| PREDICTIONS | CURRENT VALUE | TODAY |
| Field | $48.39/ $100.00 | (closed) |
| Lehman Brothers | $5.29/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Goldman Sachs | $3.69/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Morgan Stanley | $3.02/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Merrill Lynch | $4.89/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| JPMorgan Chase | $2.68/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Bank of America | $2.68/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Wells Fargo & Company | $2.19/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| UBS | $2.68/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Wachovia Corporation | $4.89/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Washington Mutual | $4.89/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| Citigroup | $4.00/ $0.00 | (closed) |
| None | $10.66/ $0.00 | (closed) |
you could add Credit Suisse, maybe AIG, maybe Berkshire Hathaway, maybe some big PE firms and/or hedge funds (Blackstone, KKR, Citadel)
The fed has taken over IndyMac bank: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008047114_webindymac11.html
“The bank is the largest regulated thrift to fail and the second largest financial institution to close in U.S. history, regulators said.”
Is this bank large enough? If so, does this mean that everything pays out at $0? Or does “Field” mean “other”. I’ve never heard of such a bank.
I am thinking it will suffice:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indymac12-2008jul12,1,7375643.story
geographic footprint is good
http://tinyurl.com/5b93d9
and $32 billion in assets seems also good.
and this should hit the headlines.
However, I will entertain contra arguements as to why it should not suffice, until midnight sunday. trading is suspended until then.
Which stock do you propose to pay out at $100, if any?
field, for indy mac. the question is if $32 billion is enough. I think it is, but I am willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Hence the Sunday deadline.
This is, admittedly, the fault of an ill defined “large institution” definition on the part of the person who runs the market.
But if you can make an argument as to why a certain dollar ammount higher than indy mac should be used as the rubric, i’ll reopen trading and let it ride.
I’m fine with it. It just wasn’t clear to me because I didn’t know what “Field” was supposed to mean.
Personally, I’d accept IndyMac’s failure as meeting the criteria but then again, I’m biased since I’m long “The Field”.
Anyway, argument for:
Second largest bank failure in history behind Continental (maybe 3rd behind first Republic as well)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKWA000014120080712?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Plenty of CNBC coverage as well as #4 Google search on 7/11/08
http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X&date=2008-7-11
Argument against:
Ranked as #47 bank by assets behind, among others, First Tennessee Bank (#41, $38B of assets), a regional which probably falls in your “who cares” category.
Ranked as #84 bank by deposits behind such institutions as Webster Bank (#61, $17B asseets, $12B of deposits), a regonal which probably falls in your “who cares” category.
I am long “None” so certainly not unbiased, but how can a bank with only $32 billion in assets and 33 branches be a “major” bank? (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAYLeK3YAie4&refer=home) To compare, Bank of America has $1.7 trillion in assets and 4800+ branches. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America) I think this has to qualify as a regional bank.
I own a number of shares in “Field”, but if you look at the footprint map that Pentheus posted, you’ll see why it isn’t regional. They have branches in many states. Also, the 33 branches is only the “retail bank network”. The article you linked indicated that there were other branches (at least 60 of which were going to be sold) as well.
Ultimately it comes down to the issue that the market description isn’t very clear. I won’t complain either way. It depends on how we weigh assets against geographical footprint.
Based solely on size, as noted before, this arguably is a non-qualifying regional. On the other hand, the government “support” for Fannie and Freddie might argue that IndyMac was a big enough failure since it may have been the trigger for the need for the Feds to step in. Alternatively, one might look at the need for the Feds to step in with support as a quasi failure of two mega financial institutions, both of whom would be part of the “field”. Again, I’m biased but…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aa7HR5UETT2E&refer=worldwide
based on my extremely vague condition of “who cares” i think the market action today, the number of times it was mentioned on CNBC, and the fact that the WSJ had it above the fold meant that “who cares” was answered with “a lot of people.”
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2668928039_5dcbb6f85b_b.jpg
thusly, i’m paying out “field” at 100.
What will be the next major bank/ibank to fail?
Large companies only. No regionals. Yeah, sorry, 5th3rd looked good. But no one cares if the East Tulsa Community Bank croaks. If it hits headlines and gets its own CNBC special, we have a winner.
I will take suggestions of other stocks to add.
Inkling-Schadenfreude
Financial markets saved. Puppies and apple pie for everybody