<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Even After the Bailout, Bank Stocks are a Bad Deal for  Investors Right Now</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/</link>
	<description>Investment News Provider</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:54:40 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amer</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-12135</link>
		<dc:creator>Amer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-12135</guid>
		<description>Buying bank stocks is Saudi Arabia Idea and strategy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Buying bank stocks is Saudi Arabia Idea and strategy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Global Credit Crisis Takes a Toll on Former Titans of Banking &#124; Jutia Group</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11213</link>
		<dc:creator>Global Credit Crisis Takes a Toll on Former Titans of Banking &#124; Jutia Group</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11213</guid>
		<description>[...] The United States $700 billion bailout package is by far the largest, but even that might not be enough to return the domestic banking industry back to safety. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The United States $700 billion bailout package is by far the largest, but even that might not be enough to return the domestic banking industry back to safety. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Wheatley</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11058</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Wheatley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11058</guid>
		<description>It would be better in the long run to simply let them all go broke.
I know that sounds heartless, but it happened in 1921, and within a year the country picked itself up and recovered.

That they didn&#039;t learn the lesson was evidenced by the crash of 1929, and after that the Government got involved and it lasted until world war 2.

Socialising the debt will only prolong the problems. You can&#039;t spend your way to wealth, and that is what America, and to much the same degree the rest of the West has been living for 20 years.

The people who approved 100% mortgages, Loans to unemployed people, and those who were not credit worthy deserve to go broke. And those who got the loans deserved to lose their houses.

Unfortunately today no one is allowed to fail! And that is simply unrealistic. If you stop failure the only alternative is to penalize the successful. And that will drag down the entire structure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be better in the long run to simply let them all go broke.<br />
I know that sounds heartless, but it happened in 1921, and within a year the country picked itself up and recovered.</p>
<p>That they didn&#8217;t learn the lesson was evidenced by the crash of 1929, and after that the Government got involved and it lasted until world war 2.</p>
<p>Socialising the debt will only prolong the problems. You can&#8217;t spend your way to wealth, and that is what America, and to much the same degree the rest of the West has been living for 20 years.</p>
<p>The people who approved 100% mortgages, Loans to unemployed people, and those who were not credit worthy deserve to go broke. And those who got the loans deserved to lose their houses.</p>
<p>Unfortunately today no one is allowed to fail! And that is simply unrealistic. If you stop failure the only alternative is to penalize the successful. And that will drag down the entire structure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LARRY W SHARER</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11049</link>
		<dc:creator>LARRY W SHARER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11049</guid>
		<description>RATHER THAN BUYING BIG BANK COMMON STOCK, THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO BUY TRADITIONAL PREFERRED STOCK OF BIG BANKS BECAUSE THE CAPITAL FROM THE NEW US GOVERNMENT PREFERRED SHARES CAN BE REPURCHASED BY ISSUING COMMMON STOCK( OR CONTINUING TO PAY A DIVIDEND AT 5% OR 9%), CAUSING DILUTION OF THE COMMON, BUT THE TRADITIONAL (NON SPECIAL US GOVERNEMENT PREFERRED) PREFERRED WILL BE MORE STABLE DUE TO THE US GOVERNMENT CAPITAL INFUSION - CAUSING THE TRADITIONAL PREFERRED DIVIDEND TO BE EVEN MORE SECURE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RATHER THAN BUYING BIG BANK COMMON STOCK, THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO BUY TRADITIONAL PREFERRED STOCK OF BIG BANKS BECAUSE THE CAPITAL FROM THE NEW US GOVERNMENT PREFERRED SHARES CAN BE REPURCHASED BY ISSUING COMMMON STOCK( OR CONTINUING TO PAY A DIVIDEND AT 5% OR 9%), CAUSING DILUTION OF THE COMMON, BUT THE TRADITIONAL (NON SPECIAL US GOVERNEMENT PREFERRED) PREFERRED WILL BE MORE STABLE DUE TO THE US GOVERNMENT CAPITAL INFUSION &#8211; CAUSING THE TRADITIONAL PREFERRED DIVIDEND TO BE EVEN MORE SECURE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buy banking stocks? Not yet. &#8212; shareholdersunite.com</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11042</link>
		<dc:creator>Buy banking stocks? Not yet. &#8212; shareholdersunite.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11042</guid>
		<description>[...] Even After the Bailout, Bank Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors Right Now By Martin Hutchinson from Money Morning [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Even After the Bailout, Bank Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors Right Now By Martin Hutchinson from Money Morning [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Crawford</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11041</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Crawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11041</guid>
		<description>The article is interesting and well reasoned, but I think your closing conclusion that &quot;In any case, the business of banking itself is likely to be pretty unattractive over the next few years.&quot;  is probably not correct.  I remember reading a lengthy analysis article in Time Magazine in the late 70&#039;s that concluded Wall Street investment banks could not possibly supply the huge amounts of capital that American companies would need in the future, and therefore the commercial banks would become dominant over Wall Street.  How wrong that analysis was!

