Wake up...... IT'S OVER

chucky

mp2 wrote: »

all the investment banks are bankrupt, citi and boa are high street banks but they were also bankrupt, which is why they have had to take money off the government to prop them up. both shares are trading at just above $1 on the stock markets which is essentially priced as a nothing company in american terms.

forget share price but if they were bankrupt they wouldn't be a listed company, but that's an aside - look at the facts. how can they be bankrupt when they've been bankrolled by the US Government.

i've quoted you BOA - how about this one
"Citigroup has had its best profit performance in over a year in the first two months of 2009 and has generated revenue of more than $19bn."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dbb79f02-0d33-11de-8914-0000779fd2ac.html

mp2 wrote: »

the companies that did make them - lehman brothers, bear stearns, morgan stanley, jp morgan, goldman sachs are all gone gone gone, (bankrupt)

so you're going to re-enter fantasy world and say that Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs don't exist anymore - get a grip sunshine and come back to the real world, you're nothing but a fantastist

mp2

chucky wrote: »

forget share price but if they were bankrupt they wouldn't be a listed company, but that's an aside - look at the facts. how can they be bankrupt when they've been bankrolled by the US Government.

i've quoted you BOA - how about this one
"Citigroup has had its best profit performance in over a year in the first two months of 2009 and has generated revenue of more than $19bn."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dbb79f02-0d33-11de-8914-0000779fd2ac.html



so you're going to re-enter fantasy world and say that Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs don't exist anymore - get a grip sunshine and come back to the real world, you're nothing but a fantastist

jp morgan, goldman sachs, morgan stanley no longer exist as investment banks, they have all had to revert to high street banking status in order to get their funding now. all the major investment banks as they stood, have gone now.

your arguement it the same as saying hbos and rbs are not bankrupt companies. they are. they only exist because they have been saved by the government.

in any event you are missing the point that the mortgage market that used to exist has gone forever. i.e citigroup are still doing other things stock brokerage, high street lending, credit cards, business loans and making money on these areas (profits in these have never been affected).... but this is irrelevant to the mortgage market.
the mortgage backed securities and cdos, no longer exist. no one is creating risky mortgage products which fuelled the housing bubble.

only normal mortgage products exist now. and current house prices cant be supported by normal mortgage products. its as simple as that.

chucky

mp2 wrote: »

jp morgan, goldman sachs, morgan stanley no longer exist as investment banks, they have all had to revert to high street banking status in order to get their funding now. all the major investment banks as they stood, have gone now.

no you are wrong they no longer exist as investment banks.

they no longer exist as just investment banks, they have diversified so as to increase their capital base. look at Citigroup splitting in two - retail and the investment bank arm.

of course lending has decreased - these have been troubled economic times, it will return in time it has no choice..

sabretoothtigger

I think the leaked memos are flawed in that they are not proper profit loss accounts. Any bank that doesnt make a profit is in trouble, thats the nature of leveraging but whats lacking there is the cost and loss side to the profits, writedowns and the real bad news has not been leaked alongside the good news.

The real news is that anything but a profit would be a disaster, wait for the proper trading statement imo.
As one poster on here once wrote, 'the apocalypse has been factored into the price' so then anything not awful leads to a rise I guess


The bottom of the market wont be a bounce back imo, it'll be a slow horrible realisation of shaken fundamentals and a decline of the decline, zeroing out before an averaged rise occuring but if I spot a bounce or V shape then I expect that to fail long term tbh

mp2

chucky wrote: »

no you are wrong they no longer exist as investment banks.

they no longer exist as just investment banks, they have diversified so as to increase their capital base. look at Citigroup splitting in two - retail and the investment bank arm.

of course lending has decreased - these have been troubled economic times, it will return in time it has no choice..

mortgage lending will return to what exactly?

normal lending or risky lending?

if youre talking normal lending ive been trying to drum that into you in this thread. normal lending = normal house prices.
normal house prices is way below where we are now.

if you think banks will revert back to risky mortgage lending, that is unbelievable - you really havent been following the news recently have you.

chucky

mp2 wrote: »

mortgage lending will return to what exactly?

normal lending or risky lending?

if youre talking normal lending ive been trying to drum that into you in this thread. normal lending = normal house prices.
normal house prices is way below where we are now.

if you think banks will revert back to risky mortgage lending, that is unbelievable - you really havent been following the news recently have you.

normal lending will resume - i've never said anything else.

banks may go to risky mortgage lending i don't discount it, i don't expect it too soon - it all depends on market pressures.

if people want to borrow they will borrow at what ever costs - the market dictates this. the last 10 years is evidence of this in the UK.

so tell me what is a normal house price? - 50k, 100k or 150k

and i've been trying to drum into your head about banks being bankrupt is not the case.

chucky

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I think the leaked memos are flawed in that they are not proper profit loss accounts. Any bank that doesnt make a profit is in trouble, thats the nature of leveraging but whats lacking there is the cost and loss side to the profits, writedowns and the real bad news has not been leaked alongside the good news.

good soundbites - very typical of someone like you. how's the consultancy going?

so why didn't they say anything at all instead of 'leaking' this info.

so what's the 'real bad news' Mr Agenda? - enlighten us mere mortals

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

if people want to borrow they will borrow at what ever costs - the market dictates this. the last 10 years is evidence of this in the UK.

You don't think anyone will have learnt anything about excessive borrowing from the last two years, and the coming two years?

No, I don't suppose they will. But if, at a guess of course, interest rates hit 8/9% in two years, and taxation increases then maybe even those who have learnt nothing will have little option available.

pickles110564

mp2 wrote: »

if youre talking normal lending ive been trying to drum that into you in this thread. normal lending = normal house prices.
normal house prices is way below where we are now.

What people on this forum need to realise is that their expectations are set to high.
They think that they should be able to jump straight in at a 4 bed detached house with land level instead of starting off with a starter home and working up.

mewbie_2

pickles110564 wrote: »

They think that they should be able to jump straight in at a 4 bed detached house with land level instead of starting off with a starter home and working up.

I don't think starter homes existed twenty years ago. Great idea by the builders to make four starter homes fit into one normal house. Check out any older housing and tell me how many were originally build as 'starter homes'. None of them.

I think you will find starter homes are a rung on the ladder that no one will need to aim for anymore. Why bother when you will be able to get something to live in that offers more than a tent.