Bought 3000 Shares of Citigroup

long term in this market is 6 hrs

there is no stability in this market...be careful , gl and if it goes to 2.25 sell it ....scary times now

dont but f buy chrysler ... im me

Scared money don't make money. And I got time to wait. This is the climate where a lot of people end up rich. I plan on being one of those.

At least if I lose it all it's my choice. Better then sitting there month after month and watching my statement balance shrink.

Chrysler and GM are both going under, I wouldn't touch either. Ford will be fine and rebound in time. I would take Chrysler if you paid me $1 a share

I totally agree....life changing wealth was made after the great depression by people who knew a bargain when they saw it. The people who sat back and talked about how bad things were and held onto what little money they had missed out on opportunity. Times have been incredibly bad, but what goes down will eventually go up.....Citi at a buck and half is a DEAL, BOA at 5 bucks is a deal, if dooms day happens in the market and you lose your 5k, its not the end of the world, but if Citi gets even half way their 52 week high in the next 3 years your sitting very pretty. Scared money rarely profits in good or bad times....GO FRIDAY....I bet theres another rally!! I bought some of wells fargo, boa and citi....made me a ton the last couple of days.....

agreed u can take a chance...nobody buying gm ,,,,ford will need money at end of 2009.... chrysler will be partening with fiat .... lots of good european cars.. and lots of money... gl remember that and be very careful 6 hrs is long term in this market!

Bank Stock #1: Citigroup (C)
I'll start with the worst of the worst still standing.

Citigroup (C) is standing squarely in the middle of that government line in the sand. Though the front line is not a pleasant place to be, it has to be comforting to know that the company has a partner in the government. Or is it?

The big concern for shareholders is further dilution. The government recently converted its preferred investment into common equity. Will there be a need for more capital? Perhaps, but shareholders can absorb more dilution if necessary.

Recently, the company stated that the bank was on track to make $8 billion in the first two months of the year not including special items. It's those special items or write-down of assets that has destroyed value to date. Put that behind us, and Citigroup could do more than survive.

At just under $2.00 per share, think of owning shares as an option. You may lose your premium, but if the company survives, the upside is truly tremendous.

Bank Stock #2: Wells Fargo (WFC)
As opposed to Citigroup, Wells Fargo (WFC) has done a much better job avoiding the total nonsense of billions of dollars in write-downs and losses. That said, no bank is unscathed in this crisis.

Of the group, I would say that WFC is the best-run, and though bank management teams are to be rightly criticized, the team at WFC is really one of the best. At the top is Richard Kovacevich, Chairman of the Board and former CEO. Mr. Kovacevich has a history of knowing when to buy his stock. Last year when it was learned that he purchased shares of WFC at prices in the $20s, investors would have been right to ride his coattails. Only the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression made that call premature.

Now around $14 per share, I think owning what I consider to be the best in a bad lot makes a ton of sense.

For four other sectors to fall in love with again, click here.

Take that TARP and shove it! That's what the CEO of TCF Financial Corp. (TCB) stated recently when he announced that the company would be paying back TARP money sooner rather than later.

TCB had accepted $361 million four months ago. Stating that the rules had changed since that time, the company announced that it would be paying back the government post haste. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bill Cooper said, "TCF has sufficient capital to operate without TARP money."

This move is interesting in that this regional bank is not interested in government rules regarding management of the company. Good for TCF and good for TCF shareholders.

I'd own this stock merely on principal, but with shares trading just off recent lows, I like the valuation as well. Clearly the company feels that it can withstand the storm and do so alone. The payback of government assistance is strong validation of those feelings.

Right there with Citigroup, Bank of America (BAC) is a poster child of what not to do during this crisis.

The ill-advised purchase of Merrill Lynch resulted in BAC absorbing losses way beyond what would have transpired had they not made the deal. At the time, it seemed like a great acquisition. Merrill Lynch is a great franchise, and in a more normal economic period, would be a great franchise for BAC.

Allowing Merrill wealth managers to access to BAC's high-net-worth clients provides excellent synergies and profit making ability. The problem is that BAC paid too much. That's easy to say and criticize in hindsight. And the market has done just that by cutting the value of the stock by 70% or more since the deal was announced last fall.

At current prices, the stock is worthy of speculation.

SunTrust Banks (STI) has been dipping into government funds as it looks to survive the financial crisis. Shares dipped to a new all-time low in mid- to late-February as some speculated that the bank would not pass the new government stress test.

Since bottoming at $6 per share, though, STI has more than doubled in value as fears of failing the stress test abate. Have we seen the worst of it? I would say we have.

STI may not return to the peak of $60 plus, but another double from current levels is certainly possible. The government has its back, and that protection without complete dilution or nationalization is supportive of equity holders.

I would speculate here without question.

All my future dollar cost averaging (monthly small investments into
the stock market) is going into a China fund and a Brazil fund.

Brazil's GDP grew last quarter by 1.8% and their stock market in
the global collapse was down by only 6%.

China's market was pushed down in the collapse but it has already
started moving up and is a good market for the next 15 years.

Just my opinion, 8)

The CEO of Citi announced profits the past two months, causing stocks to rise this past week. Do you believe these are "true" increases or only a result of the bailout money. Just wondering if we will continue to see these profits or if they are manufactured ???

I have posted numerous times explaining that the people who stopped the re-regulation of Freddie and Fannie in 2005 were republicans. First and foremost, they controlled congress. The 2005 bill, S190, died in committee. With a 55 seat majority, the republicans could have voted on it any time they wanted. Somehow, people take exception to this logic.

I posted a link where Republican Mike Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services committee blamed Greenspan and Bush. He said the House passed their version of the bill, H.R. 1461 with full bipartisan support, 330-91. He says Greenspan and Bush ‘attacked the bill’ and that’s why the bill died in the senate. The highest ranking republican as far as economic issues are concerned said it, not me.

http://www.ft.com/home/us

(put Oxley in the search button and click on the article titled ‘Oxley hits back at ideologues’

How is that possible you ask? You were told Bush tried to re regulate the Freddie and Fannie? Well he did and he didn’t. He wanted a regulator to oversee them because he was worried about their size and power not because he was worried about the subprime mortgage crisis that was unfolding. Why would I say that? Because W said it

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....

“The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers....”

Strangely, increasing home loans to low income buyers was a constant theme of W. Along with numerous HUD directives he also implemented the “American Dream Down Payment Act” to help with the down payments for people who couldn’t afford them. Regardless of his reasons, it was his policy. Here is the announcement regarding the November 2004 directive from HUD to Freddie and Fannie to increase the number of low income mortgage loans.

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/gse/gse2...

“In November 2004 HUD issued a Final Rule that established new housing goal levels for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for calendar years 2005 through 2008……

.. Under the 2004 Final Rule, the housing goals will increase gradually over the 2005-08
period."

Here’s a news article with comments of groups opposed to the new rules.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_est...

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership http://www..hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr04-006.cfm

So not only did Bush push mortgages to low income buyers he worked against the bill to re regulate Freddie and Fannie. That’s why republican Mike Oxley was pissed and why he blamed W. What role did the democrats play. An amendment was added that they were against so they voted against it in committee. They were willing to vote for it if the amendment was removed but there was no compromise from the republicans. Their vote in no way prevented the committee from putting the bill to a vote on the senate floor. The republicans killed it in committee because of Bush’s stance against it and the stealth lobbying campaign from Freddie Mac.

Think about every editorial you read that said Bush and or McCain tried to regulate Freddie and Fannie to prevent the mortgage crisis but the democrats wouldn’t let them. How odd that the republicans were in charge of congress, the republican president worked against the bill but the media blames the democrats with no mention of the Hud rule changes, no mention of Bush’s policies, and no mention of Mike Oxley blaming Bush.

Shouldn’t you expect more the people you trust to inform you?