Wells Fargo shocks market with record profit

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok. It's a start. Not earth-shattering, but you can see a light at the end of the economic tunnel.


    Wells Fargo, a "bailout" bank, unexpectedly posted a $3 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009. Nobody saw this coming.


    This great news sent Wells Fargo shares flying, lifting other major banks with it. Wells Fargo soared 20.82 percent to 17.99 dollars in midday New York trade, while JPMorgan Chase was up 11.37 percent at 30.55 dollars and Bank of America vaulted 20.68 percent to 8.52 dollars.

    Wells Fargo - which received 25 billion taxpayer dollars from the US Treasury - expects to pay 372 million dollars in dividends to the Treasury (we taxpayers will start to get our money back with interest).


    All this fine news shot the Dow up 246 points (almost to 8100 - its 5th straight week of gains).

    Now all we need to do is get this damned plan to get toxic assets off the books in motion, AND WE'RE ROLLING!


    nick8 and I have a message for all you snickering Doubting Thomases:

    YouTube - Legends - Judy Garland & Barbra Streisand - Duet
     
  2. D_Pubert Stabbingpain

    D_Pubert Stabbingpain Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Appreciate your optimism (not your musical taste) but the continuing problem is that as long as people continue to get severed from their jobs (many due to "company convenience" instead of for true business reasons), 5.84 million now collecting unemployment with an estimated 10-13 million total unemployed, people will continue to default on their mortgages PLUS I think there is a heck of a lot of "toxic assets" that have not yet been revealed including from Wells.

    I don't know if you followed the "Mark to Market" change being touted this and last week, but if corporations, espeically banks, are allowed to choose any figures they want, well, of course, there balance sheets will look better. But will *we* really be better off? Will a realtor or a potential buyer allow me to say my home is worth twice the amount the market dictates? I don't think so. Will the government allow me to write off my paper loss? I can't refinance because I was also severed.

    So, can I have bailout money equal to the amount of value my home has lost so I can go out and buy another home with the cash, turn it over for a handsome profit so I can pay back the government and still make a profit? I don't think so.

    I am not a doubting thomas but realistically think that by the time this trickles down to me, it may very well be too late.
     
  3. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Say what you will, it's a start.

    Thanks, will. You know I love that duet.
     
  4. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    I agree..this is a start. The $3 billion may be a little misleading because they are working some smoke and mirrors with their purchase of Wachovia; but nonetheless, this was good news.

    Jobless claims are leveling out, new home purchases are up. Hopefully the worst is behind us; yet a difficult and tumultuous road still lies ahead.
     
  5. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    strange...that "bailout" bank got its money from the previous administration...not this one.

    WFC's 1st quarter began on January 1, 2009, roughly three weeks before the current administration took office.

    i suppose if you are doling out credit to spread on this particular happy sandwich you plan on devouring, you will make sure to spread the condiments equally?

    after all...when things were not looking so hot a few weeks ago, you were saying that this was not Obama's fault, as it was residual effects from the previous administration...so, presumably, you will be giving some credit to the previous administration, considering that it passed the initial bailouts, and very little money from the Obama stimulus has actually found its way into the economy yet...

    are you prepared to give the Fed, and the previous administration any credit for the stabilization? or is the fact that the current administration was not responsible for all the terrible news since it had only been in office for 7 weeks, now responsible for all the good stuff at the roughly 10 week mark?

    I'd like to hear you manage a bit of objectivity towards the role of the fed, and the previous administration in dealing with the crises in the fall and through the winter and through the last couple of months in insuring that things did not spin further out of control then they did, which was and is still quite substantial.

    will you ever actually answer these questions WT? Or will you just continue to parrot a partisan line?

    If the market crashes to pieces for some reason in three weeks, whose fault will it be?

    you can't take credit and deflect blame for certain things in the same time frame...

    you either take it all or you don't...so which is it?

    now that things are looking more favorable, are you fully engaged in claiming all credit from here on out? If so, i presume you have no trouble eating the bad news that may still come.

    i am presuming that is what you are saying with this post.

    Now that things are "improving" this is "Obama's economy" (but it wasn't when the market was plummeting just a couple of weeks ago)

    I presume from here on out, you will be reporting the good *and* the bad news from now on with regards to this all being Obama's economy from now on, since you have been doing that after spinning on a dime once the market began to turn around, after disavowing it when it was falling.

