Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (545581)	1/22/2010 2:24:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575010

I am sorry, Tim, but some things are just facts. Citibank was the worst bank in terms of its financial condition {that did not go under.] There where many smaller banks, some in worse situations. Your changing your claim, adding "that did not go under", makes it a totally different statement, still a rather questionable one that you don't provide any support for, but even if we assumed it was true it would not be relevant to my disputing your original point. It was an oversight. Obviously the banks that failed were worse. I am talking about of the banks that survived. It was profit for one year. There will be more profits going forward. When you print money or borrow it almost for free, and lend it out at some interest rate, its easy, but not very meaningful to show a profit. It would be a narrow profit for the Fed, but not helpful for the country. But even that narrow profit is very questionable since the bad loans aren't being written down. Since the Fed can have a zero or near zero cost of money, anyone paying interest means it "make a profit", but when you put that much money at risk getting back $54bil isn't very meaningful, even before considering the losses that haven't been accounted for. Tim, it was the biggest profit in the history of the Fed. Reserve. Why can't you, for once, admit you were wrong.