YHS is more realistic target. OK, let's lyn forumers all go to goreng it.

Low liquidity stock, easy to push up.

Joking only.

Anyhow, YHS share price rise on tiny volume only and not significant, even any forumers buying also can push up the price already.

Red alert on DJ, it will make fresh new low (intraday) if market open as future suggested.

The problem is lollipop only last a while, when the baby finished it, she cries again, want more.

Remember when the 700 billion TRAP coming out time, market cheer and rally, hu-ha this and that.
After awhile market tank again. Then come out stimulus package II, then market hu-ha again, market surged for awhile, then after a week or two said not enough blar blar, then market makes new low again.

It is better once for all, nationalise the banks and restructured all together. The all start over with new face in financial market. Rather than like now, drag and drag until situation become unsolvable. The reluctant of rescue/bailing out of Lehman already is a good lesson. Want to prevent problem deteoriate, act fast and decisive, you either bail them out totally, or let them fail totally, not in between.

Where the money goes?

Evaporising or loss in thin air lor.

If not mistaken, the min rate they must give is 2.5%.

US doesn't need to care much about balance their book at the moment, as long as world has demand for USD and tresuries, this problem won't be a problem at least for near future or years to come.

You solve one immediate problem first before tackling another that is long term one.

Let large commercial bank to fail is out of question. It sounds easy and should be. But imagine if your money goes with it (if you have deposit with them and more than FDIC can guarantee), then I don't think you agree this option already. You might go out to the street to protest to gov, why let them fail.

The main concern why cannot let them fail, because it is a vicious cycle if you let them fail. See how Lehman failed that causing the whole world financial market being frozen out. Lehman is not as big as (in fact much much smaller) those large commercial bank, if they let one large commercial bank fails, then the damage is unimaginery.
We might see world equities plunged like Asian bourses during 1997 or even worst than that and whole world financial market will be in chaotic.
By then it makes worst the already in recession economy.

There is no strong bank, balance balance sheet health is depended on customers to pay their loan, if customers can get a job with recession economy deepen, then even a strong bank balance sheet health also deteoriate with it. So by lettting them fails, you will deepen the economy recesssion, eventually more customers can't pay up their loan, so more default. It is vicious cycle that is looping. You need to put a stop on the cycle to have recovery.

Banks industry is different from ordinary business. Banks business is all about loan given out. So all risk is exposed to customers ability to pay up.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Feb 22 2009, 07:33 AM

It means the capital repayment has been approved and just waiting for the company shareholders to nood on it and company paper work to finalise the cash payment.

I also disagree to bailout those greedy banker, but what to do. There are 2 option only, either bail out or let them fail.

But it can go even worst if nothing is done and just let them fail, but future could be brighter if through this way but with a lot of pain and disastrous event.
The damage will be more severe 2x 3x than currenny scenario if let those large commercial bank fail. People will rush all the money out from those banker even good one will suffer because by then you don't know which one is good nor bad, (just like what happened in Asian during 1997) eventually causing people lose trust on banks, by then it is very chaotic for financial market even worldwide business will be affected.

See how those when credit market seized up time just after Lehman failed which send the recession wave across the world.
What we see currently is not as damaging yet, there are some room to be more worst, if one has gone through what had Asian countries experience during 1997 crisis.

If gov or tax payer of US don't want to lend them 100, their (public) deposit (can be 1000, 10,000 or 1 million) in those banks are in jeopardy. Just like you have ten or hundred or millions of hard-earned deposit in those bank, I don't think you agree let them fail and just get back what FDIC (locally PIDM) insured on. The primary reason is because public money/deposit is in stake.

Those GM or automaker, yes, you have a case and your points make perfectly sense as they (automakers) might be not competitve to survive but for commercial banks, public money or hard-earned deposit is in stake time, situation is more complicated.

No gov will let large commercial bank fail totally on its own unless gov is helpless in doing so, because the stake is too high to handle. Don't think any politician will dare to gamble on this stake.

The Obama's mortgages rescus plan indeed reward the bad behaviour and punish good honest mortgages payer, sound not right at all. It is not a good plan.

My opinon only.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Feb 22 2009, 04:03 PM

Fully agree those greedy and mis-managed personnels need to go.

On the other hand, if let the bank fails, CEO or company management won't be punished at all but it is ordinary people hard-earned money being punished!
It is not simple pain as we write or type here. Imagine you work hard everyday, save little by little in this 10 or 20 years time as FD, finally you have some decent deposit, then suddenly banks closed shop, anyone want or can bare this pain?

Even being sacked, those CEO previously years of lucrative wages and bonuses are already in the pocket, not to mention some company/banks might need pay compensation fee to those sacked CEO.

That's why let them fail has lot of implication which is not something that simple as we said or type a few word like "just take the pain".

As said, let the bank failed doesn't punish the origin greed and irresponsible behavious, still even so it doesn't solve and prevent future those irresponsible behaviour will happen again. As those decision makers won't be liable to their decision as it is perfectly legal to be greed, unless regulation is in place. That's why worldwide is calling for some regulation which is badly needed.

Err.. why say so, don't quite understand especially "can really go up" this term

Aiya, this is open and well known secret that stimulus package will be aimed on boosting contrustion. Market won't react to known news as those factors already priced in. Unless getting some special and unexpected goods news then its share probably can shoot up.

Otherwise genereally any share price will follow market tone and individual company financial performance/issue.

By no mean all stimulus package will go to one or two specific company, which is still an unknown, unless market get a clue what company will direct getting bigger pie from the stimulus package.

Makan <> apa still the same lembik and far far from most people that had bough this stock. No offence.

Even triple or 5x limit up, people still can't breakeven at all.

Majority people whom bought this stock highly is in 5~6 region whereby volume is the most.

Different investment bank interface generally differ a bit from each others.

Tm reported good result.

It is good for TM but bad for TMI.

At least TM got some dividend which is 2x more than FD rate, which seen attractive enough, but growth wise won't be too much, it will become a boring dividend stock.

FD rate today being revised to 2% except 1 year tenure 2.5%.

Those efficient one are quick to react, one day earn or save them million by revise their rate.

With FD so low, dividend stock is the must buy list already. How can a 2% can offset inflation?

Genting can buy liao like this even kedekut company like Genting, its dividend yield is about 2%. So better have Genting rather than putting in FD.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Feb 25 2009, 02:39 PM

The capital repayment will not sustainable (just one off, no more in the future), market won't react too much, as prior to this, TM share has surged a lot lately, from 2.80 level to 3.40.

The market response more to the company reiterate it will maintain 90% dividend policy which at least calm down or put a stop of speculation TM no longer can pay generous dividend after the capital repayment.

Simple claculation, share price now 3.50 so minus 98 cents, become like 2.50. With annual EPS around 20 cents, 90% dividend policy mean 18 cents of dividend, So if share price goes to high like 4.xx, then dividend yield will be below 5%, which is not that attractive anymore, as TM's EPS is expected to drop in line with economy recession. So around current price level, seems a bit fair.

Anything more than 4.xx is seems a little bit too expensive.

As at 4.xx, if EPS drops to 15 cents or so, dividend around 10 cents, which just mean 2~3% yield only, comparable with FD rate already.
As TM's prospect of growth is rather limited.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Feb 25 2009, 02:53 PM

Means TMI need to pay TM 4 billion while TMI needs to raise their own fund by issuing bond or in other debt form.

Yes and No. It is not a dividend, it is capital repayment.

Just like you give me 3500, then I give you back 980.