An irreverent look at Wall Street
How about Citi? Citi won’t be paying taxes for several years. As TheStreet pointed out in a recent article, Citigroup will not pay taxes on its next $131 billion in earningsdealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/ackman-makes-his-case-for-citigroup/
So much for poor retail??? We don't need no stinkin' sales says the blogging putz. V ready to rumb..... Oh my, its sinking 2 points again. I want my mtv...make that mpg. Red again. No doubt P sold again without informing the readers. After all its a traders market.As for Citi, its worth about 1.00 per share. Normalized earnings for that bloated pig would be about .10 per share. Give it a 10 pe for stagnant growth. But P says the genius Tepper bought it so why do your own diligence? Teppers never wrong, is he?
oh my! stocks are up today! where are the palmoni doubters today? oh my!
Come on whydidibuy--now you are just getting stupid. Have a plan besides all your talk of nonsense, and for once, look at somethimg more than a day out.Retail sales? Anyone check gasoline prices? That made sales look worse--in any event--you are not graded on the news but on the market's reaction to it. And your analysis is woefully poor.And quite frankly, you and every one else in the oh my crowd, think that us bulls get panicked because prices come down. Who cares. Real buyers have enough balls and conviction to hold on to something, and they really don't care about the background noise.Your analysis on Citi is just wrong. Maybe you want a forum for your views; whatever--but do some homework check out Ackman's analysis on Citi tax break etc how about the next $131 billion??As far as MPG---I'm holding it--and imho I'll get at least 12, but if commercial real estate implodes and downtown LA is a dustbowl I get zip--big deal--I can deal with that.This is a wonderful market for traders and investors--but sometimes you bears work so ghard with your concocted stories, that you have to have some patience before the rest of the world sees the story you are trying to con the public withand most of you bears are still pissed that no-one could take their shorts in down under S&P 700 because there just wasn't liquiditywell guess what--no liquidity here--every moron and dimwit has already sold--except you get a report by Steele's BMO all dressed up and gussied up telling the world to go to cash because that is the only alternative available...so rest assured, you have at least company with your views...except it will just cost you money
Hey whydibuy - where's your blog? Where's your advice for John Q at no charge? Where's your effort at sharing real information rather than using Palmoni's coat tails (and an audience that he earned through a couple of years of effort) for your specious comments?This blog has made my wallet fatter - what about yours?Can't help but think that you're a typical, ball less Monday morning quarterback...Peeler
Oh, oh, real buyers have the balls to hold onto something.....I'm curious, does that apply to holders of mpg @ 30.00 ??Or how about mgm @ 100 or lvs @ 80.00.If you're gonna do taunting, add those ballsy buyers in with your example. Clearly, they don't care about background noise.My analysis of C is right on. If the best the bulls can do is claim some tax credit as the reason to buy, their analysis is what should be questioned. To use some credit, the bank has to earn it first. There C will have problems. Oh, I know, they'll rack up more tax loss credits which will make 'em even better.
Post a Comment