> There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> shorters really have all this power?

> There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> shorters really have all this power?

> There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> shorters really have all this power?

> No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> Shitty.

> You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> sit.

> After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > shorters really have all this power?

> No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> Shitty.

> You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> sit.

> After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > shorters really have all this power?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> For the record Wells Fargo is the one other major back still in the
> TARP bucket.  Citi is hamstrung as to when Treasury will sell its
> shares, worth 31.2B, before Citi can begin selling (diluting) stock to
> repay TARP.  Since Citi is sitting on 244B in cash it could repay the
> TARP debt balance (20B) and absorb Treasury's interest (31B) and still
> meet the required reserves.  Seems that Treasury thinks Citi isn't too
> big to fail afterall.  Linked article at the very least suggests all
> the conjecture of late that Treasury may have sold some/all of it's
> 7.7B shares is just that, idle chatter.

> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aShE5EGhFq90&pos=4

> On Dec 3, 1:49 pm, name-check <zhao.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> > Shitty.

> > You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> > down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> > The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> > earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> > sit.

> > After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> > with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> > On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > > shorters really have all this power?- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> It the government sells it's shares this stock will plummet.  As a
> company it's losing value fast, i'm watching with interest how this
> plays out, i think at some point large amounts of stock are going to
> be let go and i dont think there will be buyers at the current price.
> Supply and demand.  Anyone want some risky stock from a company that
> seems to have surpirses up it's sleeve at every turn? yes? oh
> excellent, would you also like to buy some of my magic beans? ;-)

> On Dec 3, 7:25 pm, wellcraft2400 <wellcraft2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For the record Wells Fargo is the one other major back still in the
> > TARP bucket.  Citi is hamstrung as to when Treasury will sell its
> > shares, worth 31.2B, before Citi can begin selling (diluting) stock to
> > repay TARP.  Since Citi is sitting on 244B in cash it could repay the
> > TARP debt balance (20B) and absorb Treasury's interest (31B) and still
> > meet the required reserves.  Seems that Treasury thinks Citi isn't too
> > big to fail afterall.  Linked article at the very least suggests all
> > the conjecture of late that Treasury may have sold some/all of it's
> > 7.7B shares is just that, idle chatter.

> >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aShE5EGhFq90&pos=4

> > On Dec 3, 1:49 pm, name-check <zhao.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> > > Shitty.

> > > You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> > > down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> > > The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> > > earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> > > sit.

> > > After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> > > with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> > > On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > > > shorters really have all this power?- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Right Steve, which is likely why the government is not selling shares,
> or letting on if and when.  The "board" consensus when PPS fell from
> 5.00 was that "the goverment must be selling shares".  My view was/is
> that Citi shares were played on hype (great for day-trading then) and
> Citi will not register a *real* profit until Q2 2010, if then.  The
> dilution will not attract investors either.  But magic beans make
> great stocking stuffers ::))  Regards, Wellcraft

> On Dec 4, 12:14 am, SB <mail2stevebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It the government sells it's shares this stock will plummet.  As a
> > company it's losing value fast, i'm watching with interest how this
> > plays out, i think at some point large amounts of stock are going to
> > be let go and i dont think there will be buyers at the current price.
> > Supply and demand.  Anyone want some risky stock from a company that
> > seems to have surpirses up it's sleeve at every turn? yes? oh
> > excellent, would you also like to buy some of my magic beans? ;-)

> > On Dec 3, 7:25 pm, wellcraft2400 <wellcraft2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > For the record Wells Fargo is the one other major back still in the
> > > TARP bucket.  Citi is hamstrung as to when Treasury will sell its
> > > shares, worth 31.2B, before Citi can begin selling (diluting) stock to
> > > repay TARP.  Since Citi is sitting on 244B in cash it could repay the
> > > TARP debt balance (20B) and absorb Treasury's interest (31B) and still
> > > meet the required reserves.  Seems that Treasury thinks Citi isn't too
> > > big to fail afterall.  Linked article at the very least suggests all
> > > the conjecture of late that Treasury may have sold some/all of it's
> > > 7.7B shares is just that, idle chatter.

> > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aShE5EGhFq90&pos=4

> > > On Dec 3, 1:49 pm, name-check <zhao.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> > > > Shitty.

> > > > You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> > > > down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> > > > The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> > > > earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> > > > sit.

> > > > After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> > > > with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> > > > On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > > > > shorters really have all this power?- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> It appears that certain people like ?? unable to jive with the facts
> that Citigroup is now Citigov and unable to move up as fast as its
> other peers as a result. ?? continues to live in his own "shattered
> dreams", thinking that Citigov will be back to its original value of
> USD45 in the next two years. ?? is living in his own dream glass house
> and will continue to post credible comments on Citigov as long as they
> satisfy his lustful dream.

> On Dec 4, 1:48 pm, wellcraft2400 <wellcraft2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Right Steve, which is likely why the government is not selling shares,
> > or letting on if and when.  The "board" consensus when PPS fell from
> > 5.00 was that "the goverment must be selling shares".  My view was/is
> > that Citi shares were played on hype (great for day-trading then) and
> > Citi will not register a *real* profit until Q2 2010, if then.  The
> > dilution will not attract investors either.  But magic beans make
> > great stocking stuffers ::))  Regards, Wellcraft

> > On Dec 4, 12:14 am, SB <mail2stevebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > It the government sells it's shares this stock will plummet.  As a
> > > company it's losing value fast, i'm watching with interest how this
> > > plays out, i think at some point large amounts of stock are going to
> > > be let go and i dont think there will be buyers at the current price.
> > > Supply and demand.  Anyone want some risky stock from a company that
> > > seems to have surpirses up it's sleeve at every turn? yes? oh
> > > excellent, would you also like to buy some of my magic beans? ;-)

> > > On Dec 3, 7:25 pm, wellcraft2400 <wellcraft2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > For the record Wells Fargo is the one other major back still in the
> > > > TARP bucket.  Citi is hamstrung as to when Treasury will sell its
> > > > shares, worth 31.2B, before Citi can begin selling (diluting) stock to
> > > > repay TARP.  Since Citi is sitting on 244B in cash it could repay the
> > > > TARP debt balance (20B) and absorb Treasury's interest (31B) and still
> > > > meet the required reserves.  Seems that Treasury thinks Citi isn't too
> > > > big to fail afterall.  Linked article at the very least suggests all
> > > > the conjecture of late that Treasury may have sold some/all of it's
> > > > 7.7B shares is just that, idle chatter.

> > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aShE5EGhFq90&pos=4

> > > > On Dec 3, 1:49 pm, name-check <zhao.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > No. Shorters have no power. The power is with the name of the bank --
> > > > > Shitty.

> > > > > You see. Because it is called Shitty bank, it is by definition going
> > > > > down when the market is up while imploding when the market is down.

> > > > > The CEO of this shitty bank is shitty as well. There is no strategy to
> > > > > earn out of the difficulty. All he does is to hoard cash and let it
> > > > > sit.

> > > > > After BAC pays back its TARP loan, Shitty bank will be only major bank
> > > > > with government stake. That doesn't spell confidence to investors.

> > > > > On Dec 3, 12:25 pm, ogiorolo <stefanav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > There are good news about the bank but C doesn't move up; do the
> > > > > > shorters really have all this power?- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> 'Capitalism - A love story' is an interesting movie that paints a
> bleak picture of American banking.
> Well worth a watch. If your an American it's tragic and if not then
> it's laughable.