Looking like another huge up day on Wall Street. (cost, program, New York)

[cobolt]

Yes, the markets love when Obama is out of the country. We need to figure out a way to keep him away for a while so we can recover.

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Yeah, it really hurts to see my stock portfolio double in a month.. I guess possibly once I look at the tax consequences of doing so..

I read one of your previous posts.

I saw you were into "penny" stocks like Citigroup and AIG.

That must be some portfolio.

[oz in SC]

Those of you thinking things are turning around,what is y'alls opinion on the rules regarding the way companies value their assets and report losses?

Is it a good idea to allow the assets to be valued at what they would go for in an "orderly" sale, as opposed to a forced or distressed sale?

Is it a good idea to allow banks to avoid reporting some losses on securities by splitting them among factors like fluctuating interest rates that won't have to be counted toward net income or loss?

Is this part of the increased regulation that y'all are in favor of?

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Markets rose partly because regulations were loosened on banks reporting the value(or lack of) of 'toxic assets'....

So, you finally admit that the Obama administration's actions are having a positive effect on the economy.

Thank you.

Perhaps part of your confusion lies in the outdated notion that Democrats are always about more regulation and more government. Clinton ran a very balanced administration that made case-by-case decisions. Once we get beyond this mess, it appears Obama plans to do similar.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

So, you finally admit that the Obama administration's actions are having a positive effect on the economy.

Thank you.

You mean loosening regulations on the very banks that caused the mess?

LOL....banks have just been given a golden opportunity to sell their bad assets to the fedgov. for what they would be valued at in good times rather than what they are worth now....guess who pays for this?

No wonder banks stocks are going up....they are getting ready to stick it to the taxpayer once again.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Those of you thinking things are turning around,what is y'alls opinion on the rules regarding the way companies value their assets and report losses?

Is it a good idea to allow the assets to be valued at what they would go for in an "orderly" sale, as opposed to a forced or distressed sale?

Is it a good idea to allow banks to avoid reporting some losses on securities by splitting them among factors like fluctuating interest rates that won't have to be counted toward net income or loss?

Is this part of the increased regulation that y'all are in favor of?

I'm not sure if I agree with that rule or not.
The first point you bring up I would probably agree with.
The second one, probably not.

For what it's worth - that my take.

Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

So, you finally admit that the Obama administration's actions are having a positive effect on the economy.

Thank you.

Perhaps part of your confusion lies in the outdated notion that Democrats are always about more regulation and more government. Clinton ran a very balanced administration that made case-by-case decisions. Once we get beyond this mess, it appears Obama plans to do similar.

Indeed.
I didn't vote for Obama because he was a Far Left candidate - he isn't and never was (that was just Right Wing scare tactics BS).

Obama was and IS a center-left pragmatist (much like Clinton was).

Ken

[oz in SC]

These are the same banks that at least partially caused this mess....and now they are going to get to decide what the bad assets are worth....

Assets that could then be sold to the fedgov.

See a potential problem with this and perhaps a reason for the increase in the value of their stock?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by RD5050

I read one of your previous posts.

I saw you were into "penny" stocks like Citigroup and AIG.

That must be some portfolio.

First, Citibank is $2.76 which I bought at $1.00, (and sold at $2.40), with a book value on it at $18.00, and AIG is $1.15, which I sold calls on a week ago and out of.

Not sure what you think I own but even if I do own C and AIG, they are not penny stocks.. I challenge you to become educated on the market and the definition of "penny stock" if your going to repost.

p.s. even if they were penny stocks, you do understand that people do buy more than 1 share of a stock dont you? please...

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

You mean loosening regulations on the very banks that caused the mess?

LOL....banks have just been given a golden opportunity to sell their bad assets to the fedgov. for what they would be valued at in good times rather than what they are worth now....guess who pays for this?

No wonder banks stocks are going up....they are getting ready to stick it to the taxpayer once again.

I understand your concerns. They are legit.

I guess I see it as a "desperate times, desperate measures" situation.

We can sit back and slap the banks on the wrist everytime they reach for a cookie, but the reality is that we are the ones suffering the most.

Loosening the rules to get them back stabilized with new regulations to prevent it from happening again is the best solution for all of us, even if investors stand to make more money than they otherwise would in such an economy.