For the past thirty years, the Wall Street investment banks have been steadily taking business away from the commercial banks.  The reasons for this have been lower and more favorable capital requirements, the relative freedom from regulation, the cost of deposit insurance, and a greater willingness to take risks, since a commercial bank is taking the risk itself and the investment bank is taking the risk on behalf of its investor customers.

The recent turmoil has upended almost all of these advantages.  All the big investment banks are now owned by commercial banks or have been forced to convert to commercial banks, so the capital cost advantage is gone.  Regulations are likely to get much stricter on Wall Street.  Since the Fed is now bailing out money market funds, deposit insurance costs on those funds cannot be far behind.  And excessive risk taking is not likely to be rewarded in either a commercial or an investment bank.  The playing field has leveled so that commercial bank products such as loans and deposits are going to be much more attractive to both borrowers and investors than the commercial paper, structured investment products, and money market funds Wall Street offered.

Another advantage to the commercial banks is the relative gap between prime and LIBOR.  LIBOR loans are been very cheap for the customer.  If the recent rise in LIBOR is sustained for any length of time, this will represent a significant profit increase for commercial banks, who have a substantial portion of their comercial loans tied to LIBOR.

The coming years may be the commercial banks&#039; time in the sun.  That being said, I agree with your conclusion that this is not the time to invest in bank stocks.  Purely aside from problems arising from sub-prime loans, credit default swaps, and all the other toxic waste banks may have on their balance sheets, the political environment is likely to be toxic as well; Congress is likely to pass a number of ill-considered programs mandating credit allocations, additional aid to &quot;under-served communities&quot;, etc.

Watchful waiting!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article is interesting and well reasoned, but I think your closing conclusion that &#8220;In any case, the business of banking itself is likely to be pretty unattractive over the next few years.&#8221;  is probably not correct.  I remember reading a lengthy analysis article in Time Magazine in the late 70&#8217;s that concluded Wall Street investment banks could not possibly supply the huge amounts of capital that American companies would need in the future, and therefore the commercial banks would become dominant over Wall Street.  How wrong that analysis was!</p>
<p>For the past thirty years, the Wall Street investment banks have been steadily taking business away from the commercial banks.  The reasons for this have been lower and more favorable capital requirements, the relative freedom from regulation, the cost of deposit insurance, and a greater willingness to take risks, since a commercial bank is taking the risk itself and the investment bank is taking the risk on behalf of its investor customers.</p>
<p>The recent turmoil has upended almost all of these advantages.  All the big investment banks are now owned by commercial banks or have been forced to convert to commercial banks, so the capital cost advantage is gone.  Regulations are likely to get much stricter on Wall Street.  Since the Fed is now bailing out money market funds, deposit insurance costs on those funds cannot be far behind.  And excessive risk taking is not likely to be rewarded in either a commercial or an investment bank.  The playing field has leveled so that commercial bank products such as loans and deposits are going to be much more attractive to both borrowers and investors than the commercial paper, structured investment products, and money market funds Wall Street offered.</p>
<p>Another advantage to the commercial banks is the relative gap between prime and LIBOR.  LIBOR loans are been very cheap for the customer.  If the recent rise in LIBOR is sustained for any length of time, this will represent a significant profit increase for commercial banks, who have a substantial portion of their comercial loans tied to LIBOR.</p>
<p>The coming years may be the commercial banks&#8217; time in the sun.  That being said, I agree with your conclusion that this is not the time to invest in bank stocks.  Purely aside from problems arising from sub-prime loans, credit default swaps, and all the other toxic waste banks may have on their balance sheets, the political environment is likely to be toxic as well; Congress is likely to pass a number of ill-considered programs mandating credit allocations, additional aid to &#8220;under-served communities&#8221;, etc.</p>
<p>Watchful waiting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris erickson</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11033</link>
		<dc:creator>chris erickson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11033</guid>
		<description>Before the bail out bill was passed I said that what congress should do was keep Fanni &amp;Freddi ; use the income to pay donw the national debt ; lower insterest rates to 4.5 % fixed
on all loans , for realestate ( 1st , 2nd , 3rd , equity lines )..
Along with a few other coments ob this page .. I also sent the same info ( copies to a lot of senators &amp; reps )...  Also
that all the lenders should writwe down the loan amounts 
based on how far the value has droped in the market where 
the loans was made... It would make more sense than 
foreclosing then reselling at a loss of 50 to 70% of the  inittial
value placed on the property  when the loan was made...
If you take in the cost of sale , fixing , maintaining the  item 
, the loss on the loan , the cost of foreclosure  it is at least 
50 of the original loan amount they are lossing ... It would just
be eaiser to refi to a lower rate &amp; write down the note....
Instead the lenders dsidn&#039;t think any farther than they could 
dee at their feet...By letting the homes go to foreclosure &amp;
lossing then they have driven down the value of other 
properties in the surounding areas.....So this is a double edged
swoard ...... Most of the people who bought these homes 
would still be in them if the lenders had taken a min to think...
Instead they do as all bankers do when times are good they give money to any warm body ; when they are bad they want you to pay for their mistakes.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Before the bail out bill was passed I said that what congress should do was keep Fanni &amp;Freddi ; use the income to pay donw the national debt ; lower insterest rates to 4.5 % fixed<br />
on all loans , for realestate ( 1st , 2nd , 3rd , equity lines )..<br />
Along with a few other coments ob this page .. I also sent the same info ( copies to a lot of senators &amp; reps )&#8230;  Also<br />
that all the lenders should writwe down the loan amounts<br />
based on how far the value has droped in the market where<br />
the loans was made&#8230; It would make more sense than<br />
foreclosing then reselling at a loss of 50 to 70% of the  inittial<br />
value placed on the property  when the loan was made&#8230;<br />
If you take in the cost of sale , fixing , maintaining the  item<br />
, the loss on the loan , the cost of foreclosure  it is at least<br />
50 of the original loan amount they are lossing &#8230; It would just<br />
be eaiser to refi to a lower rate &amp; write down the note&#8230;.<br />
Instead the lenders dsidn&#8217;t think any farther than they could<br />
dee at their feet&#8230;By letting the homes go to foreclosure &amp;<br />
lossing then they have driven down the value of other<br />
properties in the surounding areas&#8230;..So this is a double edged<br />
swoard &#8230;&#8230; Most of the people who bought these homes<br />
would still be in them if the lenders had taken a min to think&#8230;<br />
Instead they do as all bankers do when times are good they give money to any warm body ; when they are bad they want you to pay for their mistakes&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: I LOVE MONEY &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Even After the Bailout, &#60;b&#62;Bank&#60;/b&#62; Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors &#60;b&#62;&#8230;&#60;/b&#62;</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11029</link>
		<dc:creator>I LOVE MONEY &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Even After the Bailout, &#60;b&#62;Bank&#60;/b&#62; Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors &#60;b&#62;&#8230;&#60;/b&#62;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11029</guid>
		<description>[...] Source:Even After the Bailout, &lt;b&gt;Bank&lt;/b&gt; Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors &lt;b&gt;&#8230;...    Author:    Time: Friday, October 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm   Category: Money Bank   Comments: You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.   RSS: You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.   Navigation:   &#171; Can Elance Make You &lt;b&gt;Money&lt;/b&gt;? &lt;b&gt;Money Saving&lt;/b&gt; Fall Garden Tips &#187;     ARTICLEURL [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Source:Even After the Bailout, &lt;b&gt;Bank&lt;/b&gt; Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors &lt;b&gt;&#8230;&#8230;    Author:    Time: Friday, October 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm   Category: Money Bank   Comments: You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.   RSS: You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.   Navigation:   &laquo; Can Elance Make You &lt;b&gt;Money&lt;/b&gt;? &lt;b&gt;Money Saving&lt;/b&gt; Fall Garden Tips &raquo;     ARTICLEURL [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prose Before Hos</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11022</link>
		<dc:creator>Prose Before Hos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11022</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The Washington Consensus: Bailout The Rich...&lt;/strong&gt;


