienced investor can't understand. I think if there is ever any future banks whose fate is questioned, the Fed will have no choice but to step in as well. I know that if I'd have anything over 100K to deposit, I'd rather deposit it into a gov't owned entity of Citigroup than Citigroup with no Fed backing. In the long run, this mess will be tough to sort out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not sure. I can't predict the future and this is something that even the most experienced investor can't understand. I think if there is ever any future banks whose fate is questioned, the Fed will have no choice but to step in as well. I know that if I'd have anything over 100K to deposit, I'd rather deposit it into a gov't owned entity of Citigroup than Citigroup with no Fed backing. In the long run, this mess will be tough to sort out. And you don't see this as an obvious problem??? How can no one see that there is no end to this, and that sooner or later the sh-- has to hit the fan? You can NOT spend your way out of a depression. It just doesn't work! And if you had a 100k and invested in Citi after this, you'd have earned the mess you were putting yourself in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts