ERICOPOLY

I reason the dilemma would be the same. You have high ROE at KO but don't expect much in annual returns holding it. Reason: the stock valuation is adjusted for the higher ROE and much of the earnings are not retained.

I love the math. We get another 62.5% rise in the stock by FYE 2012 to take us to $13. Then from $13 we get yet another 20% annualized for two years to get to that $19 number.

I would be very very happy with that outcome. Anyone paying $13 per share today would make 15% annualized until FYE 2014 under that scenario.

I agree with that statement but the head-scratcher here is that another 12 months have passed -- in other words, if you look at the outstanding risk last year vs this year, it must have come down a whole lot just due to tacking on 12 months of additional payments to so many loans. And so whatever estimates management have right now of their reserve adequacy is that much more accurate.

The loan loss reserve is as large as 2.1x annualized losses. Where do the doubts come from?

On the topic, Citigroup's presentation has a comparison of total debts and their composition by sector. page 8: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/p120307a.pdf?ieNocache=853 Shows that from 2000 to Q2 2011, total debt in Canada grew by 25% whereas it grew by 27% in the US. Not a big difference. resulting in total debt: Canada 276% of GDP US 279% of GDP

The referee is blowing the whistle on this one: double-drivelling.

It's not against the law to drink alcohol so therefore you should get a tax refund every time we prosecute a drunk driver?

Currently you are paying extra taxes to lockup the drug users, the prostitutes, the johns, and there might even be the odd dollar wasted on prosecuting polygamy.

People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Does this mean you would vote in favor of allowing polygamy? If not, why? I don't need an answer I am just noting that your philosophy, if consistent, would have to say yes to polygamy, prostitution, drug legalization, etc. They are all consenting adults. I would vote in favor of legalizing polygamy. I would vote in favor of legalizing prostitution. I would vote to decriminalize drug use.

People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Stop taking away his freedom to take away other people's freedom! This is religous opression! ;D I can't help myself as I feel a surge of power after taking away his right to teach creation in public schools. There is no stopping me now.

People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom.

LOL! I am intolerant of the intolerant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.[5] Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.[6] In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.

That is an opinion. Which he is completely entitled to. His opinions are entirely his business right up until the point where he wants to use the violence of the state to enforce them on others. No one is trying to force homosexual marriage on him. If Sanatorium wants to not marry another man everyone is fine with that. When he wants to tell other people who they are "allowed" to marry themselves (i.e. use government force to enforce his personal preferences on others) that's were the problem is. I joke that divorce is more of a threat to marriage, but he isn't against that.

It is hate though. It's bigotry, it's intolerance. Perhaps it is codified in his religion, wouldn't surprise me.

Read it for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL In my state it's legal to take a child bride if the parents approve. Should it also be legal to consumate a homosexual marriage to a child if the parents approve? Personally, I think what this all boils down to is companies don't want to have to pay spousal benefits. So they back candidates that will keep their costs down. Just like "banning the EPA" and other tricks to lower the cost of doing business.

Read it for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL

It explains Newt better too: Because gorillas live in groups with one male and many females

He has an 8 yr, $400m contract (with Clear Channel, signed in 2008). I think he just realizes that there are haters in this country and he gives them what they like to listen to. He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals. I guess it sells -- hate.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Prices-incomes.jpg I think this graph shows it nicely. Housing tends to follow inflation -- people earn more, they spend more on housing, prices rise.. but now people aren't earning much more but prices are way higher, so the difference has to be made up by debt. Also, note that the graph ends in Q1 2011, so the difference is probably even wider now. Prices might be higher because of increasing mortgage debt (not the other way around): Here is a nice presentation on the topic: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2011/03/20/mortgage-finance-association-of-australia-talk/ It's for Australia, but perhaps also would apply to Canada.

article: Daily property index latest thing to bet the house on http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/daily-property-index-latest-thing-to-bet-the-house-on-20120301-1u5zf.html Melbourne's gross rental yield only 3.63% today: http://asx.com.au/asx/markets/propertyIndices.do

I haven't seen data on this, but I think you'll probably find a correlation between rising total Canadian mortgage debt as a % of Canadian GDP and rising housing prices. When mortgage debt is on the rise as a % of GDP, home prices rise faster than trend, and they rise slower than trend (or fall) when the ratio of mortgage debt to GDP retreats. This is what Steve Keen does in Australia and it seems fairly convincing. He's not just looking at population trends as a measure of demand, but rather looking more closely at the financial demand.

Not me. I just learned about options by thinking about them mainly. For example, the $2 strike BAC 2014 call option has an "ask" of $6.3. I can buy it in my Roth IRA where margin loans aren't permissible. I can get about 1.33x leverage by purchasing that option. $6.30+$2=$8.30, which is a 17 cent premium above the market price of BAC. 17 cents is 8.5% of $2, so 4.25% (plus foregone dividend yield) is roughly the interest rate on the loan, except you have the disadvantage of having to put up the interest costs upfront. You also have the huge advantage that there are no margin calls and there is an embedded put -- if the stock price declines considerably, the rising value of the put will soften the blow of your losses. Second example is that if you fear high consumer price inflaiton is you can put 100% of your margin account in TIPS, and then write deep-in-the-money puts on something like BRK class B shares, or perhaps your other favorite company. As the CPI rises, so does the value of your TIPS, and hopefully the underlying stock value of whatever you wrote puts on (maybe just an index ETF). Etc... etc... I find thinking about options in these practical terms to be more productive than studying academic theory on volatility pricing, etc...

Why would they get permission when they haven't even asked? just sayin that if they don't get permission whether they ask for it or not, and the other banks get permission, they will be perceived as weaker than the others. there may be speculators in the stock who think they may get permission when the others do. just a theory. may not happen. remember when all the banks had to take TARP at once, even though some didn't want to? It was to counter the perception that some banks were weaker than others. now it may be that the market already knows that they won't get to do a buyback when the others do. in that case it's clear sailing. :) My crystal ball is pretty hazy so I have no grounds to argue. The significant thing about the Fed test results that I'm anticipating is this: 1) encouraging that a 33-50 cent dollar can survive 13% unemployment, market meltdown, 7% GDP hit, and 20% real estate decline. 2) The other banks will get positive news on their dividends and buybacks, and this should lift their valuations. Given that BAC is trading relative to the others, it will also lift BAC.