See Also: What benefits do the taxpayers get out of the bailout bill?, No investigation of those who caused fake ‘crisis’, 7 Out Of 9 Banks Agree: Bailout Is A Failout, AIG Execs Caught Wasting Even More Of Our Money After Bailout, JPMorgan Respon......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Washington Consensus: Bailout The Rich&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>See Also: What benefits do the taxpayers get out of the bailout bill?, No investigation of those who caused fake ‘crisis’, 7 Out Of 9 Banks Agree: Bailout Is A Failout, AIG Execs Caught Wasting Even More Of Our Money After Bailout, JPMorgan Respon&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/17/bank-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-11020</link>
		<dc:creator>William</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2734#comment-11020</guid>
		<description>Homeowners have been hit hard with higher real estate &amp; personal property taxes, energy and food costs.  Their incomes have not increased and what used to be a comfortable living is now stressed.  People are having a hard time purchasing basic necessities and need financial relief. 

With inventories at its peak, higher interest rates and portfolios like http://www.BuyMyHouseBeforeTheBankTakesIt.com only creates a recipe for panic.  What we have left to our real estate market is the necessity buyer, and if the economy does not pick up soon, corporate America will freeze and the relocation market will dry up.  The best thing the Federal Government should do at this time is to offer 4% fixed rate mortgages for the refinance of the principal of their homes to people who can afford it (standard lending practices).  This would free up household disposable income, create a market for the banking industry, and create jobs so people could start spending a little again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Homeowners have been hit hard with higher real estate &amp; personal property taxes, energy and food costs.  Their incomes have not increased and what used to be a comfortable living is now stressed.  People are having a hard time purchasing basic necessities and need financial relief. </p>
<p>With inventories at its peak, higher interest rates and portfolios like <a href="http://www.BuyMyHouseBeforeTheBankTakesIt.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.BuyMyHouseBeforeTheBankTakesIt.com</a> only creates a recipe for panic.  What we have left to our real estate market is the necessity buyer, and if the economy does not pick up soon, corporate America will freeze and the relocation market will dry up.  The best thing the Federal Government should do at this time is to offer 4% fixed rate mortgages for the refinance of the principal of their homes to people who can afford it (standard lending practices).  This would free up household disposable income, create a market for the banking industry, and create jobs so people could start spending a little again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