    I suppose also you will be giving the *FED* not Obama...the *FED* credit for pumping money into the economy, driving borrowing rates to unprecedented lows...

    banks ar borrowing from each other through the fed at .2%



    oh, and btw...that number from Wells Fargo is not concrete. they do not report official results for two more weeks, so let's not get so happy just yet.

    the WFC numbers are indicative *ONLY* that WFC and some of the other banks may be showing that the fed money policy and governmnet funds are assisting them in turning a profit from more lending...

    this does not however change the problems of the other sectors, where bad news is only just starting to trickle out

    Companies across a variety of industries are either going down or are laying off folks to stay above water.

    Retailers were already warning everyone today of continuing heavy sales declines, due to lack of consumer spending.

    in the words of Winston Wolf, from Pulp Fiction: Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet
     
  6. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    I recently got a reverse mortgage with Wells Fargo. That's what did it.

    BTW - Didn't Wells Fargo decline the bailout money until the feds threatened to "audit" them? I understand that there was a lot of this going on. Extortion by the U.S. Government.
     
  7. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,480
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    77
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    you know darn well the dot.com boom and bust, as well as the real estate boom and bust, has only so little to do with one administration.

    curious if there will be any grandstanding senate committee to figure out how a bank needing bailout money, turns a record profit within months. must be the overpaid management team...
     
  8. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,480
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    77
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    There's mixed suspicion as to why Wells said thanks but no thanks to that. But yes... many believe it was a "take the money.... and we're forcing you to... then we can "better regulate" you".
     
  9. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    15shooter writes: "Appreciate your optimism (not your musical taste)...."

    --------------------


    Oh my gosh, 15shooter. You just casually dissed Barbra and Judy - and then casually went on to make your next point! Somebody needs to revoke your gay card! You are breaking an unwritten etiquette code!

    See, it's one thing to dis Cher or Bette Midler or Donna Summers or even Pet Shop Boys -- all of that is forgivable, venial sins, no serious breach of etiquette. But dissing Barbra and Judy is not merely a lapse of decorum. You are fiddling with the foundations of 20th century gay liberation! (it's even rumored that the sad, unintentional barbituate overdose death of Judy Garland on June 22, six days before the Stonewall Inn riots may have contributed to that first instance where gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored system of homosexual persecution). Barbra and Judy together are like the Mt. Rushmore of gay icons! Hold your tongue!
     
  10. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Sounds hopeful to me. Despite my best intentions over the years of complete divestment, I got stuck with a couple thousand shares of Wells Fargo from a trust account. Now, if American Express will start to perk up . . . .
     
  11. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    that is what made it easier for them to buy Wachovia, which was one gigantic toxic asset...

    the government essentially told them to buy Wachovia, and they'd have the extra cash to do it, and ride out any problems with the full backing of the taxpayers etc.
     
  12. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup. The government forced both good banks and bad banks to take money in an effort to spread the money around so it would be more difficult for outsiders to see which banks were worse off...just like they forced BofA to acquire Merril
     
  13. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Very true. That deal bordered on extortion. They also 'forced' Nat City to be acquired by PNC; when Nat was larger than PNC.
     
  14. Trinity

    Trinity New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    While the market rallied on this preannouncement by Wells Fargo, there is major skepticism in the financial sector as to whether WFC actually made record profits in 1Q.

    MARKET TALK: More Skepticism On Wells Fargo's 1Q Surprise - Dow Jones Newswire Edited by John Shipman

    Skeptics Question Wells Fargo's Bullish Results (WFC)

    - The BusinessInsider.com Joe Weisenthal Apr. 10, 2009

    Wells Fargo May Need $50 Billion in Capital, KBW Says
    -Bloomberg By Ari Levy Apr. 13

    Bulls, Bears Redraw Battle Lines Over Wells Fargo Shares

    -CNN Money.com April 13, 2009, By Ed Welsch, Dow Jones Newswires
     
  15. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing more than playing with numbers to temporarily make things look good, companies do this all the time. In fact, it's exactly what I'm learning how to do in my financial management and asset accounting classes. They are lying. Never forget that.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted